HOVBILT, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL
Case Date: 12/22/1994
Docket No: SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
Argued September 26, 1994 -- Decided December 22, 1994
STEIN, J., writing for a majority of the Court.
This appeal addresses the scope of the Correction of Errors Statute, N.J.S.A. 54:51A-7. That statute
provides, in part, that the Tax Court may, on the filing of a complaint at any time during the tax year or
within the following three years, enter judgment to correct typographical errors, errors in transposing, and
mistakes in tax assessments.
Since 1984, Hovbilt, Inc. (Hovbilt) has owned a thirty-five-acre tract of land located in Howell
Township. When the property was purchased, it was anticipated that it eventually would be developed;
however, in recent years it has been farmed for soybeans. For each of the tax years 1985 through 1990,
Hovbilt submitted an application to the Township of Howell (Township) to have the property assessed as
land in agricultural or horticultural use, pursuant to the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964. The Township
granted the application in each of those tax years.
For the tax year 1991, Hovbilt timely filed its application for farmland assessment with the Township
tax assessor's office. However, the assessor did not see and, therefore, did not consider that application
because it had been misplaced or mishandled. In June or July 1991, Hovbilt received its 1991 tax bill. The
property was assessed at full value, in the amount of $556,300 and resulting in annual taxes of $9,368. When
the property had been assessed as farmland, the assessment was $16,100, which resulted in annual taxes of
$695.04.
Hovbilt did not appeal its assessment to the Monmouth County Board of Taxation. Rather, on
December 11, 1991, Hovbilt filed a complaint with the Tax Court, alleging a correctable error under the
Correction of Errors statute. The Tax Court dismissed the complaint, noting that prior case law required
strict construction of the statute. The Tax Court found that the error complained of was not a typographical
error, an error in transposing, or a mistake in the assessment and, as such, could not be corrected pursuant
to the Correction of Errors statute.
On appeal, a majority of the Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the statute had to be strictly
construed. The majority found that "mistakes in assessment" are mistakes that are similar to typographical
errors or errors in transposing, which are mechanical or clerical in nature. Applying that rule, the majority
held that the tax assessor's failure to consider the application was not similar to the types of mechanical
errors listed in the statute. The dissenting member of the appellate panel concluded that the majority did
not interpret appropriately the meaning of the phrase "mistakes in tax assessments."
Hovbilt appealed to the Supreme Court as of right based on the dissent in the Appellate Division.
HELD: Mistakes in assessments that are indisputable, and cannot plausibly be explained on the
basis of an exercise of judgment or discretion by the tax assessor or his or her staff, are
within the category of mistakes that can be corrected under the Correction of Errors statute.
Furthermore, the correct assessment must readily be inferable or subject to ready
calculation on the basis of the assessment mistake for which correction is authorized.
