TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Kathi F. Fiamingo 120 High Street Judge Mount Holly, NJ 08060 Tel: (609) 288-9500 EXT 38303
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
October 16, 2017
Michael Rienzi, Esq. McCarter & English, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102
Anthony Marchese, Esq. Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052
Re: Robert J. O’Shea and Michele K. O’Shea v. Wyckoff Township Docket Nos. 006761-2012, 000121-2014, 008317-2015 677 Charnwood Drive, LLC v. Wyckoff Township Docket No. 004793-2016
Counsel:
This letter constitutes the court’s opinion after trial in the above-referenced matter
challenging the 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016 tax year assessments on plaintiffs’ single-family
residence. The 2013 tax year assessment was not appealed. After reviewing the evidence
presented, the court finds that both plaintiffs’ and defendant’s sales approaches are unreliable and
must be rejected. The court further rejects defendant’s cost approach for the reasons more fully
expressed herein. The subject property, while high-end with many extraordinary features, is not
so opulent or grand that comparable sales are nonexistent and thus the court rejects defendant’s
argument that the sales approach is inapplicable and only the cost approach may be applied. Neither party presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the assessments under review were
erroneous. As a result, the assessments for each of the years under review are affirmed and
plaintiffs’ complaints are dismissed.
I. Procedural History and Factual Findings
The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the
evidence and testimony offered at trial in this matter.
Robert J. O’Shea and Michele K. O’Shea were the owners of a single-family residence
located at 677 Charnwood Drive, Township of Wyckoff, County of Bergen and State of New
Jersey for tax years 2012 through 2015. The property is identified on the tax map of the Township
of Wyckoff as Block 421, Lot 72.01 (the “subject property”). In 2016, the subject property was
owned by 677 Charnwood Drive, LLC, a limited liability of which Robert and Michele O’Shea
were the sole owners. The O’Sheas and 677 Charnwood Drive LLC will be referred to herein
collectively as plaintiffs.
The subject property consists of 1.80 acres and the improvements described herein. Prior
to 2009 the O’Sheas purchased three building lots, one of which was improved with a partially
built residence. After purchasing the lots, the O’Sheas applied for and received approval to reverse
the previously granted subdivision in order to combine the three lots into one building lot. The
O’Sheas demolished the partially constructed residence and built the residence currently existing
on the subject property.
The subject property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, adjacent to a now closed golf
course, which is scheduled for development into 275 dwelling units including both single family
and town home units. The subject property is located at the southwestern most corner of Wyckoff,
adjacent to Franklin Lakes.
2 The completed improvement consists of a 12,407 square foot single-family residence
(exclusive of the basement area) completed in 2009. The first floor of the home features a two-
story foyer with a domed, stained glass ceiling, a dining room and first floor den/office, both with
coffered ceilings, kitchen and breakfast nook with tray ceilings, butler’s pantry including a wine
closet and service sink, great room/family room, entertainment room with beamed ceiling, game
and billiards room, mud room, laundry room, and storage room. The second floor contains the
master bedroom suite with office area, master bathroom and his and her walk-in closets, four
additional bedrooms, second laundry room, and “meditation” room. On the third floor, there is a
712 square foot home theatre. The basement contains an additional 5,121 square feet of finished
space featuring a gym, entertainment rooms, temperature controlled wine cellar, and the
mechanicals for the home, including state-of-the-art “smart” technology. The main home includes
seven full bathrooms and three half bathrooms. Attached to the main house is a three-car garage
and porte-cochere for a fourth vehicle. In addition, the grounds include a tennis court, an infinity
pool and a pool house/cabana containing a full kitchen and full bathroom and sitting/entertainment
area. The pool is surrounded by a stone/paved lounge area, including a grill area and several
seating areas. The grounds are well appointed with manicured landscaping. The driveway and
parking areas feature patterned paving materials. The home has many luxury features and is
finished with high-end materials throughout.
For the 2012 tax year, the subject property was assessed as follows:
Land: 1,812,500 Improvements: 8,449,800 Total 10,262,300
For the 2014 tax year, the subject property was assessed as follows:
Land: 1,812,500 Improvements: 4,187,500 Total 6,000,000
3 The Township of Wyckoff engaged in a revaluation for tax year 2015. As a result of that
revaluation, the assessment for tax years 2015 and 2016 was:
Land: 2,118,800 Improvements: 4,006,300 Total 6,125,100
Plaintiff timely filed Complaints in the Tax Court challenging the assessments on the
subject property. The municipality did not file counterclaims in any of the years. The matters
were tried to conclusion. Each party offered the testimony of a State of New Jersey certified
general real estate appraiser, both of whom were accepted without objection as experts in the field
of real estate valuation (the “plaintiff’s expert” and the “defendant’s expert” respectively). Both
experts prepared an appraisal report, which were each admitted into evidence without objection.
The experts’ conclusions as to value were as follows:
Value Date Plaintiffs’ Conclusion Defendant’s Conclusion
October 1, 2011 $3,500,000 $11,605,000 October 1, 2013 $3,250,000 $11,809,000 October 1, 2014 $3,000,000 $11,863,000 October 1, 2015 $3,000,000 $11,840,000
Plaintiffs also offered testimony from the Township of Wyckoff Tax Assessor.
II. Plaintiffs’ Valuation Evidence
Plaintiff first called the municipal assessor as a fact witness. The assessor indicated that,
in general, the homes on Charnwood Drive are very well built and well appointed, averaging
approximately 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. There are approximately one dozen homes in the
neighborhood in excess of 5,000 square feet. The assessor testified that the 2012 assessment for
the subject property was based on the cost approach; the 2014 assessment was reduced because of
a “negotiated settlement” in which the assessor did not participate. The 2015 assessment was set
4 as a result of a revaluation performed by Realty Appraisal Company, which was carried forward
for the 2016 tax year.
Plaintiff’s expert testified that he personally inspected the subject property. He described
the home as an 11,867 square foot single family residence with five bedrooms, seven full baths
and three powder rooms. He remarked that in looking at hundreds of sales in the surrounding area,
his research showed that “at a certain point in this market, it just becomes a large home.” Thus, in
his opinion, the subject property is a five-bedroom home that is approximately 12,000 square feet.
