S. R. H. Corp. v. Rogers Trailer Park, Inc.

• Citation: 54 N.J. 12,252 A.2d 713
• Parties: S.R.H. CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROGERS TRAILER PARK, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 05 May 1969
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 12

54 N.J. 12

252 A.2d 713

S.R.H. CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of New

Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROGERS TRAILER PARK, INC., a corporation of the State of New

Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Jan. 6, 1969.

Decided May 5, 1969.

Samuel J. Davidson, Jersey City, for respondent (Myles Daitzman, New Milford, on the brief).

Paul T. Huckin, Englewood, for appellant (Charles L. Bertini, Wood Ridge, attorney, Huckin & Huckin, Englewood, of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

HANEMAN, J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment for rent in the Law Division. Upon defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed in an unreported opinion. This Court granted certification upon defendant's petition. 52 N.J. 487, 246 A.2d 448 (1968).

Defendant owns and operates a park for house trailers in the Borough of Moonachie on lands designated Plot 1 in Block 132 on the municipal tax map. In 1962, before taking title to adjacent lands, i.e., Plot 1 in Block 134, plaintiff obtained a survey which showed that defendant had parked an unspecified number of trailers over its easterly line on property plaintiff was about to acquire. After several conferences, the parties signed the following letter:

February 27, 1962

'S.R.H. Corporation

Att: Mr. Philip Pollock

Gentlemen:

Upon your taking title to the property adjacent to our trailer camp we hereby agree to rent space for our trailers at the rate of twenty five dollars per month, per trailer. This rental shall be on a month to month basis, payable in advance.

This tenancy can be terminated by the tenant at the end of any month, and can be terminated by the landlord upon sixty days written notice.

At the present time there are six trailers on your property, in the event that more or less trailers are situated on your property we shall pay more or less rent as the case may be.'

Plaintiff alleges that on February 27, 1962, not six but fourteen house trailers occupied a part of its land, and seeks recovery of rent under said agreement, for the additional eight trailers. It bottoms this claim of additional encroachments on a 1965 survey made by Florio C. Job. Defendant denies any liability under the agreement and additionally disputes the accuracy of the 1965 survey. At the trial, the location of the dividing line between plaintiff's and defendant's lands became the initial primary issue, and the liability under the agreement the secondary issue, as the question of any liability of defendant rests upon its parking trailers east of that line.

As above noted, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant advances a number of grounds for reversal. We shall discuss one of said grounds in which we find merit, I.e., the trial judge erred in refusing to permit two of defendant's witnesses to testify. This conclusion makes unnecessary the consideration of the merits of other grounds advanced by defendant. Before treating of defendant's above noted objection to the trial judge's ruling concerning defendant's said witnesses, we shall advert to the factual complex, as we view it, and the legal issues which undergird this litigation.

It must be remembered, in seeking to resolve the basic issue, I.e., the location of the dividing line between plaintiff's and defendant's lands, that the respective titles originated from judgments obtained by the Borough of Moonachie in the foreclosures of two tax sale certificates, one covering Plot 1 in Block 132, and the other covering Plot 1 in Block 134. The titles thus obtained are new and complete, under an independent grant which bars or extinguishes all prior title and encumbrances of private persons, provided of course a foreclosure had been properly undertaken and completed and the necessary parties in interest joined as defendants. In the language of then Judge Jayne in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McGurk, 15 N.J.Misc. 572, 193 A. 696 (Atl.Cty.Cir.Ct.1937) , affirmed 119 N.J.L. 517, 197 A. 47 (E. & A.1937):

'A tax title is assuredly in the nature of a new and independent grant from the sovereign authority. But it is to be realized that the tax title is established upon the assessment. In the quantity and character of the property conveyed, the tax sale embraces nothing more or different than did the basic assessment. The property actually assessed and the property conveyed by the tax sale must be the same.' at p. 574, 193 A. at p. 697.

It follows that the municipality obtained title only to those lands upon which the assessment was levied and upon which a lien was thereby created. It is that lien on those lands which was foreclosed and from which arose plaintiff's and defendant's titles. In order to ascertain what those lands were, reference must be had to the descriptions contained in the assessment rolls, tax sale certificates, and foreclosure proceedings. In that connection the record discloses the following:

In 1928, the Borough of Moonachie adopted an official assessment map, (see L. 1913, c. 175, as amended, 1924 Supp. Compiled Statutes §§ 208--444d through 444i, saved from repeal by N.J.S.A. 54:1--15). Shown upon this map was Plot 1 in Block 132 (now owned by defendant), and adjacent thereto Plot 1 in Block 134 (a portion thereof now owned by plaintiff), both bordering on Moonachie Avenue.