1. Failure to file a timely appeal of a tax assessment leaves the county board of taxation or the Tax
Court without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The Correction of Errors statute is an exception to the
standard tax-appeal process that provides an extended period of relief after the deadline for appeal to the
county board or Tax Court has passed. (pp. 4-6)
2. The legislative history of the 1979 amendments to the Correction of Errors statute indicates that the
amendments were intended to limit the application of the statute. According to those amendments, the Tax
Court is not to consider complaints relating to matters of valuation involving the assessor's opinion or
judgment. Most of the cases that have considered the statute have construed it restrictively, sharply limiting
the meaning of the phrase "mistakes in assessments." However, some Appellate Division cases have called
for the statute to be liberally construed. (pp. 6-22)
3. The differences in interpretations of the statute in the Appellate Division demonstrate the tension
between the routine procedure for appealing tax assessments and the appeal procedure authorized by the
Correction of Errors statute. While the standard for appealing a tax assessment is constrained by concerns
of expediency and finality, the Correction of Errors statute extends the time for an appeal. There is the
potential that the statute will be used to frustrate the standard tax-appeal procedure by allowing taxpayers to
bypass the normal time period for appeal, nonetheless, the statute's capacity to grant relief in cases involving
unquestionable assessment mistakes need not be so narrowly construed. (pp. 22-25)
4. The Legislature specifically excluded matters of valuation involving the tax assessor's opinion or
judgment. As such, there appears to be legislative authorization for the correction of mistakes that are
indisputable and are not subject to debate about whether the assessment to be corrected resulted from the
assessor's exercise in discretion. Those types of errors include ones that involve undebatable physical
attributes of the land or structures. Correction of such errors that occur without the involvement of an
assessor's exercise of discretion, pursuant to the statute, would effectuate the legislative goal of remedying
incontestable assessment errors and avoiding manifest injustice. Avoidance of obvious injustice in the
assessment process was the Legislature's primary objective in enacting and amending the Correction of
Errors statute. (pp. 25-27)
5. Hovbilt has not yet demonstrated that its 1991 tax assessment is erroneous because Hovbilt
conceded that the relief it seeks is a remand to the tax assessor to determine its entitlement to farmland
assessment and a reduction in assessment, if appropriate. Thus, the tax assessor's misplacement of the
application for farmland assessment should have been addressed through the standard tax-appeal procedure.
Its consequences are not sufficiently certain so as to constitute an indisputable mistake in tax assessment; and
if the assessment was mistaken, its correction is not readily inferable or subject to easy calculation based
solely on the nature of the mistake. Therefore, Hovbilt is not eligible for relief under the Correction of
Errors statute. (pp. 27-32)
Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED.
JUSTICE GARIBALDI, dissenting, in which JUSTICE POLLOCK joins, is of the view that the
Howell Township Assessor's Office's loss of Hovbilt's application is indeed the type of "administrative error"
for which the Correction of Errors statute provides relief. Therefore, Justice Garibaldi would hold that the
statute entitles Hovbilt to have the Assessor's Office deem Hovbilt's farmland-assessment application timely
filed.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES CLIFFORD, HANDLER, and O'HERN join in
JUSTICE STEIN's opinion. JUSTICE GARIBALDI has filed a separate dissenting opinion in which
JUSTICE POLLOCK joins.
HOVBILT, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL,
Defendant-Respondent.
Argued September 26, 1994 -- Decided December 22, 1994
On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate
Division, whose opinion is reported at
263 N.J. Super. 567 (1993).
John C. Caniglia argued the cause for
appellant.
Ernest Bongiovanni argued the cause for
respondent.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
STEIN, J.
This appeal requires that we consider the scope of the
Correction of Errors statute, N.J.S.A. 54:51A-7. The specific
error in issue arises from the misplacing by the Howell Township
tax assessor's office of the farmland-assessment application
filed by Hovbilt, Inc. (Hovbilt), resulting in a higher property
tax assessment than would have been imposed if the property had
been assessed as farmland.
The Tax Court, in an unreported opinion, held that the error
was not correctable under the statute. A divided panel of the
Appellate Division affirmed.
263 N.J. Super. 567 (1993).
Hovbilt appeals to this Court as of right. See R. 2:2-1(a)(2).
The essential facts are not in dispute. Since 1984, Hovbilt
has been the owner of a thirty-five-acre parcel of land in the
Township of Howell, known as Block 142, lots 16 and 24. Hovbilt
purchased the property in anticipation of "potential development
use," but in recent years the land has been farmed for soybeans.
property was assessed at full value, in the amount of $556,300.
The assessment resulted in annual taxes of $9,368. When the
property had been assessed as farmland in 1990, the assessment
was $16,100, and annual taxes were $695.04.
The majority noted the "more than two million assessments each
year, suggest[ing] to us the system will collapse unless a strict
interpretation is accorded exceptions to the general tax appeal
scheme." Id. at 571. The majority considered whether the
failure of the tax assessor to consider the application for
farmland exemption was a "mistake[] in tax assessment[]" as
described in the Correction of Errors statute. The court applied
the principle of ejusdem generis to limit "mistakes in tax
assessments" to "embrace[] only mistakes that are similar to
typographical errors and errors in transposing." Ibid. The
majority held that the failure to consider the application was
not similar to "typographical errors or errors in transposing,
which are mechanical in nature." Ibid.