Although there is a lot of square footage, there are “not a lot of rooms.” He acknowledged that
the property owner spent a lot of money constructing the home and that it was a beautiful home,
however, he determined that the subject property and its amenities were “pretty typical” of the
market. He noted that the third floor was essentially a 700 square foot finished attic containing
the media room; a feature he contended was included in all of the comparable sales he reviewed.
He described the second floor as containing five bedrooms and a playroom/yoga room. The expert
noted there was a finished basement which was similar to comparable properties, with a basement
wine cellar. He further noted the tennis court, the in-ground pool and the cabana. The expert
testified that in the area the amenities, such as swimming pools, wine cellars, media rooms and
home offices were “typical”.
He described the extensive landscaping as not an amenity, but more like a “cost to cure” to
limit the noise from Sycomac Avenue, and to shelter the subject property from the adjacent golf
course.
The expert concluded that the highest and best use of the subject property was its current
use as a single family home. After considering the three approaches to valuation (sales approach,
income approach and the cost approach), he concluded that the most appropriate valuation method
was the sales comparison approach. He deemed the cost approach not applicable because it was
5 not used by market participants of single family homes and because “[r]egardless of how much
the property owner paid for the land and his costs to improve the property . . . cost does not equate
to value.” He acknowledged that the plaintiffs purchased the land upon which the home was built
for $4,000,000 and spent approximately $7,000,000 to construct the home, however, in the expert’s
opinion the property was “over-improved.” The expert deemed the sales approach the most
reliable method to find market value.
In choosing his comparables for the sales approach, the expert testified that he used a
combination of the Garden State Multiple Listing Service (GSMLS), the New Jersey Multiple
Listing Service (NJMLS) and a number of other data sources to identify potential sales. He also
“Googled” the sale of high-end homes in the area and various realtor sites and correlated them
with the listing services he identified.
The expert testified that he did not consider any sales of homes under 7,000 square feet.
He also determined that at the point of homes of 8,000 to 10,000 square feet, the “market stops
looking at the size” and instead looks at the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. That is, a buyer
will not pay more for a home simply because the rooms the buyer wants are “larger”. Furthermore,
where there is an excess of bedrooms and bathrooms, they too will be overlooked. According to
the expert, the market looks at amenities offered in high-end homes, however, in this regard, it will
not reward the inclusion of excess amenities. The expert also testified that the market will reward
a large lot, but the larger homes are on approximately 2-acre lots so that the subject property was
compliant with that observation.
The expert testified that he verified each of the comparable sales with a participant in the
transaction. He also inspected the exterior of each comparable sale property. He was unable to
inspect the interior of the comparable sales properties, but reviewed pictures of the interiors which
were used in marketing them.
6 October 1, 2011 Valuation Date
The expert searched for sales of single family detached residences containing more than
7,000 square feet of gross living area in Wyckoff and “Comparable Municipalities” built within
ten years of the valuation date which sold within 12 months of the valuation date. The expert
located sales of property in Wyckoff in the time period, but disregarded them because the homes
were 5,000 to 6,000 square feet and he determined that they were not truly comparable. After an
extensive search, the search parameters were adjusted to include residences under 10,000 square
feet and more than 10 years old. The expert identified four sales, all in Saddle River, as comparable
sales for the 2012 Tax Year.
These properties ranged in size from approximately 8,400 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
Each of the homes had at least six bedrooms and with the exception of comparable sale two, had
amenities which the expert felt were comparable to that of the subject property (for example,
theatres, gyms, wine cellars, pools). The expert made a downward adjustment of 10% to each of
the comparable sales due to their location in Saddle River. In addition, the expert made an upward
10% adjustment to comparable sale two to account for its inferior amenities1. He made no
adjustment for the size or gross living area of any of the comparable sales, although the largest, at
10,000 square feet was still approximately 20% smaller than the subject property and the smallest
at 8,382 square feet was approximately 30% smaller than the subject property.
With respect to the location adjustment, the expert testified that the sale prices for homes
in Saddle River for all tax years averaged $2,000,000, while the average sale price for homes in
1 Comparable Sale Two at 8,400 square feet was described as having six bedrooms, five full and 2 ½ baths with a four car attached garage. No other amenities were noted.
7 Wyckoff was $750,000. 2 Acknowledging the nearly 300% difference in average sales prices
between the two communities, he determined that a 10% adjustment was “reasonable.”
The expert noted that although comparable sale two did not have similar amenities, it had
the higher-end finishes and qualities of the subject property and the 10% adjustment ($365,000)
would permit for the addition of amenities. He provided no estimates of costs, nor did he indicate
what amenities could be constructed with the adjustment provided.
The unadjusted sales prices for the comparable sales ranged from a low of $3,030,000 to a
high of $4,400,000. Although the home commanding the lowest price was built more than two
decades prior to the subject property in 1987, the expert made no adjustment for age. The adjusted
sales prices ranged from $2,727,000 to $3,960,000. The expert concluded a value of $3,500,000
for the subject property as of October 1, 2011.
October 1, 2013 Valuation Date
For the 2014 tax year, the expert again searched for sales of single family detached
residences in Wyckoff and “Comparable Municipalities” of more than 7,000 square feet, built
within ten years of the valuation date which sold within 12 months of the valuation date. Again
the expert was required to adjust the search parameters to include residences under 10,000 square
feet and more than 10 years old. The expert identified six sales as comparable sales for the 2014
tax year.
Three of the comparable sales were located in Saddle River and three were located in the
adjacent community of Franklin Lakes. Three of the homes contained less than 8,100 square feet.
The expert made a positive 5% adjustment for each of these comparable sales to account for their
“inferior dwelling size.” The expert did not provide any explanation or support for how he reached
2 To support his average sale price determination he provided a grid of Average Residential Sales Price issued by the State of New Jersey Division of Taxation for each of the years under review.
8 the amount of 5% to account for this adjustment. Nor did the expert explain why these homes at
7,596, 7,834 and 8,097 square feet required a size adjustment, while comparable sale two in the
prior year did not require any adjustment at 8,382 square feet. The remaining three comparable
sales were similar in size to the subject property (12,000 to 12,600 square feet).
