MICHAEL S. BARTH VS. BERNARDS TOWNSHIP (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4118-16T4
MICHAEL S. BARTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BERNARDS TOWNSHIP, DAVID
CENTRELLI, individually and in his
official capacity as Bernards Township
Assessor, SOMERSET COUNTY NEW
JERSEY, SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD
OF TAXATION, ROBERT M. VANCE,
individually and in his official capacity
as Somerset County Tax Administrator,
JOHN M. LORE, ESQ., individually and
in his official capacity as president of the
Somerset County Tax Board,
Defendants-Respondents.
__________________________________
Submitted February 26, 2019 – Decided March 11, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Suter.
On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket
No. 0368-2016.
Michael S. Barth, appellant pro se.
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer &
Flaum, PC, attorneys for respondents Township of
Bernards and David Centrelli (Martin Allen, of counsel;
Edward W. Purcell, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondents Somerset County New Jersey, Somerset
County Board of Taxation, Robert M. Vance, and John
M. Lore (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Michelle Capistrano Foster,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff was once the beneficiary of a farmland tax assessment because
the property taxing authority believed he harvested maple syrup on his Bernards
Township property. In 2014, that assessment was revoked and rollback taxes 1
were imposed, eventually leading to plaintiff's appeal to the Tax Court, which
ultimately rejected plaintiff's position because he refused to permit an inspection
of his property. After careful review of the record and the parties' arguments,
we affirm the dismissal of his tax court action.
1
Rollback taxes represent "an amount equal to the difference, if any, between
the taxes paid or payable . . . and the taxes that would have been paid or payable
had the land been valued, assessed and taxed as other land in the taxing district,
in the current tax year (the year of change in use) and in such of the two tax
years immediately preceding, in which the land was valued, assessed and taxed
[as farmland]." N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.8. See also N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. Twp. of
Washington, 137 N.J. Super. 543, 547 (App. Div. 1975), aff’d o.b., 73 N.J. 180(1977).
A-4118-16T4
2
The relevant facts may be briefly summarized. In October 2014, the tax
assessor informed plaintiff that his property did not qualify for the farmland
assessment because plaintiff failed to provide proof demonstrating income
through farming. The county board of taxation initiated a complaint, pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.8, to invoke rollback taxes for 2013 and 2014 due to the
property's change in status. Plaintiff was given notice and a hearing was
scheduled, at the conclusion of which the county board entered a judgment
assessing rollback taxes in the amount of $4,953.99.
In January 2016, plaintiff appealed that determination to the Tax Court;
he also sought relief against the township, the assessor, the county board, the
county tax administrator, the president of the tax board, and tax board
commissioners. Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that these defendants
were liable for "abuse of process, harassment, and negligence." And he asserted
the unconstitutionality of the procedures that led to the rollback assessment.
By motion, the Tax Court granted summary judgment in March 2016
dismissing with prejudice all plaintiff's claims for monetary damages. What
remained was plaintiff's appeal of the rollback determination, as to which the
township was the only remaining party.
A-4118-16T4
3
The township moved in September 2016 to dismiss because plaintiff failed
to provide answers to interrogatories or allow inspection of the property. The
motion was granted but the action later reinstated. When plaintiff remained
recalcitrant in discovery, the township again moved for dismissal. As the result
of a hearing in January 2017, an order was entered that required plaintiff to
provide the unanswered discovery requests and to allow an inspection of the
property on February 28, 2017.
Plaintiff, however, refused to permit an inspection as ordered. Even
though he had already been accommodated and the inspection delayed until the
winter harvesting season, plaintiff claimed the inspection could not occur when
ordered because the 2017 season abruptly ended due to unseasonably warm
weather. The Tax Court granted the township's motion to dismiss with
prejudice, concluding that plaintiff "intentionally failed to comply with the
discovery order and that dismissal of the complaint [was] the appropriate
sanction."
Plaintiff appeals, arguing:
I. THE TAX COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS,
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDG[]MENT, AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT.
A-4118-16T4
4
II. TAX COURT ERRED IN APPLYING GENERAL
MOTORS CORP. v. CITY OF LINDEN, 150 N.J. 552(1996) THAT IN EFFECT GRANTED A COMMON
LAW RECOGNITION OF A KANGAROO COUNTY
TAX BOARDS, AND AS A RESULT, SHOULD
RESULT IN ALLOWANCE OF THE OWNER OF A
FARM ORGANIZED AS AN LLC TO REPRESENT
THEMSELVES PRO SE.
III. TAX COURT[] PROCEDURES WERE AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SIMILAR TO THE
SOMERSET COUNTY TAX BOARD.
IV. SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL SHOULD NOT
BE PERMITTED WHEN COUNSEL ATTEMPTS TO
MISLEAD THE COURT ON THE SEQUENCE OF
SUBSTITUTION AND INTERFERENCE WITH
DISCOVERY.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a
written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the reasons set
forth by Judge Patrick DeAlmeida in his thoughtful and well-reasoned opinions
on the motions that produced the orders under review.
Affirmed.
A-4118-16T4
5