Opinion
Docket No. 007282-20140
09-25-2014
John & Nancy Prindiville v. Township of Wall
BY ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL John C. Prindiville, Esq and Nancy Prindiville 1600 Revere LN Wall, New Jersey 07753 Levi J. Kool, Esq. O'Donnell McCord, P.C. 15 Mount Kemble Avenue Morristown, New Jersey 07960
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE,TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
BY ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
John C. Prindiville, Esq and Nancy Prindiville
1600 Revere LN
Wall, New Jersey 07753
Levi J. Kool, Esq.
O'Donnell McCord, P.C.
15 Mount Kemble Avenue
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Block 755, Lot 32.01 Dear Mr. & Ms. Prindiville and Attorney Kool:
This is the court's opinion with respect to defendant's motion to dismiss the above-captioned complaint as being untimely filed. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that they filed the complaint within forty five (45) days of receiving the notice of judgment from the Monmouth County Board of Taxation ("County Board") and further argue that R 1:3-4 does not specifically prohibit the enlargement of time for filing of an appeal in the Tax Court.
For the reasons set forth below, the appeal period begins from the date of service of the County Board's judgment, which is the date the judgment is mailed, plus three additional days. Since statutes of limitations are strictly construed such that they cannot be relaxed by R. 1:3-4, the court grant's defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs are owners of the above captioned property, located at Block 755, Lot 32.01 commonly known as 1600 Revere Lane ("Subject") located in defendant ("Township"). For tax year 2014, the assessment on the Subject was $404,100. Plaintiff filed a Petition of Appeal with the County Board seeking review of this assessment.
On March 21, 2014 the County Board entered judgment affirming the assessment. The judgment was mailed to plaintiffs on the same day, March 21, 2014. Thereafter, plaintiffs, by Federal Express filed a complaint with the Tax Court on May 14, 2014.
The Township then filed the instant motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely filed. Plaintiffs filed a late opposition contending they received the County Board's judgment on March 31, 2014, and 45-days from that date made the complaint timely. Plaintiffs did not serve the pleading upon Township's counsel, thus, a copy was provided to counsel by the court. ANALYSIS
The jurisdiction of the Tax Court to review assessments on real property is firmly established by statute. N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9(a) requires 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."
When calculating the statutory forty-five (45) day time-limit, R. 8:4-1(a)(2) provides that "[s]ervice of the judgment of the 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." R. 1:3-3 states 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, 3 days shall be added to the period."
Here, it is undisputed that the County Board entered and mailed the Judgment at issue on March 21, 2014. The statutory clock for the forty-five (45) period began to run that day, and ended May 5, 2014. Adding R. 1:3-3's three (3) day extension establishes the plaintiffs' final deadline on May 8, 2014. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 14, 2014 which renders it untimely.
The Court has long held that the statutory requirements for filing of appeals from judgments of the county boards of taxation are strictly construed and failure to meet the deadline is a fatal defect. This is because if the appeal is not filed on time, the county board or that Tax Court does not have the power, i.e., lacks jurisdiction, to hear the merits of the case. See Mayfair Holding Corp. v. Township of North Bergen, 4 N.J. Tax 41, 41 (Tax 1982) (dismissing a petition which was filed one day late because "[c]ompliance with statutory filing requirements [in N.J.S.A. 54:3-21] is an unqualified jurisdictional imperative long sanctioned by our courts," thus "[f]ailure to file a timely appeal is a fatal jurisdictional defect"). See also Prospect Hill Apartments v. Borough of Flemington, 1 N.J. Tax 224, 227 (Tax 1979) (R. 1:1-2 under which any rule may be relaxed or dispensed with by the Court does not give the Tax Court the power to dispense with statute of limitations passed by the legislature.).
Plaintiffs' argument that the complaint was timely filed because they received the County Board's judgment on March 31, 2014 is thus without merit. The statutory scheme clearly states that the statutory clock begins to run on the date the judgment was mailed not when the plaintiff received the County Board's judgment.
Plaintiffs' next argument that R. 1:3-4 does not specifically prohibit the enlargement of time for filing of a Notice of Appeal in the Tax Court also lacks merit. That rule applies to any periods which are prescribed by the court rules. Here, the computation of the time limits to file an appeal is by statute. N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9(a). See also Prospect Hills, supra, 1 N.J. Tax at 227 (taxpayer's reliance on R. 1:1-2 for relaxation of filing deadlines was erroneously premised on R. 8:4-1(a)(4) because the latter court rule merely "iterates the statutory deadline"); Pressler & Verniero, Current New Jersey Court Rules, Comment 3 on R. 1:3-4(c) (2015) ("[w]hile not stated in express terms, the statutory time periods applicable to invocation of the Tax Court review jurisdiction should be generally regarded as non-relaxable."). Thus, this court "has no power by virtue of a court rule "to relax or dispense with a statute of limitations passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor." Prospect Hill, supra, 1 N.J. Tax at 227.
The court finds that finds that plaintiffs' complaint was untimely filed which deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction. CONCLUSION
Although the court fully considered all of plaintiffs' arguments, it notes and disapproves of their (i) failure to file a timely opposition; and (ii) failure to serve the pleading upon opposing counsel. Plaintiff, John C. Prindiville, is an attorney, evidence by the addressed used in the opposition filed [Barry & Prindiville P.A., 2130 Route 35, Suite 221-Building B, Sea Grit, New Jersey 08750-1011. Although he is appearing here as self-represented, he is no less required to comply with the court rules on filing and service of pleadings, than he would be if he were representing another party. Counsel, as professionals, and members of the Bar, should assiduously ensure they comply with our Supreme Court's procedures set forth in the court rules. See Seacoast Realty Co. v. W. Long Branch Borough, 14 N.J. Tax 197, 202 n.1 (Tax 1994) (disapproving plaintiff's counsel faxing a reply on the day before the motion's return date and "remind[ing]" attorneys of the need to comply with the time frames set forth in R. 1:6-3 or invite an "imposition of sanctions" for failure to do so).
For the foregoing reasons the Township's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to timely file is granted.
An Order reflecting this memorandum opinion will be entered by the court and accompany this opinion.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Mala Sundar, J.T.C.