GOODWILL HOME v. Garwood Borough

658 A.2d 1330, 281 N.J. Super. 596, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 202
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJune 14, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 658 A.2d 1330 (GOODWILL HOME v. Garwood Borough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
GOODWILL HOME v. Garwood Borough, 658 A.2d 1330, 281 N.J. Super. 596, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 202 (N.J. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

281 N.J. Super. 596 (1995)
658 A.2d 1330

GOODWILL HOME AND MISSIONS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GARWOOD BOROUGH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued January 10, 1995.
Decided June 14, 1995.

*598 Before Judges BRODY, ARNOLD M. STEIN and PAUL G. LEVY.

Susan A. Feeney argued the cause for appellant (McCarter & English, attorneys; Frank E. Ferruggia, of counsel; Ms. Feeney on the brief and reply letter brief).

Robert F. Renaud argued the cause for respondent (Palumbo & Renaud, attorneys; Mr. Renaud on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by ARNOLD M. STEIN, J.A.D.

The Borough of Garwood denied Goodwill Home and Missions, Inc. a real property exemption as a parsonage for the tax years 1991 and 1992. The property, a residence, was and is occupied by Reverend Lee Schmookler, its Executive Director/Pastor, and his family. The Union County Board of Taxation affirmed. The Tax Court affirmed the Board of Taxation. We reverse.

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 provides exemption from real property taxation for "buildings, not exceeding two, actually occupied as a parsonage by the officiating clergyman of any religious corporation of this State ... which is devoted to the purposes above mentioned and to no other purpose...."[1]

*599 The Tax Court judge ruled that Schmookler was not "an officiating clergyman." She said: "[T]he Reverend is not an officiating clergyman and therefore it follows that the Garwood property was not occupied, during the tax years in question, as a `parsonage' and it is unnecessary to determine whether Taxpayer is a `religious corporation', as such term is used in the statute."

Although she specifically said that she was not deciding the question, we read her opinion to conclude that Goodwill was not a religious corporation.

[W]hile the members of Taxpayer (i.e. its Board of Directors) must be members of "an evangelical church" none of them attend any religious services at Taxpayer's Newark Mission properties, nor are they members of the Taxpayer's congregation.... It is more reasonable to assume that the Taxpayer's congregation comes to and remains at the Newark Mission properties to partake of necessary human survival services provided there, than to practice their multiple religions.

The judge also considered as significant Goodwill's "failure" to maintain a parsonage from the time of its founding in 1897 until 1981. "It appears that Taxpayer functioned from 1897 until 1981 (when the Plainfield residence was acquired) with no parsonage. The record does not contain any evidence of a shift in the Taxpayer's multiple purposes such as might explain the necessity of two parsonages."

The guaranties of the Free Exercise Clause of the federal constitution and the religious freedom clauses of our State constitution restrict inquiry into what is an organized religion, who is a member of its clergy and what constitutes a "congregation" of a religious body. U.S. Const. amend. I; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶¶ 3 and 4.

In Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33, rehearing denied, 457 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1323 (1982), the United States Supreme Court said:

The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another....
....
This constitutional prohibition of denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause. Madison once noted that "Security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. *600 It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests and in the other in the multiplicity of sects." ... Madison's vision — freedom for all religion being guaranteed by free competition between religions — naturally assumed that every denomination would be equally at liberty to exercise and propagate its beliefs. But such equality would be impossible in an atmosphere of official denominational preference. Free exercise thus can be guaranteed only when legislators — and voters — are required to accord to their own religions the very same treatment given to small, new, or unpopular denominations. As Justice Jackson noted in another context, "there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally." Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112, 93 L.Ed. 533, 69 S.Ct. 463 (1949) (opinion concurring).
[456 U.S. at 244-46, 102 S.Ct. at 1683-84, 72 L.Ed.2d at 47-48.]

In Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981), Justice Burger, writing for the majority, observed:

The determination of what is a "religious" belief or practice is more often than not a difficult and delicate task.... However, the resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment Protection.
[450 U.S. at 714, 101 S.Ct. at 1430, 67 L.Ed.2d at 631.]

Goodwill's restated certificate, filed in 1971, sets forth its stated purposes

shall be to minister to the spiritual and material needs of men, women and children by conducting religious services, disseminating religious literature and materials, providing for the physical welfare of needy persons, operating an agency for the adoption of children and for foster care, salvaging used goods and repairing same for resale and use, and, in general, performing any other religious and charitable works not inconsistent with the provisions of this Certificate of Incorporation.

The bylaws list the objectives of the organization:

a. To minister to the spiritual and material needs of men, women and children and to "preach good tidings to the poor and to proclaim release to the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised."
b. To conduct preaching services and Bible study classes, to conduct the Goodwill Bible Institute, to disseminate Christian literature and materials, to provide for the physical welfare of needy persons, to operate an agency for the adoption of children and for foster care, salvage used goods and repair same for resale and use and in general perform any other Christian and charitable work not inconsistent with the doctrinal statement of the Mission.

*601 The members of the corporation are the corporate directors, consisting of not less than ten nor more than twenty-one persons. Although the members-directors must "be born again members of an evangelical church[,]" they need not be of any particular Christian denomination. Each director-member is required to sign a statement of faith, consisting of several articles pledging a commitment to specific Christian principles.

Goodwill conducts its activities in three buildings in Newark. The main building is located at 79 University Avenue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mesivta Ohr Torah Lakewood v. Township of Lakewood
24 N.J. Tax 314 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2008)
Our Lady of Ephesus House of Prayer, Inc. v. Town of Jamaica
2005 VT 16 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2005)
Temple Emanu-El v. Englewood City
21 N.J. Tax 462 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2004)
Congregation Ahavath Torah v. Englewood City
21 N.J. Tax 318 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2004)
Wazeerud-Din v. GOODWILL MISSIONS
737 A.2d 683 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. City of East Orange
17 N.J. Tax 298 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1998)
Friends of Ahi Ezer Congregation, Inc. v. City of Long Branch
16 N.J. Tax 591 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
658 A.2d 1330, 281 N.J. Super. 596, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwill-home-v-garwood-borough-njsuperctappdiv-1995.