A taxpayer or a taxing district aggrieved or discriminated against because of the assessed valuation of property may file a petition of appeal with the county board of taxation (county board). N.J.S.A. 54:3-21. The county board can compel the
attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers,
and can examine witnesses under oath. N.J.S.A. 54:3-22(a). If
satisfied by the proofs that the assessment was incorrect, the
county board can revise the taxable value of the property. See
N.J.S.A. 54:3-22(c)-(e) (providing methods of computation of
taxable value of property). Any determination by the county
board may be reviewed by the Tax Court. See N.J.S.A. 54:48-1 to
54:53-16; N.J.S.A. 54:3-26a.
Township,
5 N.J. Tax 216, 222-23 (Tax 1982), aff'd in part and
rev'd in part on other grounds,
192 N.J. Super. 329 (1983),
certif. denied,
96 N.J. 312 (1984), is without jurisdiction to
grant the relief sought. See also H.G.K.W. Corp. v. East
Brunswick Township,
8 N.J. Tax 454, 464 (Tax) ("[P]laintiff's
uncontroverted failure to file a petition of appeal with the
county board within the statutory limitation period pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 also forecloses plaintiff's right of appeal to
the Tax Court."), aff'd o.b.,
9 N.J. Tax 91 (App. Div. 1986).
The Legislature amended the statute again in 1979. L. 1979,
c. 44, § 1; L. 1979, c. 114, § 8. Those amendments incorporated
a number of substantive requirements that remain in effect. The
aggrieved party could no longer seek relief at any time, and the
taxpayer had to file an application for relief during the tax
year or within the ensuing three years. Consent was no longer
required to authorize correction of an error. The statute also
extended the right of appeal to municipalities and county boards,
and conferred jurisdiction in the Tax Court with respect to suits
instituted under the statute. L. 1979, c. 114, § 8. The statute
was more specific about the type of errors that could be
corrected, limiting the statutory relief only to "typographical
errors, errors in transposing, and mistakes in tax assessments."
L. 1979, c. 44, § 1. Taxpayers could not challenge valuations
that involved the opinion or judgment of the assessor. See L.
1979, c. 114, § 8; see also State Revenue, Finance and
Appropriations Committee, Statement to Senate Bill No. 1103, at
1-2 (Sept. 18, 1978) (listing "several substantive changes made
in [the correction-of-errors] procedure").
not intended that this process be used for
settlement of challenges of an assessors
[sic] opinion as to value of a parcel of real
property or the assessment of property as
real property.
[Senate Revenue, Finance and Appropriations
Committee, Statement to Senate Bill No. 1103,
at 2 (Sept. 18, 1978) (emphasis added).]
The Correction of Errors statute currently reads:
Most of the cases that have considered the Correction of Errors statute have construed it restrictively. In defining the "types of assessor's errors requir[ing] a longer statute of
limitations," courts have sharply limited the meaning of the
phrase "mistakes in tax assessments." Van Winkle, supra, 12 N.J.
Tax at 293.
"mistakes in tax assessments" to refer only to "mistakes like
typographical errors and errors in transposing." Id. at 535.
determining the value of the land for the years 1976 through
1979, the assessor miscalculated by failing to discount the
property's frontage to reflect its irregular depth. As a result,
the property was assessed at $34,300 rather than $21,500. The
parties agreed that the assessment was erroneous, and the
Township corrected the assessment in 1980. Ibid. The Appellate
Division affirmed the Tax Court's denial of relief under the
statute. The court noted that the mistake alleged involved the
opinion or the judgment of the assessor, and did not constitute a
typographical or transpositional error. Id. at 101. The court
held that to permit the correction of an assessment based on
incorrect information would "permit bypassing the normal appeal
procedure and extend the appeal deadline contrary to legislative
purpose." Ibid.
