Court Opinion

ID: 9942966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 15:07:46.758622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:38.870103
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
                           THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

                                    TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

                                                                                     210 South Broad Street, Fifth Floor
MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN                                                                    Trenton, New Jersey 08608
        JUDGE                                                                            609 815-2922, Ext. 54560
                                                                                            Fax: 609 815-3079

                                            January 19, 2024

   Rodman E. Honecker
   Attorney for Plaintiff
   WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP
   120 Albany Street Plaza
   New Brunswick, NJ 08901

   William J. Maslo, Esq.,
   Attorney for Defendant
   Law Division
   CITY OF JERSEY CITY
   280 Grove Street
   Jersey City, NJ 07302

   Via ECourts

           RE:     75 JERSEY CITY, L.L.C. V CITY OF JERSEY CITY
                   Docket Nos.: 003415- 2022

   Dear Counsellors:

       This letter opinion sets forth the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on Plaintiff’s

   R. 4:25-8 motion for an Order enforcing litigant’s rights and compelling Jersey City to comply

   with the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement. R. 1:10-3. For the reasons explained below, the court

   grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel payment of the 2022 tax refund as well as any interest accrued

   pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2 but denies Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs related

   to the filing of this motion.
   I.      Background and Procedural History

   75 Jersey City, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed four direct tax appeals with the Tax Court of New Jersey

(years 2019 to 2022) in connection with the assessment of real property it owns in Jersey City,

more specifically identified as 75 Montgomery Street (Block 14301, Lot 7) (“the Property”). A

2023 tax appeal was filed with the Hudson County Board of Taxation for tax year 2023 and was

not part of the Tax Court filings.

   After a culmination of negotiations, on August 4, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of

Settlement with the court in resolution of Plaintiff’s pending 2019 through 2022 tax appeals.

Plaintiff agreed to withdraw its appeals for tax years 2019 through 2021 and would receive a

reduction in the assessment for the 2022 tax year. The Stipulation of Settlement required payment

within sixty (60) days of the date of Judgment. The Stipulation also addressed proposed relief for

the 2023 and 2024 assessments.

   On August 7, 2023, the Court entered Judgment in accordance with the parties’ Stipulation of

Settlement. Payment of the 2022 refund was due sixty (60) days thereafter, which was October 6,

2023. Jersey City issued the agreed-upon refund for the 2023 tax year (totaling $53,069.65) and

applied the tax refund for 2024 in the form of a quarterly adjustment. However, Plaintiffs refund

for the 2022 tax year (approximately $53,069.65) to date has not been paid.

   Plaintiff filed this motion, pursuant to R. 1.10-3, in aid of litigant’s rights to enforce the

settlement agreement and to compel Jersey City to issue the 2022 tax refund. Plaintiff also requests

accrued interest and reasonable attorney fees.

   The motion is unopposed.

                                                 2
   II.      Legal Analysis

   The issue presented to this court is whether Jersey City is in breach of the terms of the

Stipulation of Settlement, and whether Jersey City owes Plaintiff statutory interest on the 2022 tax

refund, as well as attorney fees and costs for the filing of the motion.

         Plaintiff requests the court grant three items in its motion: (1) to compel payment of the

refund due for the 2022 tax year; (2) for Plaintiff to receive accrued and unpaid interest on the

2022 refund pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2, with interest accruing for the period beginning

October 6, 2023 up until the refund is received; and (3) for Plaintiff to receive an award of

reasonable attorney fees and costs for having to make this motion to the court.

Compel Compliance of Parties’ Stipulation of Settlement

         The fully executed Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the court on August 7, 2023,

and is legally binding on both parties. That document provides for a reduction in Plaintiff’s tax

assessment for 2022 tax year, resulting in a tax refund to be paid to Plaintiff against past tax

payments. The manner of payment for those refunds is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Stipulation

of Settlement.

