North Bergen Tp., Hudson County v. Dieckmann's Estate, A--381

• Decision Date: 13 October 1955
• Docket Number: No. A--381,A--381
• Citation: 117 A.2d 190,37 N.J.Super. 221
• Parties: TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, a taxing district of the State of New Jersey, Appellant, v. ESTATE of Steffen DIECKMANN and Division of Tax Appeals in the Department of the Treasury, Respondents. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 221

37 N.J.Super. 221

117 A.2d 190

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN IN THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, a taxing district of the State of New Jersey, Appellant, v. ESTATE of Steffen DIECKMANN and Division of Tax Appeals in the Department of the Treasury, Respondents.

No. A--381.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Oct. 3, 1955.

Decided Oct. 13, 1955.

Nicholas S. Schloeder, Union City, for appellant.

John B. Applegate, Hoboken, for respondent Estate of Steffen Dieckmann (Besson & Applegate, Hoboken, attorneys; Gilbert D. Chamberlin, Hoboken, of counsel).

Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CLAPP, S.J.A.D.

The Township of North Bergen assessed certain meadowland properties belonging to the taxpayer here at $2,000 an acre for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953. The Hudson County Board of Taxation reduced the assessments to about $600 an acre; its judgments were then appealed by the township and affirmed by the Division of Tax Appeals. Now the township appeals to us, urging, among other things, that the findings of fact made by the Division are inadequate.

These findings are set out in a report and recommendations of a panel of the Division, which were adopted by the Division. In them appears a summary of the testimony of two expert witnesses. The properties were valued by a witness for the Township at $2,000 an acre and by a witness for the taxpayer at $500 an acre. Without attempting in any way to probe or weigh these divergent views, the report proceeds:

'After considering all of the testimony in these cases, we find as a fact that the petitioner (the township) has not sustained the burden of proof, and under the circumstances, report and recommend * * * that the judgment of the County Board be affirmed.'

There is nothing else to indicate the rationale of the decision.

When an appeal is taken from a judgment of a county board to the State Division, the appellant finds himself confronted with a presumption that the judgment below is correct. This presumption stands until evidence is adduced before the Division which is both 'definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity.' Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. City of Newark, 10 N.J. 99, 105, 89 A.2d 385, 387 (1952). As to presumptions in general, see In re Weeks, 29 N.J.Super. 533, 538, 103 A.2d 43 (App.Div.1954); Silver Lining, Inc., v. Shein, 37 N.J.Super. 206, 117 A.2d 182 (App.Div.1955). However, upon the introduction of evidence of this character, the presumption entirely disappears as a factor in the case. Meltzer v. Division of Tax Appeals, 134 N.J.L. 510, 512, 48 A.2d 842 (Sup.Ct.1946); Grand View Gardens, Inc., v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 14 N.J.Super. 167, 171, 81 A.2d 510 (App.Div.1951); In re Weeks, supra; ...