opinion, the Appellate Division, in Sabella v. Lacey Township,
188 N.J. Super. 500 (1983) (Sabella I), expressed "disagreement
with Manczak to the extent it suggests strict construction of the
correction of errors statute." Id. at 503. On reconsideration
in Flint, the Tax Court noted that "it is apparent that the
decisions of the Appellate Division in Sabella and Bressler are
in conflict," 6 N.J. Tax at 101, and held that "the more
restrictive construction of [the Corrections of Errors statute]
by the courts in Bressler and Manczak is consistent with the
legislative scheme for the orderly resolution of tax assessment
disputes and should be followed." Id. at 108. The court pointed
to the large number of assessments each year as evidence of the
"need to adhere to the regular review process established by the
Legislature." Id. at 107. "In recognition of this potential
problem the Legislature tightened the correction of errors
statute with the adoption of L. 1979, c. 44." Ibid. The Tax
Court again refused to grant relief.
no action to establish a condominium association, the entity to
which the property was to be transferred. The plaintiffs learned
that the deed was erroneously recorded on August 8, 1983, and
filed a corrective deed on August 10, 1983; the corrective deed
was not recorded until January 26, 1984. The property was
assessed as a condominium for four months of 1983 and for the tax
year 1984. The plaintiffs sought relief under the Correction of
Errors statute "due to inadvertent clerical errors in the
recording of the master deed and the delayed recording of the
revocation deed." Id. at 359. The Tax Court denied relief. The
court held that because the "alleged mistake involves an
assessor's opinion[,] this court is expressly prohibited from
considering this complaint under this correction of error
statute." Id. at 363. The court limited "mistakes in tax
assessments" to "errors mathematical or technical in nature
committed by the assessor or someone within the agency,
employment or control of the taxing district." Id. at 362.
Township Planning Board. Because the subdivision approval
affected the property's eligibility for farmland assessment, the
Township's assessor sought approval from the Mercer County Board
of Taxation for the imposition of rollback taxes for the years
1980 through 1982. The County Board approved the imposition of
the rollback taxes. The plaintiff paid the rollback taxes, but
one year later instituted suit to challenge the County Board's
action, noting that the statute that had authorized the
imposition of rollback taxes based on subdivision approval had
been declared unconstitutional. Id. at 297-98. Treating the
plaintiff's complaint as if it had sought relief under the
Correction of Errors statute, the court denied relief. It
observed that the statute provides for the correction of errors
of an assessor, and stated that "[i]t is not at all clear that
this correction of errors statute can be utilized to correct an
error made by a county board of taxation." Id. at 304. The
court held that even if the Correction of Errors statute
encompassed review of an error in assessment by a county board,
the error in this case was related to matters of valuation
involving opinion or judgment. The court further noted that
"[t]he correction of errors statute must be strictly construed
and limited to typographical, transpositional and ministerial
errors and not errors involving opinion or judgment." Id. at
305.
the designation of its property during the years 1976 through
1983. The error resulted in the property being assessed as a
1.75 acre lot, whereas the property actually contained .96 acres.
The taxpayer alleged that in 1977 the property had been
improperly designated as Lot 33A-21, which was the adjoining lot
on the 1930 tax map. That lot consisted of 1.752 acres. The
error in the tax ledger continued until 1984, when the taxpayer
discovered it and notified the assessor. The Tax Court held that
the error was not correctable under the statute, noting that the
"review of maps and information in the assessor's office resulted
in a judgmental decision[,] not a typographical or transposition
error." Id. at 78.
improvement assessments on the plaintiff's five lots, four of
which consisted of incomplete condominium units, the fifth
consisting of an unfinished residential dwelling. Approximately
one year after the date of the assessments, the Appellate
Division held that N.J.S.A. 54:4-23a was constitutional. State
League of Municipalities v. Kimmelman,
204 N.J. Super. 323
(1985), rev'd,
105 N.J. 422 (1987). The plaintiff challenged the
October 1984 assessment, claiming that the property met the
criteria for a property-tax exemption for new construction
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-23a, and sought relief under the
Correction of Errors statute. The Tax Court granted summary
judgment for the defendant, holding that no error existed because
the assessor had acted in accordance with the status of the law
at that time. H.G.K.W. Corp., supra, 8 N.J. Tax at 462-63.