         Paragraph 4 provides:

                 All refunds as a result of the settlement set forth herein shall be
                 payable to and forwarded to ‘75 Jersey City, L.L.C.’ within sixty
                 (60) days of the date of Judgment.
         As the 2022 tax refund was not received within the sixty (60) day period set forth in the

Stipulation of Settlement, Plaintiff is entitled to, and the court will issue, an Order compelling

payment of the 2022 tax refund.

                                                  3
Accrued and Unpaid Interests Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2

        Plaintiff argues Jersey City’s failure to pay the agreed 2022 refund results in the

implementation of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2, which requires 5% accrued interest on tax refunds not

issued sixty (60) days from the day of Judgment. The pertinent part of the statute is as follows:

                In the event that a taxpayer is successful in an appeal from an
                assessment on real property, the respective taxing district shall refund
                any excess taxes paid, together with interest thereon from the date of
                payment at a rate of five percent per annum or one percentage point
                above the prime rate assessed for each month or fraction thereof,
                compounded annually at the end of each year, from the date the tax
                originally was due or paid, whichever date is later, until the date of
                actual payment, whichever interest rate is lesser…”

                [N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2]

        Although the Stipulation of Settlement is silent on the application of the statute, the Tax

Court has held that N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2 applies to any taxpayer who “is successful in an appeal

from an assessment on real property,” including “cases which have been settled.” Waterview

Village-Community Realty Mgt v. Ventnor City, 4 N.J. Tax 262, 267 (Tax 1982). The Tax Court

has referred to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2 as the “default rule” which applies whether or not a stipulation

of settlement makes direct reference to the statute. Dickerson v. Town, 31 N.J. Tax 541, 559 (Tax

2020). Parties, however, may agree to waive the default statutory interest through the language of

their stipulation of settlement. Id.

        Since the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement does not expressly waive statutory interest, the

default rule applies, and Plaintiff is entitled to accrued and unpaid interest pursuant to N.J.S.A.

54:3-27.2.

                                                  4
Attorney Fees and Costs

           Plaintiff also seeks to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with the filing of

this motion. The court is unpersuaded that Jersey City’s actions rise to a level to permit reasonable

attorney fees to be paid to Plaintiff.

           Rule 1:10-3 provides for a mechanism for relief when a litigant's preexisting court-ordered

rights have been violated. N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. State, 451 N.J. Super. 282, 296, (App. Div.

2017). It permits the “court in its discretion make an allowance for counsel fees to be paid by any

party to the action to a party accorded relief under this rule.” R. 1:10-3. The Appellate Division

has found that such relief “is not for the purpose of punishment, but is a coercive measure to

facilitate the enforcement of the court order.” Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373, 381, (App.

Div. 1997). The particular manner in which compliance may be sought is “left to the court's sound

discretion.” Id.

           Plaintiff admits that Jersey City has paid the 2023 tax refund of $53,069.65, as well as the

2024 tax refund in the form of a tax credit. Unlike the situation where a municipality did not issue

any tax refund and yet sought to vacate the court’s judgment via motion, here Defendant has

already issued the majority of the tax refunds according to the agreement between the parties with

only the 2022 tax refund to be forthcoming. Jersey City is not seeking to vacate the Stipulation of

Settlement, and it has not opposed this motion. Given Jersey City’s partial compliance with its

negotiated settlement with Plaintiff, through issuance of the 2023 and 2024 tax refunds, the court

finds attorney’s fees are not needed to facilitate enforcement of the 2022 Judgment.

    III.      Conclusion

    The court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part and denies in part. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion

to compel Jersey City to pay the refund due to Plaintiff for the 2022 tax year, and to pay Plaintiff

                                                    5
the entitled statutory interest pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2 with interest accruing from the period

October 6, 2023, until the date of payment. The court, however, denies attorney fees and related

costs associates with this motion.

                                                              /s/ Mary Siobhan Brennan
                                                              Hon. Mary Siobhan Brennan, J.T.C.

                                                  6