|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT
COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NOS. 09-06-04111-92D,
001931-93, 001448-94
CAVEN POINT ASSOC. C/O *
J. BURSTYN, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
CITY OF JERSEY CITY, *
(HUDSON COUNTY) *
*
Defendant *
Decided January 30, 1995
Alan Vuernick for plaintiff (Mandelbaum &
Mandelbaum, attorneys).
Michael Kremen for defendant (Sean Connelly,
Corporation Counsel).
CRABTREE, J.T.C.
Plaintiff's complaints in these cases seek direct review of
the 1992, 1993 and 1994 assessments on plaintiff's property located
at 75 Caven Point Road, Jersey City, New Jersey (Block 1494, Lot
PL.B.). Defendant moves to dismiss those complaints for failure to
pay taxes for 1992, 1993 and 1994, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27,
which provides, pertinently:
A taxpayer who shall file an appeal from an
assessment against him shall pay to the collector
of the taxing district no less than the total of
all taxes and municipal charges due, up to and
including the first quarter of the taxes and
municipal charges assessed against him for the
current tax year in the manner prescribed in
R.S. 54:4-66....
Cases have consistently held that dismissal is the appropriate
sanction for a taxpayer's failure to comply with the mandate of
N.J.S.A. 54:3-27, that taxes be paid as a condition precedent to
judicial review of property tax assessments. Muscarelle Dev. Co.
v. Manalapan Tp.,
13 N.J. Tax 330 (Tax 1993), aff'd per curiam ___
N.J. Tax ____ (App. Div. 1994); Rt. 88 Office Assoc. v. Brick Tp.,
13 N.J. Tax 14 (Tax 1992). Cf. Jefferson-Halsey Roads Associates
v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp.,
13 N.J. Tax 138 (App. Div. 1993) (tax
payment requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 as condition precedent to
judicial review not violative of Constitutional due process).
The facts are not in dispute.
Plaintiff failed to pay taxes for 1991, 1992, 1993 and the
first two quarters of 1994. The property was put up for tax sale
and a lien was issued on February 4, 1993; as there was no third
party purchaser at that time, defendant became the owner of the
lien. On June 30, 1994, the lien was assigned to Bankers Trust
Company, to whom a tax sale certificate was issued. Bankers Trust
paid $180,908.48 for the certificate, which included taxes for
1991, 1992 and 1993, as well as the first two quarters of 1994,
plus interest.
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaints for 1992, 1993
and 1994 was filed September 28, 1994.
It is now well settled that the purchase of a tax sale
certificate by a third party, prior to a taxing district's motion
to dismiss, satisfies the tax payment requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27. Echelon Glen Cooperative, Inc. v. Voorhees Tp., 275 N.J.
Super. 441 (App. Div. 1994), certif. denied ____ N.J. ____ (Oct.
26, 1994); Freehold Office Park v. Freehold Tp.,
12 N.J. Tax 433
(Tax 1992). In the cases before the court, the tax sale
certificate was sold before defendant filed its motion to dismiss
for nonpayment of taxes.
Defendant argues, however, that the principle declared in
Echelon Glen and Freehold Office Park, that the purchase of a tax
sale certificate constitutes payment of the tax and thus satisfies
the requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 has been overruled by c. 32, L.
1994, approved May 12, 1994, which amends N.J.S.A. 54:4-66(a) and -67. Section 3 of c. 32, L. 1994 amends N.J.S.A. 54:4-66(a) to read
as follows:
Taxes shall be payable the first installment as
hereinafter provided on February first, the second
installment on May first, the third installment on
August first and the fourth installment on November
first, after which dates if unpaid, they shall become
delinquent and remain delinquent until such time as
all unpaid taxes, including taxes and other liens
subsequently due and unpaid, together with interest
have been fully paid and satisfied.... (Amended por-
tion underscored)
Section 4 of c. 32, L. 1994, amends N.J.S.A. 54:4-67 in part
to read as follows:
'Delinquency' means the sum of all taxes and municipal
charges due on a given parcel of property covering any
number of quarters or years. The property shall remain
delinquent, as defined herein, until such tima as all
unpaid taxes, including subsequent taxes and liens,
together with interest thereon shall have been fully
paid and satisfied. The delinquency shall remain
notwithstanding the issuance of a certificate of sale
pursuant to R.S. 54:5-32 and R.S. 54:5-6....
(Amended portion underscored)
Section 18 of c. 32, L. 1994, provides: "This act shall take
effect immediately."
According to the certification of defendant's tax collector,
a lien was created on the subject property for the unpaid 1991
taxes; Lien No. 152860 was issued on February 4, 1993. When there
was no purchaser, defendant acquired the tax sale certificate which
was sold at private sale, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:5-113, to Bankers
Trust Company on June 30, 1994. The certificate covered taxes for
the years 1991, 1992, 1993 and the first two quarters of 1994. The
complaints were filed March 13, 1992 for tax year 1992, February
22, 1993 for tax year 1993 and February 24, 1994 for tax year 1994.
As the taxes were not paid for any of the years covered by the
complaints, defendant had ample opportunity, before the property
was listed for tax sale, to file a motion to dismiss each complaint
for failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.
Defendant argues that the provision in N.J.S.A. 54:4-67, as
amended by c. 32, L. 1994, declaring that delinquency in payment of
taxes continues notwithstanding the issuance of a tax sale
certificate must necessarily be incorporated by reference in
N.J.S.A. 54:3-27, which requires payment of all taxes for prior as
well as current years in order to maintain a direct appeal to the
Tax Court.
There is no reference, however, to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 in the
amendatory legislation. There is only a vague allusion in the
Statement of the Assembly Local Government Committee accompanying
Assembly Bill No. 936, subsequently enacted as c. 32, L. 1994, to
the effect that several of the amendments are in response to
"various federal and State court actions concerning New Jersey's
current municipal tax sale procedures." Those decisions are
identified neither by name nor by subject matter. Nothing in the
amendatory enactment or in the Committee Statement mentions the
relationship, if any there be, between the act's definition of
delinquency and the tax payment requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.
Defendant, in its brief, refers to a telephone conversation in
which the alleged author of the legislation told defendant's
counsel that the purpose of the act was to "clean up the confusion
caused by several courts regarding the requirement for payment of
taxes under N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 as a precondition to maintaining a tax
appeal." While a sponsor's or draftsman's statement accompanying
a legislative bill is an extrinsic aid in construing a statute, a
court must exercise its considered judgment in determining the
probative weight to be attached to it. Deaney v. Linen Thread Co.,
19 N.J. 578, 585 (1955). Here, the draftsman's statement was not
in writing, nor was it offered at a legislative hearing in an
environment conducive to examination by committee members or
interested persons from the general public. Moreover, there is
nothing in this record to indicate that the Legislature relied upon
the draftsman's statement in the enactment of the legislation.
Thus, I give the statement no weight.
Accordingly, I conclude that, while the Committee Statement
accompanying the bill subsequently enacted as c. 32, L. 1994 states
the several purposes of the amendments incorporated in the act,
none of those stated purposes deals with the tax payment
requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27. More specifically, while the act
and the Committee Statement both indicate that delinquency in tax
payments is unaffected by tax sales, neither the act nor the
Statement relate that delinquency provision to the tax payment
requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.
Defendant's motion will be denied. Plaintiff's counsel will
submit the appropriate order.
|