Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2875-14T1
04-27-2016
DR. RUBEN FLEURANTIN and SHARON JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE, Defendant-Respondent.
Dr. Ruben Fleurantin and Sharon Jones, appellants pro se. Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Jill Daitch Rosenberg, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Yannotti and Guadagno. On appeal from Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket No. 013961-2014. Dr. Ruben Fleurantin and Sharon Jones, appellants pro se. Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Jill Daitch Rosenberg, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs appeal from an order entered by the Tax Court on January 14, 2015, which dismissed their appeal from a judgment of the Board of Taxation for the County of Essex. We affirm.
We briefly summarize the relevant facts and procedural history. Plaintiffs are the owners of two lots in the Township of South Orange Village. They filed an appeal challenging the tax assessment on the property for 2014. On July 18, 2014, the County Tax Board mailed its judgment on plaintiffs' appeal. On September 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Tax Court challenging the judgment of the County Tax Board.
The Township thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it had been filed beyond the time required by N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(a) and Rule 8:4-1(a)(2). Plaintiffs opposed the motion. Judge Christine M. Nugent heard oral argument and filed a written opinion in which she concluded that the Township's motion should be granted.
Judge Nugent noted that N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(a) requires appeals from judgments of a county board of taxation to be filed in the Tax Court pursuant to the rules of court. Rule 8:4-1(a)(2) provides that the complaint must be filed within forty-five days of service of the judgment of the county board of taxation, and if mailed, service of the judgment "shall be deemed complete as of the date the judgment is mailed, subject to the provisions of [Rule] 1:3-3." The judge also noted that Rule 1:3-3 provides that "when 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, [three] days shall be added to the period."
The judge stated that the County Tax Board had mailed its judgment on July 18, 2014. Forty five days after that date was September 1, 2014. With the three additional days as provided by Rule 1:3-3, the deadline for filing the appeal was September 4, 2014. Plaintiffs did not file their complaint in the Tax Court until September 8, 2014. The judge determined that the complaint had not been timely filed, and there were no equitable reasons for extending the filing deadline.
Judge Nugent entered an order dated January 14, 2015, dismissing the complaint. This appeal followed. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the Tax Court judge erroneously calculated the date the complaint was due. Citing Rule 1:3-1, plaintiffs contend the filing deadline was September 5, 2014, not September 4, 2014. They further argue that the complaint was timely filed because it was post-marked on September 5, 2014.
We are convinced that plaintiffs' arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant extended comment. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Nugent in her cogent written opinion. We add the following.
Notwithstanding plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, Judge Nugent correctly computed the date by which the complaint had to be filed. Moreover, even if plaintiffs are correct in their assertion that the filing deadline was September 5, 2014, the complaint was still late because it was not filed in the Tax Court until September 8, 2014. Although plaintiffs may have mailed the complaint to the court on September 5, 2014, the complaint was not deemed filed until it was received.
Judge Nugent noted that the statutes and rules governing the time in which the appeals must be filed are strictly construed, and due diligence is required of taxpayers when filing their appeals. The judge properly observed that in this case, due diligence required either an earlier mailing of the complaint or its delivery to the court by the due date. See Prospect Hill Apartments v. Borough of Flemington, 1 N.J. Tax 224, 227-28 (Tax 1979); Mayfair Holding Corp. v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 4 N.J. Tax 38, 39-40 (Tax 1982).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION