DocketNumber: Docket 148-274
Citation Numbers: 40 A.2d 13, 136 N.J. Eq. 53
Judges: BIGELOW, V.C.
Filed Date: 12/7/1944
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/9/2017
Complainants pray that defendants be enjoined from selling their lands for unpaid taxes while the tax assessment is the subject of appeals pending before the State Board of Tax Appeals. The defendants move to dismiss the bill.
The tax authorities of the City assessed the property for the year 1943 at $580,300. On complainants' appeal, the County Board of Taxation reduced the assessment to $509,000. Complainants thereupon, on November 26th, 1943, appealed to the State Board, praying that the assessment be reduced to $347,500, which they alleged was the true value of the property. The City also appealed, asking that the original assessment be restored. Although a year has elapsed, the appeals have not yet been heard by the State Board. The parties have not been dilatory in prosecuting their appeals. It is the practice of the Board to arrange a program of hearings without consulting the parties, and then to notify them when they will be heard. The appeals taken by the litigants *Page 54 who are now before me, have not yet been reached. If complainants' appeal shall be fully successful, the tax is $18,452. This sum complainants have paid to the collector pursuant to R.S. 54:3-27. Based on the original assessment, the tax would be $30,814, and on the County Board's appraisal, $27,028, or $8,576 above the sum which complainants have paid. The collector of taxes has advertised the property for sale to raise the last named amount, $8,576 with interest and costs.
The defendants take the position that on July 1st, 1944, complainants' lands became subject to tax sale, despite the pendency of the appeals, R.S. 54:5-19, and that the collector has no discretion but to enforce the tax lien by sale before July 1st, 1945. Section 37. Jamoneau v. Murphy,
Payment, pending appeal, of the amount which will be due by the taxpayer if his appeal be sustained, is contemplated by the statute. R.S. 54:3-27. But payment beyond that amount is considered to be voluntary. Hahne Realty Co. v. Newark,
If the collector should proceed with the sale in the present situation, the City would lose any possible benefit from its own appeal, since the title of the purchaser would not be subject to any municipal liens except those recited in the certificate.R.S. 54:5-23. Chase v. Delaware Township,
It is true that the time schedule may be upset when acertiorari is granted to review the judgment of the State Board for the litigation may well continue beyond July 1st before which the collector is directed to enforce the tax lien. Normally, in the absence of statute, the writ has the effect of staying proceedings to collect the tax. Sewing Machine Co. v. StateBoard,
On the whole, I conclude that where the taxpayer has appealed to the State Board of Tax Appeals from the assessment against him, and has paid to the collector such portion of the tax as he would be required to pay were his appeal sustained, the collector is excused from collecting the balance of the tax until the appeal be decided. And Chancery should meanwhile prevent the clouding of the land title by a tax sale.
Let there be an injunction forbidding the sale until the Board renders its judgment. *Page 56