STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JIHAD BASSITÂ (08-10-3194, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1435-15T2
LESLIE P. BAHLER,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CHINH LY,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
Submitted February 13, 2017 – Decided March 2, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino and Nugent.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Special Civil Part, Union
County, Docket No. SC-1283-15.
Chinh Ly, appellant pro se.
Leslie P. Bahler, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Chinh Ly appeals from the Special Civil Part's
decision following a November 17, 2015 trial. The court determined
that he owes $859 in a homestead property tax credit, plus $42 in
court costs, to plaintiff Leslie P. Bahler. We affirm.
The record reflects that Ly purchased a home from Bahler in
Berkeley Heights. The closing of that sale took place in January
2015. Prior to the closing, Bahler, a senior citizen, had filed
a homestead rebate application for calendar year 2012 with the
Division of Taxation. The lawyers for the buyer and seller at the
real estate closing did not specify an allocation of the
anticipated homestead rebate credit, and the matter thus was left
unaddressed. Later in 2015, Ly1 received the homestead tax rebate
approved by the Division of Taxation as a credit on his property
tax bill because he was at that point a current owner.
Bahler requested Ly to pay him the amount of the approved
rebate. Ly refused, asserting that the sum should have been
allocated to Bahler by his attorney at closing if he wanted the
rebate. Since the lawyer did not do so, Ly claims he is entitled
to the credit as a current property owner. Bahler disagreed, and
sued Ly in the Small Claims Section of the Special Civil Part to
recover the amount.2
1
The property tax bill reproduced in the appendix lists a co-
owner with Ly. That individual is not a party to this litigation.
Ly did not argue in the trial court that plaintiff Bahler failed
to name an indispensable party, see Rule 4:28-1, and the co-owner
did not move to intervene.
2
The Division of Taxation declined to get involved in the dispute,
noting in response to emails from Ly that it was a matter for the
previous and current property owner to "work out."
2 A-1435-15T2
After hearing the testimony of the two parties, Judge John
M. Deitch agreed with Bahler that Ly must pay him the rebate
amount. The judge found that allowing Ly to keep it would be a
windfall and a form of unjust enrichment. We agree.
The homestead rebate statute, N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.59, makes clear
that eligibility for a homestead rebate does not hinge solely upon
an applicant's status as an owner of residential property in this
State. Rather, eligibility depends on several characteristics of
the applicant, including whether he or she is a senior citizen
sixty-five years of age or older, or is allowed to claim a personal
tax deduction as a blind or disabled taxpayer. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-
8.59(b)(1). In addition, the calculated amount of the rebate
depends upon on the level of the claimant's gross income. See
N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.59(a)-(b). Other personal characteristics of the
claimant also can affect entitlement to and the amount of the
rebate. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.59(c)-(e), see also N.J.A.C. 18:29-
2.1 (noting that homestead rebate eligibility depends upon the
"age and income" requirements expressed in the taxation statutes).
The amount the applicant actually paid in taxes also impacts the
amount of the rebate. N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.59(a).
Ly does not claim that he is a senior citizen or otherwise
has the personal characteristics of an individual eligible for a
homestead rebate under N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.59. He further does not
3 A-1435-15T2
claim he paid the property taxes in 2012. Instead, his argument
to retain the rebate amount is based upon the mere fact that he
was a record owner of the property at the time the rebate,
previously applied for by Bahler, was approved administratively
by the Division of Taxation.
It definitely would have been preferable for the attorneys
at the real estate closing to have negotiated or specified who was
to retain the anticipated rebate. Even so, their failure to do
so does not preclude the trial court from equitably determining
which party has a greater entitlement to the amount, in the absence
of such agreement.
We concur with the trial judge that principles of unjust
enrichment favor Bahler's claim to the rebate that he had applied
for originally when he owned the house, having filed an application
based upon his personal characteristics. Unjust enrichment is an
appropriate remedy, particularly in matters involving real estate,
where there is "no express contract providing for remuneration."
Caputo v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 300 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 463 (1997); see also Heim v. Shore,
56 N.J. Super. 62, 74-75 (App. Div. 1959) (applying principles of
unjust enrichment in a real estate context).
In addition, we endorse the trial court's application of
sound equitable principles in this case by affording relief to
4 A-1435-15T2
Bahler. Equitable recovery has been allowed "'in a variety of
situations upon varied theories [including] the equitable maxim
that he who seeks equity must do equity[.]'" Twp. of Middletown
v. Simon, 193 N.J. 228, 244 (2008) (quoting Twp. of Brick v.
Vannell, 55 N.J. Super. 583, 594 (App. Div. 1959)).
Affirmed.
5 A-1435-15T2