975 Holdings, LLC v. Egg Harbor City ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •               NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
    THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
    ____________________________
    :
    975 HOLDINGS, LLC,               : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    :
    Plaintiff,            : DOCKET NO: 010346-2016
    :
    vs.             :
    :
    EGG HARBOR CITY,                 :
    :
    Defendant.             :
    ______________________________
    Decided: June 20, 2017
    Salvatore Perillo, Esquire
    Perskie, Nehmad & Perillo
    Attorney for Plaintiff
    James J. Carroll, III, Esquire
    Attorney for Defendant
    CIMINO, J.T.C.
    Plaintiff taxpayer, 975 Holdings, LLC is the current owner of
    an improved parcel in Egg Harbor City.    The taxpayer purchased the
    property in a bankruptcy asset sale allowed pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 363
    .   Prior to the sale, the bankrupt debtor acting as a debtor-
    in-possession failed to respond to a Chapter 91 request.     N.J.S.A.
    54:4-34.   Taxpayer argues that both the fact that the prior owner
    was in a bankruptcy proceeding and that the property was purchased
    -1-
    through a section 363(f) sale somehow excuses noncompliance with
    Chapter 91.   For the reasons set forth in greater detail in this
    opinion, the court rejects both of these arguments.
    The parcel in question is eight acres and is improved with a
    hotel with restaurant and catering facilities.             The parcel is
    designated on the tax maps of Egg Harbor City as the entirety of
    Block 73.07 which consists of Lots 1 through 16.         The parcel fronts
    onto Bremen Avenue.    The other winery facilities include a winery,
    restaurant, golf course, and vineyards which are located across
    Bremen Avenue in Galloway Township and are not the subject of this
    appeal.
    On   November    13,    2014,   Renault   Winery,   Inc.   filed   for
    bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code
    and was designated as the debtor-in-possession of the parcel
    pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 1107
    .
    On April 16, 2015 defendant municipality mailed by United
    States Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested, a
    request in accordance with N.J.S.A. 54:4-34, otherwise known as a
    Chapter 91 request.         The certified mail was signed for by the
    debtor-in-possession on April 18, 2015.        The debtor-in-possession
    did not respond to the request.
    On September 22, 2015, 975 Holdings entered into a contract
    to purchase the parcel and on October 1, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court
    -2-
    approved the sale pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 363
    .     Thereafter, the
    parties closed on the sale on November 16, 2015.
    On July 13, 2016, 975 Holdings filed a complaint with this
    Court challenging the 2016 taxes on the parcel.    On December 15,
    2016, a motion was filed by the municipality to dismiss the
    complaint in accordance with Chapter 91 for failure to provide a
    response to the April 16, 2015 request.
    The current owner, taxpayer 975 Holdings, argues that the
    provisions of Chapter 91 do not apply to it since the Chapter 91
    notice was sent to the debtor-in-possession.   In the alternative,
    the taxpayer alleges that the sale of the property to taxpayer
    pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 363
     somehow abrogates the municipality’s
    Chapter 91 defense.
    As to the first argument, taxpayer argues that since the
    notice was sent to the debtor-in-possession while the prior owner
    was under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court, the failure to
    comply with Chapter 91 is excused.
    Since 1918, taxpayers have been required to provide certain
    requested information to the assessor. L. 1918, c. 236, § 403.
    While the law was amended a number of times through the years, it
    was not until l979, with the adoption of Chapter 91, that the
    failure to respond to a request could result in the municipality
    moving to dismiss the complaint. Chapter 91 amended N.J.S.A. 54:4-
    34 in pertinent part by adding the following sentence:
    -3-
    No appeal shall be heard from the assessor’s
    valuation and assessment with respect to
    income-producing property where the owner has
    failed or refused to respond to such written
    request for information within 45 days of such
    request or to testify on oath when required,
    or shall have rendered a false or fraudulent
    account.
    [L. 1979, c. 91, § 1]
    As     indicated        by     the    Senate        Revenue,     Finance    and
    Appropriations Committee’s statement as to the bill which would
    become Chapter 91, the “problem addressed” was that “the property
    owner is not subject to any penalty for not disclosing property
    income information.            The property owner is free to appeal the
    assessment, notwithstanding his refusal to provide information
    which would have affected the valuation, and, perhaps, avoided the
    appeal    from    the    assessment.”           Senate    Revenue,    Finance    and
    Appropriations Comm., Statement to S., No. 309, at 1 (Jan. 26,
    1978).    The other “problem addressed” was when “an appeal has been
    filed, the assessor currently has no access to information on which
    the appellant is basing his appeal and thus the assessor is
    unprepared       to     testify      in    argument        to   the    appellant’s
    representations.”        Id.
    As explained by the New Jersey Supreme Court, if a taxpayer
    could withhold the information until the time of appeal, “the
    assessor    would     then     be   required    either     to   prepare   a   second
    valuation of the property -- a tremendous waste of valuable time
    -4-
    and resources -- or to defend the original valuation on the
    taxpayer’s appeal.”       Ocean Pines Ltd. vs. Edwards, 
    112 N.J. 1
    , 7
    (1988).      Either result runs contrary to the purpose of the statute
    as set forth by the Senate committee.             See 
    Id.
    The prior owner, Renault Winery, Inc., filed a petition
    pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.               
    11 U.S.C. § 1101
    -
    1175.        The primary purpose of Chapter 11, which is entitled
    “reorganization” is the rehabilitation of financially troubled
    businesses.       Kernan v. One Washington Park, 
    154 N.J. 437
    , 446
    (1998).      Upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the assets of
    the debtor become part of what is termed the bankruptcy estate of
    the debtor.      
    11 U.S.C. § 541
    .       Broadly overseeing the process is
    the United States Trustee.             
    28 U.S.C. § 586
    , 
    11 U.S.C. § 327
    .
    Shortly after the filing of a bankruptcy petition, the United
    States Trustee conducts a § 341 meeting of creditors in which the
    debtor is required to appear and answer questions of the United
    States Trustee and creditors.           
    11 U.S.C. §§ 341
    , 343.
    In most Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, the United States Trustee
    does not seek the appointment of a case trustee.                  Rather, the
    debtor remains as a “debtor-in-possession.”                 Kernan, supra, 154
    N.J.    at    446-447,   
    11 U.S.C. § 1107
    .   With    certain   limited
    exceptions, a debtor-in-possession has all the rights and powers,
    and shall perform all the functions and duties of a case trustee.
    
