Court Opinion

ID: 9715809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:15:00.361579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:38.358626
License: Public Domain

PASHMAN, J.,
dissenting.
N.J.S.A. 18A:29-11 provides that any teacher who has served in the military “shall be entitled to receive equivalent years of employment credit for such service.” Petitioner Marjorie Lavin was not awarded such credit from the time she was hired in 1968 until 1978 when respondent awarded her the appropriate credit by order of the State Board. Respondent does not dispute that Lavin was improperly denied military credit to which she was entitled. As a result of this denial, she was paid $20,575 less than she should have received.
*156Lavin filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education seeking payment of the money due her. The only defenses raised were statute of limitations and laches. These are the two issues raised on this appeal. The majority concludes that the six-year contract statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1, does not apply but that petitioner is barred by laches from receiving any of the money improperly denied to her by respondent.- I differ with the majority’s resolution of both issues.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 provides a six-year limitation period for “recovery upon a contractual claim or liability, express or implied.” If petitioner’s claim is contractual, it is subject to the statute; if the claim is statutory, there is no applicable statute of limitations. Conceptually, the legal claim can be placed in either category: without either the contract or the statute, there would be no liability. However, this question has been definitively resolved by prior cases.
In Miller v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson Cty., 10 N.J. 398 (1952), the Court addressed a suit by a prison guard who alleged that he had been paid less than the statutory minimum wage. Construing the predecessor to the current limitations statute, the Court concluded that the suit was covered by the statute. The Miller Court explained:
[T]he present case is clearly within the rule of Ross v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Hudson, [90 N.J.L. 522 (E. & A. 1917)], under which doctrine the jail guards whose salaries are the basis of this action stand in a contractual relationship to the county, and the provisions of the statute constitute provisions of the contract of employment. [Id. at 410]
The majority seeks to distinguish Miller by arguing that only where the statutory benefits are “directly related to the employment service,” ante at 150, is the claim contractual. That distinction, however, finds no support in either the Miller decision or subsequent cases construing Miller. Rather, we held in *157State v. Atlantic City Electric Co., 23 N.J. 259 (1957), that the contract statute of limitations applies unless “the liability is dependent solely upon statutory provisions.” Id. at 270 (emphasis added). Further, three Appellate Division panels have held that the contract statute of limitations, as construed by Miller, applies to claims such as Lavin’s. Greenwald v. Bd. of Ed., City of Camden, A-1051-77 (App.Div.1978) (unpublished); Vitiello v. Bd. of Ed., City of Newark, A-4822-79 (App.Div.1981) (unpublished); Lavin v. Hackensack Bd. of Ed., 178 N.J.Super. 221 (App.Div.1981).
Nor do I understand the reasons underlying the majority’s imaginative interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 and Miller. The majority opinion does not explain why the relation between the statutorily imposed terms of Lavin’s contract and the services she performs bears any relevance to the desirability of applying the statute of limitations to her claim. Statutes of limitation “are based on the goals of achieving security and stability in human affairs and ensuring that cases are not tried on the basis of stale evidence.” Zaccardi v. Becker, 88 N.J. 245, 256 (1982); Galligan v. Westfield Centre Service, Inc., 82 N.J. 188, 191-92 (1980). It is not clear why these goals are any less important when the statutory benefits are not “directly related to the employment service.” Any claim by the majority that its resolution is based on strict construction of statutes of limitation would be wholly disingenuous in light of its aggressive use of the laches doctrine to deny petitioner’s claim in its entirety.
LACHES
I disagree with the majority’s application of the equitable doctrine of laches to the facts of this case. Perhaps more importantly, I am concerned about the wide and unprecedented scope the majority position gives to the laches doctrine. Laches has long been applied in an individualized manner in particular cases. Its availability has depended on weighing the peculiar *158facts of the case. The majority has transformed laches into an absolute defense against monetary damages for municipalities that disregard their statutory obligations to their employees. The majority pays mere lip service to the long established rule that laches requires a balancing of the equities on both sides, see ante at 152, citing Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, L.R., 5 P.C. 221, 239-40 (1874). Its wholesale approach to laches precludes such balancing.