To the three comparable sales located in Saddle River, the expert made a negative 10%
adjustment based on the average sales prices of Saddle River compared to Wyckoff as he had done
in the prior valuation year. To the homes located in Franklin Lakes, the expert made an adjustment
of negative 5% to account for the subject’s inferior location, explaining that the average sales
prices in Franklin Lakes were $1,150,000 to $1,200,000 compared to Wyckoff’s average of
$750,000. Again, other than referring to the average sales prices for the communities, the expert
did not provide any explanation as to how the -5% adjustment was reached.
One of the comparable sale properties contained 4.0 acres, or roughly twice the acreage of
the subject property, for which the expert made a negative 5% adjustment. A second comparable
sale contained 1.16 acres, for which the expert made a positive 5% adjustment. Other than noting
the “superior” or “inferior” lot size as compared to the subject property, the expert provided no
basis for determining when the adjustment would be made, or how he arrived at the 5% adjustment.
In expressing his opinion, the expert made a 5% adjustment to one of the comparable sales to
account for its lack of amenities. The expert provided no explanation or support for this adjustment
(in this case $150,000) or how it related the comparable sale’s lack of amenities that were featured
at the subject property.
The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $3,000,000 to $4,250,000. After the adjustments,
the sales prices were $3,040,000 to $4,250,000. However, the expert, considering the sale with the
highest sales price as an outlier, found the range from $3,040,000 to $3,510,000 and concluded a
value of $3,250,000 as of October 1, 2013.
9 October 1, 2014 Valuation Date
For the 2015 tax year, the expert searched for sales of single family detached residences in
Wyckoff and “Comparable Municipalities” of more than 7,000 square feet, built within ten years
of the valuation date which sold within 12 months of the valuation date. Again the expert was
required to adjust the search parameters to include residences under 10,000 square feet and more
than 10 years old. The expert identified five sales as comparable sales for the 2015 tax year. Four
were located in Saddle River and one was in Franklin Lakes.
The size of the comparable sales ranged from 7,800 square feet to 9,300 square feet. Each
of the comparable sales were adjusted for their location (negative 10% for Saddle River and
negative 5% for Franklin Lakes). One comparable located in Saddle River was adjusted by
negative 5%, which the expert acknowledged was an error, but which did not affect his overall
opinion of value. The two properties containing less than 9,000 square feet3 were adjusted by 5%
for dwelling size. (The remaining comparable sales at 9,018, 9,300 and 9,320 square feet were not
adjusted for size.) One comparable sale with 3.15 acres was adjusted by negative 5% for lot size
and one with .94 acres was adjusted upwards by 5%. Two of the properties were each adjusted
upwards by 5% to account for their inferior amenities.
The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $2,730,000 to $3,780,000. After adjustment the
sales prices were $2,457,000, $2,945,000, $3,591,000, $2,970,000 and $3,195,000. The expert
opined that the comparable sales with the lowest and highest adjusted sales prices were “outliers”
and eliminated them. The range of adjusted sales prices was then $2,945,000 to $3,195,000. The
expert reached an opinion of value of $3,000,000.
3 One Comparable sale contained 8,143 square feet and the other had 7,815 square feet. Both were adjusted at 5%.
10 October 1, 2015 Valuation Date
For the 2016 tax year, the expert searched for sales of single family detached residences in
Wyckoff and “Comparable Municipalities” of more than 7,000 square feet, built within ten years
of the valuation date which sold within 12 months of the valuation date. Again the expert was
required to adjust the search parameters were adjusted to include residences under 10,000 square
feet, more than 10 years old. The expert identified five sales as comparable sales for the 2016 tax
year, two in Franklin Lakes and three in Saddle River.
The size of the comparable sale properties ranged from 7,800 square feet to 9,500 square
feet. The unadjusted sales prices ranged from $2,730,000 to $3,780,000. The expert adjusted for
location (negative 10% for Saddle River; negative 5% for Franklin Lakes), dwelling size (positive
5% for a property of 7,800 square feet and 5% for a property of 8,150 square feet 4), lot size
(negative 5% for a lot of 3.15 acres and positive 5% for a lot of 1.05 acres) and positive 5% for a
property with inferior amenities. The adjusted sales prices ranged from $2,457,000 to $3,591,000,
however, the expert deemed both the high and the low sales as “outliers” and eliminated them.
The remaining adjusted sales prices were $2,913,750, $3,087,500 and $3,195,000, upon which the
expert determined a value of $3,000,000.
As noted, the expert made certain adjustments based on amenities or the lack thereof. He
acknowledged that he had not inspected any of the comparable properties, but relied on the MLS,
broker’s descriptions and photographs posted on the broker’s web sites to determine the existence
of the amenities and their quality.5 He had no firsthand knowledge of any of the interiors of the
comparable properties, the quality of the finishes or the amenities.
4 No adjustment for size was made to comparable sales of 9,478, 9,018 and 9,320 square feet. 5 After objection by the defendant, the expert acknowledged that he did not take any of the photos and was unable to authenticate them, or confirm that the photos were accurate representations of the comparable properties.
11 On cross-examination, the expert acknowledged that his description of the subject property
as an 11,867 square foot home, did not include the basement area. He further acknowledged that
he did not measure the property and although he had reviewed the property record card was
unaware of what it indicated at the time of his testimony. Although he did not specifically testify
as such, it appears that the expert did not include the third floor media room in his calculation of
living area because he described it as a “finished attic.”
He testified that he did not utilize the cost approach because he believed the market would
look at the sales approach in determining value. He opined that the home was typical of other
larger homes and that it was very high end, but not opulent. He agreed that the taxpayers had spent
“a lot of money” building the subject property, but that the market would not reward overbuilding.
He believed that the subject was an over-improvement for the area, although typical of higher end
homes. He testified that the $11,000,000 cost to acquire the lot and build the home had no
relevance to market value, thus he rejected the cost approach.
The expert recognized that all of the comparable sales included private septic and water for
which he had made no adjustment, although the subject property had city sewer and water. He
justified the comparability of Saddle River and Wyckoff because a typical buyer of a 12,000 square
foot home would not restrict themselves to any one community but would look in a number of
communities with the requisite sized home. He did not take into account differences in the tax
rates of the other communities in determining comparability. He relied solely on the average home
sales published by the Division of Taxation to develop his adjustment.
The expert testified that he did not use any comparable sales in Wyckoff, because he
deemed them not comparable to the subject property.
