Opinion
Docket No. 010992-2012
2013-09-19
Re: Triplet Square, L.L.C. v. Township of Manalapan
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
Mala Similar
JUDGE
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jeff J. Horn, Esq.
Horn Law Group, LX.C.
801AMain Street
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Lani M. Lombardi, Esq.
Cleaiy Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, L.L.C.
169 Ramapo Valley Road, Upper Level 105
Oakland, New Jersey 07436
Copy delivered to:
Plaintiff X Defendant X Other ____ By: Mail _____ Fax _____ In Person ____ Email X on 7/19/13 initials DK
Block 27, Lot 26.01
Dear Counsel:
This is the court's opinion with respect to defendant's motion to dismiss the above-captioned complaint as being untimely filed. The court denies the motion and finds that the complaint was timely filed. FACTS
Plaintiff appealed the assessment imposed by defendant ("Manalapan") upon property located at Block 27, Lot 26.01 commonly known as 153 Freehold Road ("Subject") for tax year 2012 to the Monmouth County Board of Taxation ("County Board").
On April 26, 2012, the County Board affirmed the assessment. The County Board Judgment in this regard was mailed to plaintiff on May 3, 2012,
By cover letter dated June 15, 2012, plaintiff's mailed its appeal from the County Board judgment with the Tax Court by overnight mail via FedEx. The cover letter was addressed to the Clerk of the Tax Court with the address "Robert J. Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625" and indicated the method of mailing as "Via Overnight Mail." The accompanying certification of service stated that the Clerk and assessor of Manalapan, and the Administrator of the County Board were served with the copy of the appeal on June 15, 2012.
The complaint was stamped as filed by the Tax Court on July 2, 2012.
A year later, on August 19, 2013, Manalapan moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for its failure to timely file its complaint with the Tax Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9.
Plaintiff filed a late opposition contending that that it had timely filed its appeal. As proof, it attached a copy of the overnight mailing label which indicated that the mail was shipped to "25 Market Street, Trenton, NJ 08611" from plaintiff's counsel's office. The mailing date was June 15, 2012. The tracking number was also included. Also attached was the FedEx tracking delivery information which indicated that the mail (bearing the same tracking number) had been delivered on Monday, June 18, 2012 at 10:11 a.m. to "Trenton, N.J." The tracking information also showed that the mail was signed for by "T. Case." ANALYSIS
"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." N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9(a). Pursuant to R. 8:4-1(a)(4), service 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."
Filing deadlines are considered statutes of limitation in the Tax Court and are strictly enforced. Strict adherence to statutory time limitations is essential in tax matters, borne of the exigencies of taxation and the administration of local government. See e.g. Princeton Univ. Press v. Princeton Bor., 35 NJ. 209, 2014 (???? CHECK PAGE NUMBER )(1961). Courts have consistently enforced the strict statutory limitations for the timely filing of appeals by both taxpayers and taxing districts. Mayfair Holding Corp. v. Township of North Bergen, 4 N.J. Tax 41, 41 (Tax 1982) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed one day after the last day prescribed by statute for filing the appeal.); Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. City of Orange, 2 N.J. Tax 25. 28 (Tax 1980) (denying plaintiff's motion to relax the statutory filing deadlines even with the adversary's consent.).
Furthermore, "it is clear that unlike service, which is complete upon mailing, filing can only be effected by the receipt of the filed paper by the designated office." State v. One 1986 Subaru, 230 N.J. Super. 451, 458-461 (App. Div. 1989), rev'd in part on other grounds, 120 N.J. 310 (1990); Stegmeier v. St. Elizabeth Hosp., 239 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div. 1990). However, if pleadings are sent to the wrong filing office, then R. 1:5-6(d) "requires transmittal by the office with whom papers are misfiled to the correct office and deems the receipt date of the misfiling as the filing date as within time . . ." Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4 on R. 1:5-6(d) (2013). For statute of limitations purposes, the misfiled papers are deemed filed as of the date of receipt by the incorrect office. Grubb v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 155 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 1978).
Here, it is undisputed that the mailing date of County Board judgment was May 3, 2012, The deadline to file an appeal in the Tax Court was thus June 17, 2012. Since June 17, 2012 was a Sunday, the next business day, June 18, 2012 would be the deadline. Three days need not be added since that rule applies if the mailing was by "ordinary mail."
Although the FedEx shipping address did not contain the addressee's name, building name, and the correct zip code of 08625, as contained in the cover letter accompanying plaintiff's appeal, the court finds that the appeal was delivered to the correct building and address where the Tax Court is located. The zip code 08611 includes two locations, Trenton and Hamilton, however, the delivery label clearly showed that the delivery was to Trenton. Additionally, the court's inquiry of the files indicated that the name of the signer for the mail, T. Case, is that of a judiciary employee in the mailroom. It is likely that since the shipping address on the overnight envelope did not contain the name of the recipient, here, Clerk of the Tax Court, that there was a delay in delivering plaintiff's appeal from the mail room to the Tax Court Clerk's office. Thus, the evidence shows that plaintiff's appeal was delivered to the address where the Tax Court sits, on June 18, 2012.
The court thus finds that plaintiff's appeal was filed June 18, 2012 pursuant to R. 1:5-6(d). This date is within requisite time period to file its appeal as set forth in N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss the above-captioned complaint for failure to file within the requisite time period pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9 is denied.
An Order reflecting this memorandum opinion will be entered by the court and accompany this opinion.
Very truly yours,
Mala Sundar, J.T.C.