The plotting of Plot 1 in Block 132 shows definite distances on all of its sides. The delineation of Plot 1 in Block 134 shows a definite distance for the boundary with defendant's property, but only an approximade ( ) distance for the Moonachie Avenue boundary. The dividing line between the two lots in addition to figures designating its length contains the legend ' proposed street' (center line of proposed street). This 'Center line' running in a general north-south direction, and lying south of Moonachie Avenue, terminates on said map at the intersection of the center line of Moonachie Avenue and the extended center line of Redneck Avenue, Redneck Avenue is an existing street which intersects the northerly line of Moonachie Avenue. Although there are no courses shown on the assessment map, the distances in the plotting of Plot 1 in Block 132 are identical with the distances recited in a deed from Herman Foth and wife to Annie Sealske, who had been the continuous owner in fee from 1908 until the final judgment in the tax foreclosure hereafter mentioned. At the time of the conveyance in 1908, Foth was the owner of a larger tract which included Lot 1 in Block 134. The conveyance to Sealske contained the first reference in the title to a 'proposed street.' The deed provided: Subject to the right of way of said proposed street to the said party of the first part their heirs and assigns.'

Taxes which were assessed against lands designated on the tax rolls as 'Plot 1 in Block 132', as shown on said assessment map, for the year 1929, not having been paid, the lands were sold to the Borough on October 10, 1931. The tax sale certificate which was issued to the municipality described said lands as 'Plot 1 in Block 132.' The Borough foreclosed the tax sale certificate in 1944, describing the lands in the bill to foreclose and the final decree, as follows:

'Beginning at a point in the center of the Public Road leading From Moonachie to Woodridge, which said point is the most Northerly corner of the Tract hereby intended to be described, from thence running (1) South 48 deg., 45 min, West 217.5 feet to a point; thence (2) North 54 deg., 30 min. West 75.06 feet to a point; thence (3) South 45 Deg. West 649.25 feet to a point; thence (4) South 45 deg., East 554.14 feet To a point in the center of a proposed Street; thence (5) North 45 deg., East 812.97 feet Through the center of said proposed Street to the Center of said first mentioned Road leading from Moonachie to Woodridge; and thence (6) North 37 deg. West, 469.96 feet, along the center line of said Road, to the point or place of beginning.

CONTAINING 10.41 Acres, was, in the year 1929, assessed as Plot 1 in Block 132 on the tax duplicate of the said municipality.' (Emphasis supplied)

The courses, distances and calls for the 'center of a proposed street' are in the identical language of the Foth-Sealske deed. On December 21, 1944, the Borough of Moonachie sold and conveyed Plot 1 in Block 132 to Ange Dell, defendant's predecessor in title, by that Plot and Block designation and by the identical metes and bounds description contained in the bill to foreclose. Title eventually vested in defendant by mesne deeds describing the property in the same manner.

Taxes which were assessed against lands which were designated on the tax rolls as 'Plot 1 in Block 134' not having been paid, the lands were sold to the Borough of Moonachie on October 30, 1934. The tax sale certificate issued to the municipality described said lands as 'Plot 1 in Block 134.' The borough foreclosed the tax sale certificate in 1952 by an In rem proceeding, N.J.S.A. 54:5--104.29 et seq., describing the lands in the complaint as 'land shown on the Tax Map of the Borough of Moonachie as Block 134, Lot. No. 1.' The final judgment described said lands as 'Block 134, Plot No. 1 as shown on the 1928 Assessment Map of the Borough of Moonachie.' The Borough conveyed the entire Plot 1 in Block 134 to Rand Realty Corp., plaintiff's predecessor in title. On February 3, 1962 plaintiff obtained title to the lands here involved by a conveyance which described said lands by metes and bounds descriptions and referred to said lands as 'a portion of Lot No. 1 in Block 134 as shown on the Assessment Map of the Borough of Moonachie.' This description did not allude to the western boundary (which is the eastern boundary of Lot 1 in Block 132), as the center line of a proposed street.

The foregoing appears reasonably clear from the record. However, the balance of plaintiff's proof seeking to locate the dividing line between the properties, is not only not clear but is...