The expert acknowledged that the MLS for comparable sale one for the 2012 tax year,
which sold for $4,100,000, indicated that the Seller was “motivated” and that there was a bonus
12 paid in the event of a quick sale. He testified that he did not believe these circumstances were
notable because the sale was exposed to the market and he found nothing to indicate that the
property was “dumped” on the market.
He further acknowledged that he believed an 8,300 square foot home was comparable to
the subject property at almost 12,000 square feet because it had a similar number of bedrooms.
Therefore, he made no adjustment for the additional 4,000 square feet. He provided no specific
support for this conclusion, but referenced in general the comparable sales, noting that some of the
smaller homes sold for overall prices higher than the larger homes. He concluded that the measure
was bedrooms and bathrooms, not the size of the improvement.6
Although adjustments were made for homes of approximately 8,100 square feet or less,
there was no support provided for the amount of the adjustment (5%) or why the expert adjusted
for size at 8,100 square feet and not at 8,400 square feet, or some other size.
The expert was unable to confirm the quality of the amenities of any of the comparable
sale properties, as he had not inspected any of the interiors of the comparable sales. He relied upon
the photos posted on the broker’s web sites or MLS to determine the comparability of finishes and
the various amenities. He did not indicate in his testimony that he confirmed the existence or
quality of the amenities with any of the transaction participants. Although a number of the
comparable sales had been built a decade or more before the subject property, he made no
adjustment for the age of the dwelling.
6 Despite this explanation, the expert made the following dwelling size/room count adjustments “to account for their inferior dwelling size when compared to the subject”: Tax Year Dwelling Size Number of Bedrooms Adjustment 2014 7,834 SF 6 5% 2014 8,097 SF 6 5% 2014 7,596 SF 6 5% 2015/16 8,143 SF 6 5% 2015 7,815 SF 6 5% 2016 7,811 SF 6 5%
13 The expert also acknowledged that there was no support in his report for the amount of the
lot size adjustment by 5% or 10%.
III. Defendant’s Valuation Evidence
In contrast to plaintiff’s expert, defendant’s expert testified that he determined the value of
the subject property using the cost approach. Similar to the plaintiff’s expert he deemed the subject
property an over-improvement, completed with features and amenities specific to the needs of the
owner. He emphasized the high quality of the finishes throughout the subject property and
continuing to the exterior, noting that the pool was of the highest quality and the “most expensive”
available. The cabana, although not identical to the main home, was finished in high quality
finishes.
The expert pointed out that the actual square footage of the living area of the home, based
on the architect’s calculations taken from the plans filed with the municipality, was some 712
square feet larger than that acknowledged by the plaintiff’s expert. The total living area was
actually 12,407 square feet, including the third floor theater, which it appears was not taken into
account by the plaintiff’s expert. He also testified that the finished basement area contained an
additional 5,121 square footage.
He noted that the walls of the dining room were covered with silk over padding which he
deemed “completely unusual”, the two-story foyer featured a domed ceiling with “tiffany style”
art, and that coffered ceilings were present in the first floor den and dining room. Additionally, he
deemed the house as having special features “almost too numerous to mention”, but he specifically
pointed out the first grade cabinetry and built-in appliances, first and second floor laundries, 3-car
garage and port cochere for a fourth vehicle, third floor home theatre, the gym and exercise rooms,
meditation room and study. In reviewing the photos he had included in his report, he took care to
14 note features that he determined were “unique”, “over the top” and “opulent”, and that they were
particular to the specifications, needs and desires of the plaintiffs.
Defendant’s expert in performing his valuation determined that the highest and best use of
the subject property was as the “existing residence.” He reviewed all three approaches to
valuation, that is, the cost approach, the sales comparison approach and the income approach. He
opined that because the sales comparison approach “relies upon subjective adjustments and
comparable selection . . . it will wipe out much of the unique attributes of the subject because they
are not universally desired or willingly paid for.” In the expert’s opinion, such features may be
used to quantify “incurable functional obsolescence” but such matters are “irrelevant to a NJ Tax
Court valuation.” Defendant’s expert found only the cost approach would provide a reasonable
and realistic estimate of the market value of the subject property “for the Tax Court.”
In obtaining the land value component of his cost approach, defendant’s expert reviewed
six sales of land in Wyckoff, including the subject sale. The sales prices ranged from a low of
$27.77 PSF to a high of $40.81 PSF. With respect to the subject sale, the expert indicated that it
had occurred about 5 years prior to the earliest valuation date and that he would normally note the
sale and look for more current sales, but since the subject site is the “largest single-family
residential site in Wyckoff and is essentially a unique tract of land,” he started his analysis and site
valuation with the subject sale.
In doing so, he acknowledged that the site was comprised of three building lots which had
been purchased for an aggregate purchase price of $4,000,000. Immediately after purchase, the
plaintiffs pursued approval to “reverse” the subdivision and to obtain permits to develop the site
as a single-building site. As a result, according to the expert, 2/3 of the value of the site was
destroyed, and
[e]ssentially the $4,000,000 purchase price was reduced in value by 66% to $1,320,000, and the surplus land would only add back 50% of the lost value of
15 $1,340,000 ($2,680,000 x 50%). Indicating that the purchase and rollback of the sub-division became a value estimate of $2,660,000.
He concluded that the subject site was a comparable sale to the subject at $2,660,000. He
thereafter adjusted the remaining five sales for location and size. Two of the comparable sales
were adjusted upward by 5% to account for the subject’s superior location, one because it was
located on a street with more traffic, and one for being located on a street without public sewer.
The expert did not provide any explanation of how the 5% adjustment for these differences was
obtained.
All of the other five comparable sales were adjusted by 20% to account for the subject’s
superior size. The subject site was approximately three times larger than each of the five other
sales being reviewed. The expert did not explain how the adjustment of 20% to account for the lot
size was obtained. The adjusted sales price per square foot of the comparable sales were $34.00,
$34.90, $51.01, $37.92, $38.56 and $34.71. After consideration, defendant’s expert concluded a
value per square foot of $35.00 for each of the years under review and reached a market value for
the land of $2,738,000.