Moreover, the court held that the actions of the tax assessor
were not mistakes in tax assessments. Id. at 460. "The language
in the statute itself suggests limiting the phrase 'mistakes in
tax assessments' to errors similar to typographical errors and
errors in transposing, i.e., clerical or administrative mistakes
or errors." Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 54:51A-7).
the years." Ibid. The court denied relief under the Correction
of Errors statute, concluding "that the assignment of an
erroneous area to a property is not a mistake in assessment
correctable under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-7 unless the erroneous area
results from a transpositional or typographical error." Id. at
85. The court determined that "mistakes in tax assessments"
should be understood "to mean mistakes such as typographical
errors and errors in transposing." Id. at 86.
the type of error excluded from consideration for relief under
the correction of errors statute." Id. at 329.
$40,800." Id. at 501. The Appellate Division understood the Tax
Court to have considered itself as without jurisdiction by
erroneously holding that the Corrections of Errors statute
required "compliance with [the] 'underlying statutory procedure
controlling tax appeals.'" Id. at 502 (quoting Manczak, supra, 2
N.J. Tax at 534). In dictum, the Appellate Division noted that
"this particular statute, being remedial and prophylactic, should
be liberally construed." Id. at 503. The Appellate Division
remanded to the Tax Court for consideration on the merits. On
remand, the Tax Court held that the error was not correctable
under the statute, and the taxpayer appealed. In Sabella v.
Lacey Township,
204 N.J. Super 55 (1985) (Sabella II), the
Appellate Division reaffirmed its "prior conviction that liberal
construction is required in the case of remedial legislation such
as this." Id. at 59. The court described the error by observing
that "[s]ome typist dropped a decimal point." Ibid. The court
stated that the reference in the Correction of Errors statute to
"typographical errors, errors in transposing and mistakes in tax
assessments" is a "precise description of exactly what happened
in this case." Id. at 60.
calculation, use of improper depreciation percentages, and mis-classification of the building. The court noted that the
Appellate Division in Sabella II, supra,
204 N.J. Super. 55, had
held that the Correction of Errors statute was to be liberally
construed, but "the liberality is limited to typographical
errors, errors in transposing and mistakes in tax assessments."
Id. at 157. The court granted relief to the Borough in its
miscalculation of the assessment. "This is a mathematical error
not involving judgment or opinion; therefore, under this statute
as interpreted by Sabella [II], supra, it is correctable." Ibid.
However, the court held that the choice of depreciation
percentages and classifications of the building involved the
judgment of the assessor. Neither error was "an obvious mistake
that can be corrected by merely examining the original property
record card and recalculating correct dimensions." Id. at 158.
entered on the revaluation firm's property-record card. Although
the revaluation firm, the taxpayer, and the assessor anticipated
that the assessment would be $11,827,000, the assessment that
appeared on the tax rolls was $5,520,500.
The Tax Court went on to hold that the statute should be
construed in a manner consistent with the increasingly widespread
use of computers in the assessment process:
Thus, the phrase "mistakes in tax
assessments" as used in the correction of
errors statute must not only be construed
liberally in light of Sabella I and II but
the phrase must also be construed in the
context of the regnant computer technology.
