H N Realty Inc v. Township of South Brunswick

CourtNew Jersey Tax Court
DecidedOctober 2, 2025
Docket006141-2025
StatusUnpublished

This text of H N Realty Inc v. Township of South Brunswick (H N Realty Inc v. Township of South Brunswick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
H N Realty Inc v. Township of South Brunswick, (N.J. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

------------------------------------------------------x H N REALTY INC., : : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, : DOCKET NO: 006141-2025 : v. : : TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK, : : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------x

Decided September 30, 2025.

Joseph E. Bock, Jr. for plaintiff (Spiotti & Associates, P.C., attorneys).

Frederick L. Rubenstein for defendant (Shah & Rubenstein, LLC, attorneys).

CIMINO, J.T.C.

I. INTRODUCTION

Taxpayer, H N Realty Inc., is the owner of a property designated as Block

348, Lot 29.02 on the tax maps of the municipality of South Brunswick Township.

The municipality seeks to limit taxpayer’s 2025 tax appeal to a reasonableness

hearing for failing to respond to a Chapter 91 request for income and expense

information. Previously, the court limited taxpayer’s 2024 appeal to a

reasonableness hearing for failing to respond to a prior Chapter 91 request. After a January 3, 2025, reasonableness hearing in which the principal of the taxpayer

testified, the court dismissed the 2024 appeal.

As to the 2025 appeal, the taxpayer received the assessor’s Chapter 91 request

by certified mail on August 28, 2024, and did not respond. Apparently realizing that

the 2025 appeal may suffer the same fate as the 2024 appeal, taxpayer contacted the

assessor’s office on January 3, 2025, asking for another copy of the Chapter 91

request. In response, the assessor’s office emailed the Chapter 91 request the same

day. In the email, the assessor’s office instructed the taxpayer to “Please complete

the enclosed 2023 Annual Statement of income and expenses forms and return to

us.” The assessor’s office attached the Chapter 91 request taxpayer received on

August 28, 2024. The bottom of the request indicated “As prescribed by law,

PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 45 DAYS OF REQUEST.” On January 6, 2025, the

taxpayer returned the completed form and indicated “Please confirm this will count

as on time for the previous year as discussed over the phone?” The deadline for the

tax assessor to file the assessment list with the county board was January 10, 2025.

N.J.S.A. 54:4-35(a).

Taxpayer filed a complaint challenging its assessment on March 29, 2025.

The municipality filed a motion to limit taxpayer’s appeal for failure to answer the

initial Chapter 91 request. Taxpayer contends that it answered the subsequent

2 request in good faith, expecting the tax appeal to go forward. Based upon the square

corners doctrine, this court now holds that taxpayer’s action can go forward.

II. WHAT IS CHAPTER 91?

New Jersey has long required taxpayers to “account” for their real property.

See, e.g., Acts of the Gen. A. of the Province of N.J. ch. 111, § 4 (John Kinsey

1732); L. 1798, c. 805, § 1; Rev. 1846 tit. 35, ch. 1, § 1; L. 1903, c. 208, § 8; L.

1918, c. 236, § 403; R.S. 54:4-34 (1937). Legislation in 1960 expanded the

accounting to explicitly include income generated. L. 1960, c. 51, § 29. By

gathering and analyzing income information, an assessor should be able to reach

more accurate assessments.

As the statute existed prior to 1979, the taxpayer had no incentive to provide

information. “[T]he property owner [was] not subject to any penalty for not

disclosing property income information.” S. Revenue, Fin. & Appropriations

Comm. Statement to S. 309 (Jan. 26, 1978). The Legislature had a “problem” with

a “property owner . . . free to appeal the assessment, notwithstanding his refusal to

provide information which would . . . affect[] the valuation, and, perhaps, avoid[]

the appeal from the assessment.” Ibid. “Further . . . the assessor [had] no access to

information on which the appellant [was] basing his appeal and thus the assessor

[was] unprepared to testify in argument to the appellant’s representations.” Ibid. If

a taxpayer could withhold information until the time of appeal, the assessor would

3 be “required either to prepare a second valuation of the property – a tremendous

waste of valuable time and resources – or to defend the original valuation on the

taxpayer’s appeal.” Ocean Pines, Ltd. v. Borough of Point Pleasant, 112 N.J. 1, 7

(1988).

To remedy this problem, the Legislature adopted Chapter 91 in 1979 to limit

an appeal when a taxpayer ignores a request for income information. L. 1979, c. 91.

