Opinion
Docket No. 019608-2012
12-03-2014
Re: Mark Urich v. Township of Lower
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
Mark Urich
30 Seventh Street
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
Ronald J. Gelzunas, Esq.
P.O. Box 1288
Wildwood Crest, New Jersey 08260
Dear Mr. Urich and Mr. Gelzunas:
This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to the municipality's motion to dismiss the Complaint in the above-referenced matter for want of jurisdiction. For the reasons explained more fully below, the motion is granted.
I. Procedural History and Findings of Fact
The court makes the following findings of fact based on the submissions of the parties with respect to defendant's motion, as well as the pleadings.
Plaintiff is the owner of vacant land in Lower Township, Cape May County. The property is designated in the records of the municipality as Block 753.01, Lot 16 and is commonly known as 1019 Seashore Bridge Road. For tax year 2012, the property was assessed as follows:
| Land | $218,000 |
| Improvements | $ 0 |
| Total | $218,000 |
Plaintiff challenged the tax year 2012 assessment on the property through the filing of a Petition of Appeal with the Cape May County Board of Taxation.
On June 25, 2012, the county board issued a judgment affirming the assessment on the subject property. The judgment reflects judgment code "2B" - failure to overcome the presumption of correctness that attaches to an assessment. See MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakes, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 373 (Tax 1998).
Plaintiff did not file an appeal of the county board judgment in this court within the time allowed by statute. See N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9 ("Time for taking real property tax cases to tax court. [A] complaint seeking review of adjudication or judgment of the county board of taxation shall be filed within 45 days of the service of the judgment.").
Instead, on October 22, 2012, which is 119 days after issuance of the county board judgment, plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court, Law Division, Special Civil Part. He named as defendants Lower Township and the Cape May County Board of Taxation. In his Superior Court Complaint plaintiff alleged as follows:
Defendants Township of Lower and the Cape May tax board has saw (sic) fit to improperly Tax access (sic) vacant property owned by plaintiff exceeding 300% of its current market value and plaintiff seeks to recoup ridiculous tax money paid over the past several years to the tax collector. Tax appeals have been filed with the Cape May tax board with a response of total disregard as to it (sic) current value of $50,000 and a tax valuation of over $218,000. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.
On February 1, 2013, the Hon. J. Christopher Gibson, J.S.C., granted the Cape May County Board of Taxation's motion to dismiss the Superior Court Complaint for want of jurisdiction. In his memorandum opinion, Judge Gibson held that "N.J.S.A. 2B:13-2 indicates that the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to review actions or regulations with respect to a tax matter of the following: any state agency or official; a county board of taxation; and a county or municipal official." In addition, Judge Gibson noted that a "taxpayer feeling aggrieved by the assessed valuation of the taxpayer's property must file an appeal to the county board of taxation by filing with it a petition of appeal. See N.J.S.A. 54:3-21. Appeals from the county board are as of right to the Tax Court under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1."
The Superior Court also rejected plaintiff's claim that he was not appealing the assessment on his property but was, instead, seeking monetary damages. As Judge Gibson held, "the Court cannot ignore this Court's lack of jurisdiction where Plaintiff's request for compensation is tied solely to his complaint about property tax. As such, Defendant's motion is granted. The matter is dismissed without prejudice to allow Plaintiff [to] pursue appropriate relief in another forum, including but not limited to the Tax Court."
On February 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this court. Only Lower Township is named as a defendant in the Complaint. Plaintiff's Case Information Statement indicates that he is challenging the tax year 2012 assessment on the subject property. The Complaint alleges that he is "seeking damages for Lower Township and Cape May Tax Board for excessively charging taxes on a vacant piece of property which current value (sic) seems to be 75% less than its assessed value." The Complaint alleges that "defendants (sic) grossly and negligently failed to take the proper steps over the past five years in simply evaluating its true value."
On October 14, 2014, the municipality moved to dismiss the Complaint for want of jurisdiction.
On October 28, 2014, plaintiff opposed the motion. He cited no statute, court rule or legal precedent in his opposition papers. Plaintiff appears to rely solely on Judge Gibson's memorandum opinion, which he argues authorizes the filing of a Complaint in this court.
II. Conclusions of Law
This court's jurisdiction is established by statute. Compliance with statutory filing deadlines is a necessary predicate to establish jurisdiction in this court for review of a judgment of a county board of taxation. As our Supreme Court explained, "failure to file a timely appeal is a fatal jurisdictional defect." F.M.C. Stores v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 425 (1985). Strict adherence to statutory filing deadlines is of particular concern in tax matters, given "the exigencies of taxation and the administration of local government." Id. at 424 (citing Princeton Univ. Press v. Borough of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 (1961)). A failure to file a timely Complaint divests this court of jurisdiction even in the absence of harm to the defendant municipality. Lawrenceville Garden Apartments v. Township of Lawrence, 14 N.J. Tax 285 (App. Div. 1994).
N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9 provides that "a complaint seeking review of adjudication or judgment of the county board of taxation shall be filed within 45 days of the service of the judgment." R. 8:4-1(a)(2) provides that service of the judgment of a county board of taxation, when by mail, shall be deemed complete as of the date the judgment is mailed, subject to the provisions of R. 1:3-3. According to R. 1:3-3, "[w]hen service of a notice or paper is made by ordinary mail, and a rule or court order allows the party served a period of time after the service thereof within which to take some action, 3 days shall be added to the period."