In obtaining values for the improvements, the expert referenced the Marshall Valuation
Service Indices (MVS). For tax year 2012, he calculated the base cost of construction by
referencing the MVS cost estimate issued August 2014 for high-value residences, adjusted by a
factor to account for “High-Value Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning.” The expert then
adjusted the result obtained by “1% per year” to adjust for the time between the valuation date
(10/1/2011) and the August, 2014 cost estimates. The expert provided no study or support for the
time adjustment of 3%. The expert did not indicate where he had obtained this adjustment. The
expert applied an additional adjustment of 1.32 to the base cost factor to account for the local
16 multiplier from the MVS Local Multiplier table issued October, 2016. After adjustment, the expert
arrived at a base construction cost for the home of $7,148,5967.
For the later years, the expert utilized base cost factors from the MVS tables issued in
August, 2016. His report, however, indicates that the August 2014 factors were utilized and he
made “time adjustments” as if the August 2014 tables had been utilized. That is the 2014 tax year
time adjustment made was 1.0, the 2015 tax year time adjustment made was 1.02 and the 2016 tax
year time adjustment made was 1.03. No explanation for this apparent discrepancy was provided,
nor is it clear whether such adjustments were inaccurate due to the use of the 2016 factors.
The concluded adjusted base costs for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 were $7,441,469,
$7,594,387 and $7664,714, respectively.
The expert then determined the cost of the other improvements and site work, as follows:
Other Improvements and Site Work:
Basement: 5,121 SF x $96.608 = 494,689 Fireplaces: 10 x $12,5009 = 125,000 3 car Garage 3 x $8,500 = 25,500 Port Cochere 1 x $2,500 = 2,500 Decks, Porches & Patios 7,000 SF x $22 154,000 Pool 2,100 SF x $85 x 80%10 142,800 Pool Heater 1 x $3,000 3,000 Cabana/pool house 650 SF x $30011 195,000 Tennis Court 4,862 SF x $11.15 x 1.32 71,569
7 First Floor: 5,205 SF x $599.57 = $3,120,761 Second Floor: 6,590 SF x $599.57 x 92% = 3,635,091 Third Floor: 712 SF x $599.57 x 92% = 392,744
Adjusted base construction cost $7,148,596
Per the MVS explanation, for a full height second floor of the same quality and finish as the first, the base cost for the second floor is 92% of the first floor costs. 8 This factor was the factor for a “Finished, high-value basement” per square foot for the August 2016 MVS Calculator method. Unlike the base cost determination, the expert did not make a “time adjustment” to this factor. 9 This factor, as well as the factors for the fireplaces, garages, porte cochere, were all obtained from the 2016 MVS tables. No time adjustments or local multiplier adjustments were made. 10 The data supporting this calculation was not included in the expert’s report. 11 The expert provided no support or explanation for the amount of this adjustment.
17 Driveway and front Walk 9,170 x $2.50 + 15% x 15 SF 43,558 Lawn, Shrubs, trees And retaining wall12 50,000 SF x $2.00 + $200,000 300,000
Total added costs $1,557,616
The expert arrived at his final conclusions of value in each of the years as follows:
Tax Year: 2012 2014 2015 2016
Base Costs $ 7,148,596 $ 7,441,469 $ 7,594,387 $ 7,664,714 Added Costs 1,557,616 1,557,616 1,557,616 1,557,616
Total $ 8,706,212 $ 8,999,085 $ 9,152,003 $ 9,222,330
EOH&P13 @5% 435,311 449,954 457,396 461,116
Total $ 9,141,000 $ 9,449,000 $ 9,605,000 $ 9,683,000
Depreciation x 97% x 96% x 95% x 94%
Total $ 8,867,000 $ 9,071,000 $ 9,125,000 $ 9,102,000
Land Value $ 2,738,000 $ 2,738,000 $ 2,738,000 $ 2,738,000
Total $ 11,605,000 $ 11,809,000 $ 11,863,000 $ 11,840,000
In applying the adjustment for EOH&P, the expert noted that “entrepreneurial overhead
and profit is a market-derived figure that the entrepreneur . . . expects to receive in addition to
costs.” He provided no market analysis to support the amount of the adjustment, and noted only
that the “NJ Tax Court . . . has essentially codified EOH&P at 10% and reducing this in a few
cases to 5% for more costly properties.”
12 Although the expert included the MVS Yard Improvements cost page in his report, he did not reference it in his calculations. The court is unable to determine from the attachment how the expert determined the per square foot cost or the square footage utilized in determining the improvement. 13 EOH&P = Entrepreneurial Overhead and Profit
18 The depreciation factor was obtained using a depreciation table produced by MVS for
Residential Properties, assuming a life expectancy of 50 years. The expert determined that the
effective age of the improvement as of 10/1/2011 was 3 years, which resulted in a depreciation
percentage of 3%. For the valuation as of 10/1/2013, the expert determined an effective age of 4
years, even though two years had elapsed from the 10/1/2011 valuation date, 5 years for 10/1/2014
and 6 years for 10/1/2015. The expert did not explain why the improvements had an effective age
of 3 years in 10/1/2011 and 4 years in 10/1/2013.
The expert supplemented his initial report and conclusions by submitting a copy of
plaintiff’s contract to purchase the land upon which the subject property was built, their
construction management contract, and a spreadsheet of payments purporting to reflect the actual
payments made by plaintiffs in connection with the construction of the subject property. The
supplemental report indicates that the aggregate amount of the cost of acquiring the land and cost
of construction was $11,075,087.93, which defendant’s expert indicated corroborated his cost
approach conclusions. The supplemental report demonstrates that the actual costs incurred, less
the purchase price of the land, were $7,075,087.93. As noted above, the undepreciated costs
obtained by the expert, excluding EOH&P were approximately $9,000,000 in each year.
After reviewing the cost approach, defendant’s expert then reviewed the sales comparison
approach to value the subject property. He noted that the unique and luxurious features of the
home were unlikely to be “recovered” in an open market sale. He considered these features a
classic example of super adequacy, and if this assignment were not for use in the NJ Tax Court the correct appraisal methodology would include identification and quantification of the functional obsolescence . . . BUT, that real world situation is not what this assignment entails. The NJ Tax Court expects a valuation that reflects the current use. The valuation should reflect the opulence that the owner(s) sought and paid for and are enjoying.
19 Thus, the expert opined “[r]eliance on the sales comparison approach to appraise an over-
the-top Luxury Mansion in a typical local neighborhood . . . for the NJ Tax Court would render
this appraisal incompetent and irrelevant. It is provided herein solely for information.”
