DWIGHT ASSOCIATES v. FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

A-5062-12T2

A-5067-12T2

5 DWIGHT ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________________

June 10, 2014

Argued May 28, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Higbee.

On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket Nos. 008742-2009, 006356-2010, and 008883-2011.

Kevin S. Englert argued the cause for appellant (The Irwin Law Firm, P.A., attorneys; Steven R. Irwin and Mr. Englert, on the brief).

Dennis M. Galvin argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff 5 Dwight Associates appeals from the judgment of the Tax Court in these three consolidated cases which determined the value of plaintiff's commercial property for property tax purposes for the years of 2009, 2010, and 2011. We affirm.

Although the parties agreed that the income approach was the appropriate method for determining the value of the property, the parties disagreed as to which properties should be used as comparables to estimate the value of the subject property and as to which adjustments should be made to the comparables to make the rent of the comparables commensurate with the rent of the subject property. The major differences within the party's rental figures were based on two main issues: plaintiff's use of the subject property's post-assessment lease offering as a comparable and plaintiff's use of a fifteen percent negative adjustment to account for the subject property's alleged inadequately-sized loading dock for fifty-three-foot tractor trailers.

After a two-day bench trial, the Tax Court issued a detailed and well-reasoned opinion setting forth the manner in which the subject property should be appraised. The Tax Court rejected for use as a comparable the subject property's post-assessment lease offering. Additionally, the Tax Court rejected plaintiff's adjustment for the size of the subject property's loading docks.

"Our review of a decision by the Tax Court is limited." UPS v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 430 N.J. Super. 1, 7 (App. Div. 2013). "In reviewing a Tax Court decision, we take into account the special expertise of Tax Court judges in matters of taxation." Dover-Chester Assocs. v. Randolph Twp., 419 N.J. Super. 184, 195 (App. Div. 2011); accord Yilmaz, Inc. v. Dir. Div. of Taxation, 390 N.J. Super. 435, 443 (App. Div. 2007). "The findings of the Tax Court will not be disturbed if supported by 'adequate, substantial and credible evidence' in the record." Dover-Chester Assocs., supra, 419 N.J. Super. at 195; see also Yilmaz, supra, 390 N.J. Super. at 443 ("Our scope of review 'is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence with due regard to the Tax Court's expertise and ability to judge credibility.'").

Regarding the Tax Court's judgment setting forth the value of the subject property for the three years in question, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mala Sundar in her lengthy and well-reasoned opinion. The judge's findings of fact are supported by "'adequate, substantial and credible evidence' in the record."

Plaintiff also claims that the court erred in denying its motion for a jury trial. Since this is a legal determination, our review is de novo. UPS, supra, 430 N.J. Super. at 8.

We start with the basic principle that "the right to a trial by jury in New Jersey must arise under either a statute or the state constitution." Wood v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 206 N.J. 562, 574 (2011) (quoting In re Envtl. Ins. Declaratory Judgment Actions, 149 N.J. 278, 291 (1997)). The New Jersey Constitution declares that "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." N.J. Const. art. I, 9. Article I, paragraph 9 of the New Jersey Constitution "guarantees the right to trial by jury as it existed at common law at the time of the adoption of the New Jersey Constitution." Wood, supra, 206 N.J. at 574 (quoting In re Envtl. Ins., supra, 149 N.J. at 291). Plaintiff concedes that there was no common law right to a jury trial in a tax case at the time of the adoption of the New Jersey Constitution. Additionally, there is no New Jersey statute guaranteeing a right to a jury trial in a tax case in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2B:13-3(b) states: "[t]he Tax Court shall determine all issues of fact and of law de novo." Likewise, Rule 8:8-1 states that "[a]ll matters in the Tax Court shall be heard by a single judge sitting without a jury."

Therefore, we affirm the Tax Court's order denying plaintiff's motion for a jury trial.

Affirmed.