The Tax Court's generally restrictive application of the Correction of Errors statute reflects the view that the statute contemplates only the most limited category of exceptions to the standard tax-appeal procedure. We also note the conflict between the decisions rendered by the Appellate Division panels in this appeal and in Bressler, supra, 190 N.J. Super. at 101, favoring a restrictive construction of the Correction of Errors statute, and the panels in Sabella I, supra, 188 N.J. Super. at 503, and Sabella II, supra, 204 N.J. Super. at 60, endorsing a broad
interpretation of the statute. The differences in the
interpretations of the Correction of Errors statute advocated by
the Appellate Division in those cases demonstrates the tension
between the routine procedure for appealing tax assessments,
N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, and the appeal procedure authorized by the
Correction of Errors statute, N.J.S.A. 54:51A-7. On the one
hand, the standard procedure for appealing a tax assessment is
rigidly constrained by concerns of finality. "In th[is] area of
taxation, statutes of limitation and limitation periods play a
vital role. Legislative policy has consistently followed the
salutary principle that proceedings concerning tax assessments
and governmental fiscal matters be brought expeditiously within
established time periods." L.S. Village, supra, 8 N.J. Tax at
300-01. See also City of Passaic v. Division of Tax Appeals,
54 N.J. Super. 215, 218 (App. Div. 1959) (noting "the legislative
policy that proceedings involving assessments of taxes and
governmental fiscal matters be brought promptly within the
specified periods of time"), certif. denied,
29 N.J. 583;
Suburban Dep't Stores v. City of East Orange,
47 N.J. Super. 472,
480 (App. Div. 1957) ("[The tax appeal statutes] demonstrate a
strong public policy that actions contesting the assessment of
taxes should be brought promptly within the specified periods of
time."); St. Michael's Passionist Monastery v. City of Union City
5 N.J. Tax 415, 418 (Tax 1983) ("Compliance with statutory filing
requirements is an unqualified jurisdictional imperative, long
sanctioned by our courts."), remanded,
195 N.J. Super. 608
(1984); Diament v. Borough of Fort Lee,
3 N.J. Tax 70, 85 (Tax
1981) ("[P]arties must be particularly vigilant in complying with
tax statutes establishing jurisdictional time limits.");
Salvation Army v. Alexandria Township,
2 N.J. Tax 292, 300 (Tax
1981) ("This narrow construction is also in keeping with the
basic principle that generally statutes granting exemptions from
taxation are strongly construed against those seeking
exemption.").
at 534 ("The correction of errors statute also has the effect of
bypassing the normal procedure for challenging assessments.").
physical attributes of the land or structures. A simple example
would be a mistaken assessment of vacant land that was calculated
on the assumption that the property was improved, when in fact no
improvements ever had been constructed. Whether that mistake was
attributable to a typographical error, a mistake in transposing,
or some other discoverable or undiscoverable cause, an over-assessment of property based on non-existent improvements
ordinarily would not have occurred because of an assessor's
opinion, judgment, or exercise of discretion. Moreover, because
the correct assessment would be readily inferable on the basis of
the underlying error, correction of so obvious a mistake in
assessment is reconcilable with the predictability and procedural
regularity of the tax appeal process. When such an error occurs
without involvement of an assessor's exercise of discretion, and
its correction is also self-evident and non-discretionary,
remediation of that error pursuant to the Correction of Errors
statute would effectuate the legislative goal of remedying
incontestable assessment errors and avoiding manifest injustice.
In our view, avoidance of obvious injustice in the assessment
process was the Legislature's primary objective in enacting and
amending the Correction of Errors statute.
the category of mistaken but correctable assessments, we hold
further that the correct assessment must readily be inferable or
subject to ready calculation on the basis of the assessment
mistake for which correction is authorized.
Finally, we consider whether the Township's misplacing and
failing to act on Hovbilt's application for farmland assessment
can be remedied under the Correction of Errors statute. Hovbilt
concedes that if relief under the statute is available, it would
not "automatically be entitled to farmland assessment status for
its property." The relief it seeks is an order requiring that
the tax assessor consider Hovbilt's application for farmland
assessment. We address the issue in the context of the specific
provisions of the Farmland Assessment Act.
