From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romulus Dev. Corp. v. Weehawken TP

Tax Court of New Jersey
Jun 27, 1995
15 N.J. Tax 209 (Tax 1995)

Summary

approving use of buildable units in valuing residential property and buildable square footage for commercial property since "credible evidence" showed that "property such as the subject is marketed on the basis of its development potential"

Summary of this case from 9 Plaza Court L.L.C. v. City of Long Branch Block 60, Lot 6

Opinion

Argued June 14, 1995.

Decided June 27, 1995.

John L. Berger argued the cause for appellant ( Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher Boylan, attorneys).

Frank E. Ferruggia argued the cause for respondent ( McCarter English, attorneys).

Before Judges KING, MUIR, Jr., and D'ANNUNZIO.



After the Tax Court judge heard extensive evidence on plaintiff's complaint challenging the assessed value of real estate for the tax years 1990 through 1992, he entered judgments. The judgments, consonant with the judge's extensive opinion, set the true land value of the property at $9,670,000 for tax year 1990; $45,065,700 for tax year 1991; and $39,290,400 for tax year 1992. Defendant, Township of Weehawken, appeals. We affirm.

Our scope of review is narrowly circumscribed.

The judges presiding in the Tax Court have special expertise; for that reason their findings will not be disturbed unless they are plainly arbitrary or there is a lack of substantial evidence to support them.

[ Glenpointe Assoc. v. Township of Teaneck, 241 N.J. Super. 37, 46, 574 A.2d 459 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 391, 585 A.2d 392 (1990).]

After review of the record, we are satisfied there is substantial credible evidence to sustain the judge's valuations of the subject property. Consequently, we affirm for essentially the reasons expressed by Judge Crabtree in his extensive opinion decided April 4, 1994, but add several comments.

Contrary to defendant's contention, rejection of expert valuation on the ground that the magnitude of adjustments to a sales price destroys its probative value is a well-recognized practice. M.I. Holdings, Inc. v. Jersey City, 12 N.J. Tax 129 (Tax 1991); Owens-Illinois Glass Co. v. Bridgeton, 8 N.J. Tax 495 (Tax 1986). Defendant's adjustments ranging from 90% to 140% essentially admit on their face the sales offered were neither comparable to nor probative of the subject property's value. See Badische Corp. v. Kearny, 11 N.J. Tax 385 (Tax 1990).

Furthermore, defendant's argument that the judge accepted plaintiff's expert's valuation and rejected that of defendant's expert even though the latter was equally probative of value is without merit. In fact, the judge rejected plaintiff's sales 3, 7, and 8 because of the magnitude of gross adjustments to the sales prices. Because the non-time related gross adjustments to plaintiff's comparable sales ranged from 35% to 55% compared to defendant's 90% to 140%, the judge was justified in accepting plaintiff's comparables and rejecting those of defendant.

The judge was also justified in rejecting defendant's per acre method of valuation in favor of a buildable density approach to determining value in light of the property's highest and best use as a mixed use planned community. See Frieman v. Randolph Tp., 8 N.J. Tax 264 , 273 (Tax 1986), aff'd, 216 N.J. Super. 507 , 524 A.2d 453 (App.Div. 1987) (explaining that it is practicable to value land sold for multi-family residential development by the number of units that can be built on the property); Badische v. Kearny, supra, 11 N.J. Tax at 394 (explaining that the valuation approach most suitable depends on the facts of the case). Zoning approvals for Port Imperial South demonstrated that the open space requirements and height limitations of the subject property restricted the acreage actually available for development.

In sum, defendant's challenges to the judge's findings and conclusions fail to establish any basis for disturbing the judgments at issue.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Romulus Dev. Corp. v. Weehawken TP

Tax Court of New Jersey
Jun 27, 1995
15 N.J. Tax 209 (Tax 1995)

approving use of buildable units in valuing residential property and buildable square footage for commercial property since "credible evidence" showed that "property such as the subject is marketed on the basis of its development potential"

Summary of this case from 9 Plaza Court L.L.C. v. City of Long Branch Block 60, Lot 6

In Romulus, as in the instant case, the sale was an arm's length, negotiated transaction between knowledgeable, unrelated parties for an all-cash consideration.

Summary of this case from In re Mocco
Case details for

Romulus Dev. Corp. v. Weehawken TP

Case Details

Full title:ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWNSHIP OF…

Court:Tax Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jun 27, 1995

Citations

15 N.J. Tax 209 (Tax 1995)

Citing Cases

Tomorrow 35 Davidson LP v. Twp. of Franklin

In conducting an assessment, tax court judges have the authority to accept an expert's opinion. See Romulus…

Route 21 Assocs. v. Twp. of Belleville

Ibid. In Romulus Dev. Corp. v. Township of Weehawken, 1994 N.J. Tax LEXIS 24 (Tax 1994), aff'd, 15 N.J. Tax…