The expert then identified four comparable sales, all located in Saddle River, with gross
living areas ranging from 6,011 square feet to 14,081 square feet, with sale prices ranging from
$5,500,000 to $6,500,000. The expert made a negative 10% adjustment to each of the comparable
sales for the superior location in Saddle River. Additionally, the expert made a negative 15%
adjustment to one comparable sale on a 5.65 acre lot. The only other adjustments made were for
age & condition (5% for one property built in 1928 and renovated in 2000; 10% for another built
in 1999); and amenities (15% for the “extreme features” of the subject property as compared to
the comparable.) No explanation as to the method by which the expert reached any of the
adjustment amounts was provided.
The expert concluded an adjusted value of $835 to $438 per square foot and concluded a
value of $632 per square foot, resulting in a value for the subject property of $7,754,000 under the
sales comparison approach for each of the years under review.
The expert again noted that the concluded valuation under the sales approach “ignored” the
NJ Tax Court’s requirement that the functional obsolescence of the super-adequacies in the subject
property should not be taken into account for “owners who remain in possession and [continue] to
enjoy all of the special and somewhat extreme features of their property.” He opined that only the
cost approach can value the subject property “as required by Case Law in the NJ Tax Court.”
IV. Conclusions of Law
a. Presumption of Validity
The court’s analysis begins with the well-established principle that “[o]riginal assessments
and judgments of county boards of taxation are entitled to a presumption of validity.” MSGW
20 Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakes, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 373 (Tax 1998). The
appealing taxpayer has the burden of proving that the assessment is erroneous.” Pantasote Co. v.
City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 413 (1985) (citing Riverview Gardens v. North Arlington Borough,
9 N.J. 167, 174 (1952)). The evidence must be “definite, positive and certain in quality and
quantity to overcome the presumption.” MSGW Real Estate Fund, L.L.C. v. Borough of Mountain
Lakes, supra, 18 N.J. Tax at 373.
The court finds that plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption
of correctness attached to the assessment. If taken as true, plaintiffs’ expert and the facts upon
which he relied created a debatable question about the correctness of the assessment. Giving the
plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony every positive inference, the court concludes that the presumption of
validity has been overcome.
b. Burden of Persuasion
However, concluding that the presumption of validity has been overcome does not equate
to a finding by the court that the assessment is erroneous. Once the presumption is overcome, “the
court must then turn to a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties and
conclude the matter based on a fair preponderance of the evidence.” Ford Motor Co. v. Township
of Edison, 127 N.J. 290, 312 (1992). The taxpayer continues to bear the burden of persuading the
court that the “judgment under review” is erroneous. Id. at 314-15.
Accordingly, the court will evaluate and weigh the evidence presented to determine if
either party has met the requisite burden of persuading the court to make a change in the
assessment.
c. Highest and Best Use
“For local property tax purposes, property must be valued at its highest and best use.”
Entenmann’s Inc. v. Totowa Borough, 18 N.J. Tax 540, 545 (Tax 2000). The determination of the
21 highest and best use of a property is “the first and most important step in the valuation process.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Township of Edison, 10 N.J. Tax 153, 161 (Tax 1988). The highest and best
use analysis involves the “sequential consideration of the following four criteria, determining
whether the use of the subject property is: 1) legally permissible; 2) physically possible; 3)
financially feasible; and 4) maximally productive.” Clemente v. Township of South Hackensack,
27 N.J. Tax 255, 267-269 (Tax 2013), aff’d 28 N.J. Tax 337 (App. Div. 2015). Both experts
opined that the highest and best use of the subject property was its existing use as a single family
residence. The court accepts the experts’ conclusions that the highest and best use of the subject
property is its current use as a single family residence.
d. Methodology
In reaching an opinion of value for the subject property, the two experts employed different
approaches. Plaintiffs’ appraiser employed solely the sales comparison approach and defendant’s
appraiser employed the cost approach and sales comparison approach.
“There is no single determinative approach to the valuation of real property." 125 Monitor Street LLC v. City of Jersey City, 21 N.J. Tax 232, 237-238 (Tax 2004) (citing Samuel Hird & Sons, Inc. v. City of Garfield, 87 N.J. Super. 65, 72, 208 A.2d 153 (App. Div. 1965)); see also ITT Continental Baking Co. v. Township of East Brunswick, 1 N.J. Tax 244, 251 (Tax 1980). "There are three traditional appraisal methods utilized to predict what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on a given date, applicable to different types of properties: the comparable sales method, capitalization of income and cost." Brown v. Borough of Glen Rock, 19 N.J. Tax 366, 376 (App. Div. 2001), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 291, 773 A.2d 1155 (2001) (internal citation omitted)). The "decision as to which valuation approach should predominate depends upon the facts of the particular case and the reaction to these facts by the experts." Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York v. Neptune Township, 8 N.J. Tax 169, 176 (Tax 1986) (citing City of New Brunswick v. State Div. Tax Appeals, 39 N.J. 537, 189 A.2d 702 (1963)); see also WCI-Westinghouse, Inc. v. Township of Edison, 7 N.J. Tax, 610, 619 (Tax 1985), aff'd, 9 N.J. Tax 86 (App. Div. 1986). However, when the proofs submitted in support of one approach overshadow those submitted in support of any other approach, the court may conclude which approach should prevail. See ITT Continental Baking Co., supra, 1 N.J. Tax 244; Pennwalt Corp. v. Township of Holmdel, 4 N.J. Tax 51 (Tax 1982).
[VBV Realty, LLC v. Scotch Plains Tp., 29 N.J. Tax 548, 558-59 (Tax 2017)]
22 The sales comparison approach derives an opinion of value “by comparing properties
similar to the subject property that have recently sold, are listed for sale, or are under contract.”
Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 377 (14th ed. 2013). The focus of the appraiser
is on the “similarities and differences that affect value . . . which may include variations in property
rights, financing terms, market conditions, and physical characteristics.” Id. at 378. “The market
approach (comparable sales) is generally accepted as an appropriate method of estimating value
for a residence. Brown v. Borough of Glen Rock, 19 N.J Tax 366, 377 (App.Div.2001). The sales
comparison approach is the most common technique for valuing sites, and it is the preferred
method when comparable sales are available. Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate,
363 (13th ed. 2008). (See generally GenolaVentures-Shrewsbury v. Borough of Shrewsbury, 2
N.J. Tax 541, 551)” Greenblatt v. Englewood City, 26 N.J. Tax 41, 53 (2010).