    11 U.S.C. § 1107
    (a).      Even though a debtor-in-possession, there is
    -5-
    a duty of loyalty to creditors.          Wolf v. Weinstein, 
    372 U.S. 633
    ,
    642, 
    83 S. Ct. 969
    , 975-76, 
    10 L. Ed. 2d 33
    , 42 (1963).            The debtor
    in   possession   is   a    fiduciary   for   the   bankruptcy     estate   and
    creditors.    In re United Healthcare Sys. Inc., 
    200 F.3d 170
    , 177
    n. 9 (3rd Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 
    530 U.S. 1204
    , 
    120 S. Ct. 2199
    ,
    
    147 L. Ed. 2d 234
     (2000).           The United States Trustee broadly
    oversees   the    process    through    the   promulgation    of    operating
    guidelines and reporting requirement to be followed by debtors-
    in-possession.      U.S. Dept. of Justice, United States Trustee
    Program Policy and Practices Manual, Vol. 3 (July 2016).
    The taxpayer initially argued that the obligation to file a
    response to a Chapter 91 request belongs with whomever is the
    trustee.   However, there was not a trustee specifically appointed
    to the bankruptcy case.       Instead, the day-to-day operations of the
    debtor and the assets of the bankruptcy estate were handled by the
    debtor-in-possession, Renault Winery, Inc.
    In Kernan, the New Jersey Supreme Court had to confront this
    issue in a slightly different context.         Kernan slipped and fell on
    property owned by One Washington Park.         Kernan, supra, 154 N.J. at
    442.     At the time of the fall, One Washington Park was in
    reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.               Id.
    The debtor was not permitted to remain in possession and a case
    trustee was appointed by the Bankruptcy Court.               Id.    The Court
    noted that upon appointment, not only would the case trustee
    -6-
    operate     the    business,     the    case     trustee    is   automatically
    substituted for the debtor-in-possession in any pending action,
    proceeding or matter.       Id. at 449.         The case trustee was vested
    with title to all the debtor’s property.                   Id. at 450 (citing
    Hanover Insurance Company vs. Tyco Industries, Inc., 
    500 F.2d 654
    ,
    656 (1974)).       See also Kernan, supra, 154 N.J. at 450.                As a
    result, One Washington Park argued that it did not have a duty to
    third persons such as Kernan.          Id.   The Court determined that upon
    being     ousted   from    control     as    debtor-in-possession     by    the
    appointment of a case trustee, One Washington Park had no duty to
    maintain the property. Id. at 453.             However, the Court noted that
    the outcome would have been different had One Washington Park
    remained as the debtor-in-possession.             Id.
    In this case, taxpayer’s predecessor, Renault Winery, Inc.,
    was a debtor-in-possession.            Notably, the obligation to file a
    response to the Chapter 91 request did not fall upon a case
    trustee.      There   is   not   any    dispute    the   debtor-in-possession
    received the Chapter 91 notice and did not respond.               This failure
    to respond is not excused by the taxpayer’s predecessor being a
    debtor-in-possession.1      “The Chapter 91 defect runs with the land.
    1 To be clear, in bankruptcy cases, there is an automatic stay of
    all actions pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 362
    (a). However, the automatic
    stay does not apply to post-petition claims. Kernan, supra, 154
    N.J. at 454. Rather the stay applies solely to claims against the
    debtor that arose prior to the bankruptcy petition. Id.
    -7-
    . .”   ADP of New Jersey v. Parsippany Troy Hills, 
    14 N.J. Tax 372
    ,
    378 (Tax 1994).      Carriage Four Associates vs. Teaneck, 
    13 N.J. Tax 172
    , 180 (Tax 1993).          A subsequent owner is “saddled with that
    failure to comply with the statute.”            Carriage Four Assoc., supra,
    13 N.J. Tax at 180.         Thus, the taxpayer here is saddled with the
    failure of Renault Winery, Inc., the debtor-in-possession, to file
    a Chapter 91 response.
    Taxpayer’s remaining argument is that upon the sale of the
    property pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 363
    , any impediment resulting
    from   the    failure   to    file   a     Chapter    91    response      would    be
    extinguished.       The debtor-in-possession can exercise the power of
    a trustee to sell property of the estate “free and clear” of “any
    interest” that any entity has in such property.                      
    11 U.S.C. § 363
    (f).2     The term “any interest” is not defined anywhere in the
    bankruptcy     code.        The   trend    seems     to    be   towards    a   broad
    interpretation that includes obligations beyond in rem interests
    that   may   flow    from   the   ownership     of   property.       Folger       Adam
    Security, Inc. vs. Dematteis/MacGregor, JV, 
    209 F.3d 252
    , 258 (3rd
    Cir. 2000).     “Any interest” is intended to refer to obligations
    that are connected to, or arise from, the property being sold.
    