The Cape May County Board of Taxation mailed to plaintiff a judgment affirming the tax year 2012 assessment on the subject property on June 25, 2012. Forty-five days from June 25, 2012 was August 9, 2012. Because the judgment was mailed to plaintiff, three additional days are added to the filing period. The deadline for filing a Complaint with this court was, therefore, August 12, 2012, which was a Sunday. The filing period is extended to August 13, 2012, the next following day that is neither a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. R. 1:3-1. The Complaint was not filed until February 11, 2013, nearly six months late. This court, as a result, lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's challenge to the county board's judgment with respect to the tax year 2012 assessment on the property. The same is true with respect to plaintiff's attempt to recoup taxes paid for the "past five years" (presumably the five tax years preceding the February 2013 filing of the Complaint). If plaintiff's challenge to the 2012 assessment on the subject property is time barred, so too would be a challenge to the assessment on the subject property for any prior tax years.
Plaintiff's characterization of his Complaint as a demand for monetary damages has no substantive effect on the court's decision. It is well established in New Jersey that monetary damages are not available from public entities or government officials for claims relating to a tax assessment. The Tort Claims Act contains a specific provision immunizing such entities and officials from damage claims. The controlling statute is clear:
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by:As used in this statute a "'tax' includes a tax, assessment, fee or charge." N.J.S.A. 59:7-1.
a. Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding or action for or incidental to the assessment or collection of a tax.
b. An act or omission in the interpretation or application of any law relating to a tax.
N.J.S.A. 59:7-2.]
Nor are monetary damages available under federal law for acts relating to local property tax assessments. General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, 143 N.J. 336, 344 (1995)(holding that 42 U.S.C. A. § 1983 does not provide a cause of action for damages in state court where a plain, adequate and complete state remedy is available to review a tax assessment); accord National Private Truck Council v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 515 U.S. 582, 115 S. Ct. 2351. 132 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1995). As our Supreme Court explained in General Motors Corp., supra, New Jersey's statutory system for the review of local property tax assessments provides a plain, adequate and complete state remedy precluding federal damage claims:
New Jersey law provides several opportunities for taxpayers to raise constitutional objections to an . . . assessment. A taxpayer may challenge the . . . assessment by appealing to the County Board of Taxation . . . . The County Board must hear the appeal and render judgment . . . . If the taxpayer is still dissatisfied, he or she may appeal the Board's decision to the Tax Court within forty-five days of the Board judgment. In the Tax Court, the taxpayer is entitled to a de novo hearing before a tax court judge with expertise in the field of real property valuation.
* * *
A taxpayer may appeal from the Tax Court to the Appellate Division. If the taxpayer succeeds at any level, the taxing district must refund the excess taxes plus . . . interest within sixty days of the final judgment. Based on the Supreme Court's "minimal
procedural criteria," we believe that the remedies under New Jersey law are adequate to preclude section 1983 suits in either federal or state courts.The Court expressly noted "that important policy considerations also weight in favor of precluding" damage claims in state tax cases. Id. at 350. The availability of damage claims would allow a taxpayer "to circumvent" the filing deadlines for challenging a tax assessment, which would be contrary to law. Ibid. As the Court explained,
[143 N.J. at 349-350 (citations omitted).]
"The policy of applying strict time limitations to tax matters is based upon the very nature of our administrative tax structure .... Throughout our tax legislation, it is clear that our legislature has attempted to set out a well organized time-table for the purpose of enabling a municipality to ascertain the amount of taxable ratables within the jurisdiction in order that it might adopt a responsible and fairly accurate budget."The Court continued:
[Id. at 351 (quoting F.M.C. Stores, supra, 100 N.J. at 425; Township of Galloway v. Petkevis, 2 N.J. Tax 85 (Tax 1980).]
To permit a longer statute of limitations in section 1983 tax cases would thwart the express intent of the Legislature and introduce uncertainly into the administration of the state tax laws. Additionally, allowing section 1983 actions in state tax cases would circumvent the statutory scheme, which requires that a taxpayer challenging an . . . assessment appeal first to the County Board . . . then to the Tax Court, and, if necessary, to the Appellate Division.
[Ibid.]
Plaintiff challenged the tax year 2012 assessment on his property by filing Petition of Appeal with the county board of taxation. He did not produce sufficient credible evidence to convince the board that the assessment on his property exceeded its true market value. Once apprised of the board's judgment, plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction in this court to continue his challenge to the tax year 2012 assessment. It matters not whether plaintiff's failure to file a timely Complaint in this court was the result of inadvertence, design or a misunderstanding of the law. Plaintiff is charged with knowledge of the tax laws, including the time limits for filing an appeal with this court. See Comcast of South Jersey, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 27 N.J. 79, 98 (Tax 2013). Having not invoked the jurisdiction of this court in a timely fashion, plaintiff forfeited his ability to challenge the assessment on his property for tax year 2012 and prior years. He cannot circumvent the well-planned statutory scheme for judicial review of local property tax assessments through the filing of a claim in the Superior Court for monetary damages. Such a claim is a thinly veiled attempt to wiggle out of the strict time frames applicable to tax appeals and borders on the frivolous.
Because plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction in this court through the filing of a timely Complaint and because plaintiff alleges a cause of action that is quite plainly precluded by statute and controlling legal precedents, defendant's motion is granted. The court will enter a Final Order dismissing the Complaint.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Patrick DeAlmeida, P.J.T.C.