However, the courts have recognized that conventional market theories may not be
applicable for the valuation of some properties constructed for a special purpose and suited only
for such purpose. See e.g., Transcontinental Gas v. Bernards Township (Transcontinental II), 111
N.J. 507 (1988). In such cases, the “cost approach is usually relied upon for property tax valuation
purposes.” Id. at 527. “In the cost approach, appraisers compare the cost of the subject
improvements to the cost to develop similar improvements as evidenced by the cost of construction
of substitute properties with the same utility as the subject property.” Appraisal of Real Property,
supra at 561. “The cost approach may best reflect how the market operates in those circumstances
where other ‘market’ data that is comparable sales or leases are scarce or non-existent.” General
Motors Corp. v. Linden, 22 N.J. Tax 95, 129 (Tax 2005).
“Special-purpose property is most easily understood in terms of property that ‘cannot be
converted to other uses without large capital investment,’ such as a public museum, a church, or a
highly-specialized production facility like a brewery.” Ford Motor Co. v. Edison, 127 N.J. 290,
23 298-99 (1992) (internal citation omitted). Defendant does not contend that the subject property
is “special purpose property” as referenced in Ford, supra. Instead, in advocating for the cost
approach to valuing the subject property defendant argues that the sales approach is inapplicable
because there are no comparable sales for a property such as the subject because of its opulence
and unique features built to the whims of the plaintiffs. According to defendant, those features
account for “functional obsolescence” for which there is no market.
Defendant’s theory is based initially on Turnley v. Elizabeth, 76 N.J.L. 42 (1908). There,
in reviewing a taxpayer’s claim for a reduction in a tax assessment, the court determined that the
criterion for determining value was a “hypothetical sale,” where the buyers were hypothetical
purchasers, not actual and existing purchasers. The property under review in that matter had been
completed with a number of “features and fancies that, while adding greatly to its cost, have added
little or nothing to its selling price or market value.” Id. at 44.
Similarly, in Royal Mfg. Co. v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 76 N.J.L. 402 (1908), the
taxpayer constructed buildings “of an unusual type, constructed especially for the purposes of the
prosecutor and unsuited to ordinary manufacturing purposes. . .” at 406. The court upheld an
assessment based in substantial part on the cost of construction. In CPC Int’l, Inc. v. Englewood
Cliffs, 193 N.J. Super. 261, 265 (App. Div. 1984), the court considered the issue of functional
obsolescence, which it described as follows:
“Functional obsolescence" is a term used to describe the diminution of a building's market value resulting from the fact that it contains costly features which were installed to gratify the owner or which are unique to the special purpose of the building but which do not enhance its value on the market. The terms "superfluity," "duplication of facilities" and "overbuilding" are also used to describe such structures whose functional characteristics exceed reasonably foreseeable demands. Bostian v. Franklin State Bank, 167 N.J. Super. 564, 572-73 (App.Div.1979). Investments made to satisfy the whim of an owner, or for a special purpose, or out of extravagance are not necessarily reflected in the building's fair market value. Id. at 570. This is unrelated to factors such as outmoded characteristics associated with the age of the building or failure to keep pace with advancing technology. Id. at 576.
24 The court there found that “no allowance will be made for the special purpose character of
the building or for overbuilt features where the original owner erected the buildings for his own
needs, remains in possession, and continues to enjoy the improvements which it installed and for
which the allowance is claimed.” Id at 269. See, also, General Motors Corp. v. Linden, supra 22
N.J. Tax 95 (Court will presume that a hypothetical buyer exists whose requirements are
reasonably accommodated by the property in question.)
Defendant maintains therefore, that the sales comparison approach is inapplicable because
plaintiffs overbuilt the subject property with features specific to plaintiffs’ own specific needs for
which no market exists, plaintiffs remain in possession and continue to enjoy the improvements
which they constructed. Defendant thus argues that the plaintiffs’ sales comparison approach must
be rejected and only the cost approach may be applied.
The court does not agree that the subject property is so unique that the sales comparison
approach is inapplicable. Clearly, both parties provided comparable sale properties having similar
size, and similar amenities. The court’s rejection of the defendant’s position that the cost approach
is the only applicable valuation method does not mean that the cost approach has no application.
The court, therefore, will consider defendant’s cost approach as well as the sales comparison
approach presented by both the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s experts.
e. Application of the Sales Comparison Approach
Under the sales comparison approach, market value is obtained “by comparing properties
similar to the subject property that have recently sold, are listed for sale, or are under contract.”
Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 377 (14th ed. 2013). Using various analysis
techniques such as “paired data analysis, trend analysis, statistics, and other techniques” the
25 appraiser focuses on similarities and differences that affect value . . . which may include variations
in property rights, financing terms, market conditions and physical characteristics.” Id. at 378.
The weight to be afforded an expert’s testimony relative to adjustments “depends upon the
facts and reasoning which form the basis of the opinion. An expert's conclusion can rise no higher
than the data providing the foundation (citation omitted). If the bases for the adjustments are not
made evident the court cannot extrapolate value.” Inmar Associates v. Edison Township, 2 N.J.
Tax 59, 66 (Tax 1980). “Without explanation as to the basis, the opinion of the expert is entitled
to little weight in this regard.” Dworman v. Tinton Falls, 1 N.J. Tax 445, 458 (Tax 1980) (citing
to Passaic v. Gera Mills, 55 N.J. Super. 73 (App. Div. 1959), certif. denied, 30 N.J. 153 (1959)).
For an expert’s testimony to be of any value to the trier of fact, it must have a proper foundation.
See Peer v. City of Newark, 71 N.J. Super. 12, 21 (App. Div. 1961), certif. denied, 36 N.J. 300
(1962). When “an expert offers an opinion without providing specific underlying reasons . . . he
ceases to be an aid to the trier of fact.” Jimenez v. GNOC, Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 533, 540 (App.
Div. 1996). An expert witness is required to “give the why and wherefore of his expert opinion,
not just a mere conclusion.” Ibid.
Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion of value suffers from a number of deficiencies. For example,
despite the wide variations in the gross living areas of his comparable sales, he made no adjustment
for size for properties of 8,143 square feet or less, opining that at the point of homes of 8,000 to
10,000 square feet, the “market stops looking at the size” and instead the market looks at the
number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Yet he made no adjustment for the difference between the
bedrooms and baths of any of the comparable sales and the subject property, nor did he take into
account that the subject property could easily accommodate additional bedrooms. Further, when
the expert did make adjustments for the inferior size of the comparable properties, he provided no
explanation or support for the amount of the adjustment.
26 While he made adjustments to account for the amenities at the subject property and the
comparable sales, those adjustments are suspect because the expert did not have firsthand
knowledge of any of the amenities at any of the comparable sales, nor did he provide any
explanation as to how the particular adjustment was determined. He indicated that the percentage
adjustment provided by him could be sufficient to construct the additional amenities at the
comparable property, but nothing in his testimony or his report supported the cost needed to
construct any of the amenities in question, nor did he identify any of the amenities he deemed
necessary to provide comparability.
Additionally, while the expert provided an explanation for his location adjustment, he
failed to adequately explain why average sales prices in Saddle Brook of almost three times those
in Wyckoff, would result in a location adjustment of 10%, and average sales prices in Franklin
Lakes 1.5% times those in Wyckoff, would support a location adjustment of 5%. Similarly, the
expert acknowledged that there was no support for the amount of his lot size adjustment.
Thus, the reliability of the adjustments made, and the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion of value,
are questionable. Accordingly, the court rejects plaintiffs’ expert’s conclusions of value.
Defendant’s expert’s conclusions under the sales comparison approach suffer from similar
deficiencies. Defendant’s expert provided no support for any of the adjustments made by him in
his comparable sales approach, presumably because he deemed it an inappropriate approach for
the subject property. It is difficult for the court to grant defendant’s expert’s sales comparison
approach any more weight than the expert did. The conclusions reached thereunder are therefore
rejected.
f. Defendant’s cost approach
The court also finds the defendant’s cost approach to be unreliable for the following
reasons.
27 In reaching his opinion as to land value, the expert made adjustments for size and location,
neither of which were supported in any respect. Even accepting the expert’s opinion that
adjustments for the subject property’s superior size and location when viewed in relationship to
the comparable sale properties was merited, defendant’s expert provided nothing to support the
amount of the adjustment. The court has no basis upon which to determine the credibility of these
adjustments.
Furthermore, the improvement cost calculations suffer from a number of unexplained
discrepancies. The time adjustment made by the expert was not supported. It is unknown whether
this adjustment was provided by MVS or is a function of the depreciation schedule or the expert’s
opinion. Although the expert indicated that he utilized the 2014 MVS factors for tax years 2014
through 2016 and made what he deemed as appropriate time adjustments, he actually utilized the
2016 MVS factors. No explanation as to how this discrepancy may have affected the ultimate
result was provided.
Other adjustments were not supported by any references in the report or in the expert’s
testimony. No support was provided for a number of the costs of improvements, such as the pool,
the cabana and the landscaping improvements. The adjustment for these improvements constituted
a significant portion of the total amount, but were provided without adequate explanation or
support.
Additionally, the expert made an adjustment of 5% in each year for EOH&P. No data was
provided to support this adjustment. The only support given by the expert for his adjustment of
5% was his belief that this Court has “codified” EOH&P at 10%, with possible reductions to 5%
for certain “larger more costly properties”. The expert neither supported his position that the Court
has codified EOH&P at 10% or that the subject property merited a reduction to 5%. It is the
obligation of the appraiser to establish support for the need to account for EOH&P as well as the
28 amount. “[A]n estimate of entrepreneurial profit or entrepreneurial incentive is only as reliable
and precise as the available market data warrants.” Appraisal of Real Property, supra at 574.
Merely suggesting that the NJ Tax Court has “codified” a certain percentage for Entrepreneurial
Overhead and Profit is an insufficient basis to establish an estimate. See, Badische Corp. v. Town
of Kearny, 11 N.J. Tax 385 (Tax 1994), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded 288 N.J. Super.
171 (App. Div.) 1996)(without proofs as to entrepreneurial profit the court can make no finding.)
The expert’s suggestion that the actual costs corroborate his estimates is also problematic.
At first glance, the actual costs incurred would appear to support the expert’s conclusion, however
a closer inspection reveals substantial variations. The actual costs of construction, incurred for the
most part in 2009, reflect construction costs of approximately $7,100,000, 75%-80% of the costs
developed by defendant’s expert. However, this is not corroborative of the costs obtained by the
expert. The similarity of result appears to result from the difference between the actual purchase
price of the land ($4,000,000) and the fair market value of the land concluded by the expert
($2,738,000). Furthermore, a substantial majority of the actual costs were incurred in 2008. If
depreciation is taken into account, the differential between actual costs and the expert’s
conclusions becomes even greater.
For all of these reasons, as well as the various discrepancies noted in the discussion
regarding the expert’s cost approach, the court finds that the defendant’s expert’s conclusions of
value based on the cost approach are unreliable, lacking in credibility and must be rejected.
The court acknowledges its obligation “to apply its own judgment to valuation data
submitted by experts in order to arrive at a true value and find an assessment for the years in
question.” Glen Wall Associates v. Township of Wall, 99 N.J. 265, 280 (1985) (citing New
Cumberland Corp v. Borough of Roselle, 3 N.J. Tax 345, 353 (Tax 1981)). In order to do so,
however, the court must be presented with credible and competent evidence from which a finding
29 of true value may be adduced. Neither plaintiff nor defendant provided this court with competent
evidence from which true value can be obtained.
V. Conclusion
Thus the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to prove, by a fair preponderance of the
evidence, that the local property tax assessments for the years in question exceed the true market
value of the subject property for such years. Further, the court concludes that defendant also failed
to provide credible and competent evidence establishing the true value of the subject property.
Accordingly, the court enters judgments affirming the assessments for each of the years under
review and dismisses plaintiffs’ complaints in these matters.
The assessments are affirmed and plaintiffs’ complaints are dismissed.
Very truly yours,
Kathi.F. Fiamingo, J.T.C.