In relevant part, N.J.S.A. 54:4-34, as amended by Chapter 91, now reads:

Every owner of real property of the taxing district shall, on written request of the assessor, made by certified mail, render a full and true account of his name and real property and the income therefrom, in the case of income- producing property, . . . and if he shall fail or refuse to respond to the written request of the assessor within 45 days of such request, . . . the assessor shall value his property at such amount as he may, from any information in his possession or available to him, reasonably determine to be the full and fair value thereof. No appeal shall be heard from the assessor's valuation and assessment with respect to income-producing property where the owner has failed or refused to respond to such written request for information within 45 days of such request . . . . In making such written request for information pursuant to this section the assessor shall enclose therewith a copy of this section.

[N.J.S.A. 54:4-34 (emphasis added).]

The assessor has three obligations when sending a Chapter 91 request,

namely, “(1) the letter must include a copy of the text of the statute; (2) it must be

sent by certified mail to the owner of the property; and (3) it must spell out the

4 consequences of failure to comply with the assessor's demand, namely a bar to the

taxpayer's taking of an appeal from its assessment.” 1 Southland Corp. v. Township

of Dover, 21 N.J. Tax 573, 578 (Tax 2004). See also Thirty Mazel LLC v. City of

East Orange, 24 N.J. Tax 357, 362 (Tax 2009); Fairfield Dev. v. Borough of Totawa,

27 N.J. Tax 306, 308 (Tax 2013).

If the taxpayer fails to respond to a municipality’s written request for

information within forty-five days, an appeal “is limited in its scope to the

reasonableness of the valuation based upon the data available to the assessor . . . .

Encompassed within this inquiry are (1) the reasonableness of the underlying data

used by the assessor, and (2) the reasonableness of the methodology used by the

assessor in arriving at the valuation.” Ocean Pines, 112 N.J. at 11. Thus, failing to

respond to a Chapter 91 request sharply limits a tax appeal to what is commonly

known as a reasonableness hearing.

“A reasonableness hearing . . . does not include plenary proofs as to the value

of the property under appeal but only proofs as to whether the assessment imposed

by the assessor was reasonable ‘in light of the data available to the assessor at the

time of valuation.’” Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Heights, 24

N.J. Tax 297, 308 (Tax 2008) (quoting Ocean Pines, 112 N.J. at 11). “[T]he taxpayer

1 As to spelling out the consequences, there is some disagreement. Town of Phillipsburg v. ME Realty, LLC, 26 N.J. Tax 57, 69 n.11 (Tax 2011); James-Dale Enters., Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Heights, 26 N.J. Tax 117, 124-25 (Tax 2011). 5 is precluded on appeal from expanding the record beyond the information available

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

Related

Ocean Pines, Ltd. v. Borough of Point Pleasant
547 A.2d 691 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1988)
W v. Pangborne & Co. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation
562 A.2d 222 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989)
Buonviaggio v. Hillsborough Township Committee
583 A.2d 739 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1991)
New Concepts for Living v. Hackensack
870 A.2d 697 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2005)
F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains
495 A.2d 1313 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1985)
Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic
495 A.2d 1308 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1985)
CBS Outdoor v. Lebanon Plan. Bd.
999 A.2d 1151 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2010)
H.J. Bailey Co. v. Neptune Township
944 A.2d 706 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2008)
Campbell Soup Co. v. City of Camden
16 N.J. Tax 219 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1996)
Gastime, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
20 N.J. Tax 158 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2002)
Southland Corp. v. Dover Township
21 N.J. Tax 573 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2004)
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Berkeley Heights Township
24 N.J. Tax 297 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2008)
Thirty Mazel, LLC v. City of East Orange
24 N.J. Tax 357 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2009)
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. City of Millville
25 N.J. Tax 591 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2010)
Town of Phillipsburg v. ME Realty, LLC
26 N.J. Tax 57 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2011)
James-Dale Enterprises, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Heights
26 N.J. Tax 117 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2011)
Fairfield Dev v. Totowa Borough
27 N.J. Tax 306 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2013)
J & J Realty Co. v. Township of Wayne
22 N.J. Tax 157 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2005)
Clinton Fountain Motel, L.P. v. Clinton Township
18 N.J. Tax 486 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
H N Realty Inc v. Township of South Brunswick, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-n-realty-inc-v-township-of-south-brunswick-njtaxct-2025.