The ultimate question is whether it is just to allow plaintiff to vindicate this particular legal claim. As in all equitable matters, that determination requires an examination of the conduct of both parties. Auciello v. Stauffer, 58 N.J.Super. 522 (App.Div.1959); Pierce v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 147 F.Supp. 934 (D.N.J.1957). “[T]he Court must consider the rights of each [party]—of plaintiff to obtain a remedy for an alleged wrong, of defendant not to be sued now, by one whose previous action, or inaction, has misled it. In other words, the court of equity must, as usual, balance ... the equities.” Pierce v. ITT, 147 F.Supp. at 937. The laches defense “depends upon the facts of the individual case.” Donnelly v. Ritzendollar, 14 N.J. 96, 107 (1953). It is a “question of fact to be determined from all the evidence and circumstances adduced at trial.” Dobbs, Remedies, § 2.3 at 43-44 n.19 (1973), quoting Lake Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Kojetinsky, 410 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1966).
The wholesale application of laches to all claims for retroactive military service credit payments in the summary manner sanctioned by the majority here totally belies these basic and long-standing premises. The Court took no evidence to determine why respondent failed to give petitioner the service credit to which she was entitled. Nor did the Court consider whether that failure was knowing and calculated. The Court did not consider how extensively respondent will be prejudiced by the necessity of paying Lavin’s statutory entitlement retroactively. How does the amount owed compare to respondent’s annual *159budget? Will taxes have to be raised? We do not know. Finally, the Court gave no thought to whether respondent’s particular duty as a municipality to obéy and enforce New Jersey statutes should affect the balance of equities. The only factor considered by the majority is that respondent is a municipality subject to the “cap” laws. This is not equity as I know it.
The majority’s rule allows municipalities to escape their statutory obligations simply by ignoring them. If they are caught, they are required to comply with their duties, but retroactive payment of the amounts withheld will never be required because of the hardship of the “cap” laws. By contrast, I believe that municipalities are subject to a greater duty, not a lesser duty, to apply New Jersey law.
Looking at the facts of this case, it appears that both parties were simply unaware of the military credit statute. Petitioner clearly did not knowingly delay her claim in order to injure respondent. Her error was innocent. I assume similarly that respondent did not knowingly deny petitioner her statutory entitlement. However, respondent is charged with knowledge of statutes it is legally obligated to apply. In equity especially, a government entity should not be allowed to hide behind its ignorance of New Jersey statutes binding upon it. As between petitioner, a layperson with no particular knowledge of education law, and respondent, a public entity bound to apply that law, respondent ought to bear the burden of their mutual neglect.
I understand the majority’s concern with the fiscal ramifications of allowing retroactive awards here. Ironically, those ramifications are increased dramatically by the majority’s erroneous construction of the statute of limitations. Applying the statute as I would, municipalities would be liable only for arrears dating six years- or less prior to the bringing of suit. The floodgates of unlimited municipal liability would not be *160open. In specific cases where hardship remains, equity would not be powerless to alleviate the problem. Perhaps, for example, after evidence showing special fiscal hardship, the retroactive payment could be ordered spread over several years. Such a result would be far more reasonable than denying redress altogether.
CONCLUSION
I would hold that the contract statute of limitations applies to military service credit claims, but that the laches defense should be rejected.1 Not only would this result be more consistent with New Jersey law, but it would effect a reasonable compromise between petitioner’s entitlement and respondent’s fiscal constraints. Limiting claims to six years and applying within those years a flexible equitable approach is much fairer than the majority’s unbending denial of all liability.
Justice CLIFFORD and Justice HANDLER join in this opinion.
For affirmance—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SCHREIBER, POLLOCK and O’HERN-4.
For reversal and remandment—Justices PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and HANDLER—3.

This result would in no way be inconsistent with our decision in Spiewak v. Bd. of Ed. of Rutherford, 90 N.J. 63 (1982). There, we ordered that our interpretation of the tenure act be applied prospectively only. We denied retroactive relief because respondents had relied on several Appellate Division decisions contrary to our holding. Here, by contrast, there is no “sharp break” in the law. The military service credit statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:29-11, is clear and unequivocal, and has not been materially changed since at least the 1950’s.
Laches, the issue here, was not raised in Spiewak.