    Id. at 259
    .
    2 The proceeds of the sale are then utilized to reorganize the
    debtor, including the satisfaction of creditors. 
    11 U.S.C. § 1123
    .
    -8-
    In the case at hand, the taxpayer took title to the property
    by virtue of a sale conducted pursuant to 
    11 U.S.C. § 363
    (f).                The
    taxpayer now argues that the sale was free and clear of any
    interest which the municipality had in filing a Chapter 91 defense.
    A defense under Chapter 91 must be raised affirmatively by the
    municipality within 180 days after the filing of the complaint or
    30   days   before   the   first   trial       date.   R.   8:6(e).3   If    not
    affirmatively    raised     by     the     municipality,     the   defense   is
    considered waived and the case moves forward.
    The taxpayer filed a complaint on July 13, 2016.             Thereafter,
    the municipality timely filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
    the basis of Chapter 91 on December 15, 2016.                The taxpayer now
    argues that despite the municipality having timely filed a motion
    to dismiss alleging a Chapter 91 defense, such defense has been
    extinguished by the section 363(f) sale since the Chapter 91
    defense consists of an “interest” in the property.                 Despite the
    broad reading of “any interest” in section 363(f), the Third
    Circuit has repeatedly indicated that affirmative defenses are not
    interests and therefore are not extinguished by a section 363(f)
    sale.   Folger Adam, supra, 
    209 F.3d at 261
    .
    3 The rule, adopted by the Supreme Court, serves as the mechanism
    through which the municipality raises the defense.         Lucent
    Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Hts., 
    201 N.J. 237
    ,
    247-248 (2010).
    -9-
    In Folger Adam, the Third Circuit considered whether the
    affirmative defense of recoupment could be raised despite a section
    363(f) sale.    The section 363(f) purchaser brought suit to recover
    accounts receivable which were acquired as part of the assets in
    the section 363(f) sale.       In turn, the defendants raised the
    defense of recoupment to diminish the claim or defeat the recovery.
    
    Id. at 260
    .    The Third Circuit determined that these defenses were
    not interests.      
    Id. at 261
    .     By its nature, the defense of
    recoupment only arose after the section 363(f) purchaser asserted
    its claim.
    The taxpayer as a section 363(f) purchaser took the parcel
    and either knew or should have known the status of the property
    taxes including the amount of taxes and Chapter 91 compliance
    status.   “It is the obligation of the purchaser to ascertain facts
    concerning the property tax and property tax assessment and to
    protect itself in its agreement with the seller as to any rights
    it may wish to assert with respect to the property tax.”     ADP of
    New Jersey, Inc., supra, 14 N.J. Tax, at 378-379.
    Setting aside the Chapter 91 issue, the taxpayer had to or
    should have realized that even if the tax appeal goes forward,
    there is not any guarantee that there would be any adjustment of
    the assessment. The sale documents are not conditioned upon any
    reduction in the assessment resulting from a tax appeal.    In other
    -10-
    words, the taxpayer willingly purchased the property prior to and
    regardless of the outcome of the tax appeal.
    In summary, the municipality is not asserting an “interest”
    under section 363(f).   Rather, the municipality is affirmatively
    asserting a defense under Chapter 91.     This defense is not an
    interest of the municipality, but is a defense waivable by the
    municipality through inaction or indifference.     But for the tax
    appeal of taxpayer, the Chapter 91 defense would have never arisen.
    The essence of a defense is something affirmatively raised in
    response to a claim.    Only interests can be extinguished in a
    section 363 sale.   Since defenses are not interests under section
    363(f), a Chapter 91 defense is not abrogated.   The municipality’s
    motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in part subject to a
    reasonableness hearing under Ocean Pines, 
    supra.
    -11-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 010346-2016

Filed Date: 6/23/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/2/2024