Andover v. Kymer,
140 N.J. Super. 399, 404 (App. Div. 1976);
Galloway Township v. Petkevis,
2 N.J. Tax 85, 91 (Tax 1980).
horticultural use for at least the two years immediately
preceding the tax year for which the assessment is sought,
N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.6(a), and the area of the land must not be less
than five acres when measured in accordance with the Act,
N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.6(b). The burden of proving both that the land
is in agricultural or horticultural use and that the land is
actively devoted to such use rests with the landowner. See
Brunetti v. Township of Lacey,
6 N.J. Tax 565, 572 (Tax 1984);
Green Pond Corp. v. Township of Rockaway,
2 N.J. Tax 273, 284-87
(Tax 1981), aff'd in part,
4 N.J. Tax 534 (App. Div. 1982);
Kugler v. Township of Wall,
1 N.J. Tax 10, 13 (Tax 1980).
failed to file its appeal with the Monmouth County Board of
Taxation by August 15, 1991.
any event, although the tax assessor's misplacing of the
application is uncontested, we are unpersuaded that Hovbilt has
established the existence of an indisputable mistake in its tax
assessment, or that the relief sought is readily inferable or
subject to ready calculation. Contrary to the view of our
dissenting colleagues, Post at _-_ (slip op. at 4-6), our
conclusion in this respect rests not on the basis that an
exercise of the assessor's opinion or judgment led to the denial
of farmland assessment. Rather, we conclude simply that Hovbilt
has not yet established that its 1991 tax assessment is
erroneous, because Hovbilt conceded that the relief it seeks is a
remand to the tax assessor to determine its entitlement to
farmland assessment and, if appropriate, the amount of its
reduced assessment. Indeed, the essential factual questions that
determine whether the property is to be assessed as farmland and,
if so, the value of the land have not been addressed. Because
those questions may themselves result in dispute and future
litigation, we cannot conclude that the "mistake in tax
assessment" and the appropriate relief therefor are subjects of
sufficient certainty to justify relief under the abbreviated and
extraordinary procedures authorized by the Correction of Errors
statute.
consistently with the interpretation we have adopted. We hold,
however, that the tax assessor's misplacement of Hovbilt's
application for farmland assessment should have been addressed
through the standard tax-appeal procedure. Its consequences are
not sufficiently certain so as to constitute an indisputable
mistake in tax assessments; and if Hovbilt's assessment was
mistaken, its correction is not necessarily readily inferable or
subject to easy calculation based solely on the nature of the
mistake. Accordingly, we hold that Hovbilt is not eligible for
relief under the Correction of Errors statute.
Judgment affirmed.
Chief Justice Wilentz and Justices Clifford, Handler, and
O'Hern join in this opinion. Justice Garibaldi has filed a
separate dissenting opinion in which Justice Pollock joins.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
HOVBILT, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
GARIBALDI, J., dissenting. I agree with the Court that the Correction of Errors statute, N.J.S.A. 54:51A-7, need not be "narrowly circumscribed." Ante at ___ (slip op. at 25). I further agree "that mistakes in assessments that are indisputable, and cannot plausibly be explained on the basis of an exercise of judgment or discretion by the assessor or his or her staff, are within the category of mistakes that can be corrected under the statute." Ante at ___ (slip op. at 26). However, I part with the Court insofar as I find that the Howell Township Tax Assessor's Office did make such a mistake in losing or negligently misplacing Hovbilt, Inc.'s (Hovbilt's) application for farmland assessment. Accordingly, I would reverse the Appellate Division judgment. I would hold that the Correction of Errors statute entitles Hovbilt to have the
Assessor's Office deem Hovbilt's farmland-assessment application
timely filed. The errors that are correctable under the statute are objective errors -- ones that, on the basis of simple proofs, the trial court could reasonably find occurred. Thus, in the case of a mathematical error, a taxpayer would merely have to submit the assessor's worksheets for the matter to be decided. By the same token, the statute does not allow correction of subjective |