# Senos Suzanne & Scully C/O Boyle v. Township of Brick; La Porte Associates C/O Duch v. Township of Brick; D&R Rento Holdings LLC C/O v. Township of Brick

> New Jersey Tax Court · June 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11086535

## Case

- **Court:** New Jersey Tax Court
- **Decided:** June 30, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11086535

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF
THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
____________________________________
:
SENOS SUZANNE & SCULLY C/O : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
BOYLE, : DOCKET NO: 010067-2022
:
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. :
:
TOWNSHIP OF BRICK, :
:
Defendant. :
____________________________________:
____________________________________
:
LA PORTE ASSOCIATES C/O DUCH, : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
: DOCKET NO: 010070-2022
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. :
:
TOWNSHIP OF BRICK, :
:
Defendant. :
____________________________________:
____________________________________
:
D&R RENTO HOLDINGS LLC C/O, : TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
: DOCKET NO: 010072-2022
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. :
:
TOWNSHIP OF BRICK, :
:
Defendant. :
____________________________________:
Decided June 27, 2025

Jack A. Triana for plaintiffs (Triana & Traina, attorneys).

Scott William Kenneally for defendant (Starkey, Kelly,
Kenneally, Cunningham, Turnbach & Yannone, attorneys).
CIMINO, J.T.C.

Three taxpayers each own beachfront property in Brick Township. After

Superstorm Sandy in 2012, the assessor reduced the land portion of the assessment

of each property by twenty-five percent due to external obsolescence seemingly

attributed to destruction of the road network and public utilities servicing the

properties. In 2021, the assessor increased the land assessments fifteen of the

twenty-five percent. The taxpayers seek to void these increases. They assert that

the increases are either illegal spot assessments or that the assessor failed to have an

approved assessment compliance plan. While the municipality certifies repair of the

road network and the public utilities, and the construction of protective dunes and a

revetment, the assessor’s rationale for increasing the assessments is not clear. The

court denies summary judgment.

I.

Taxpayers, D&R Rento Holdings, La Porte Associates and Suzanne Senos are

the owners of lots 1, 3 and 5, respectively, of block 58 of the Tax Map of Brick

Township. The properties are located on Dune Avenue. The lots are similar in size,

2
and each has seventy feet of beach frontage. A single-family home is the current

improvement on each lot.

In 2010, Brick Township conducted a revaluation of property assessments.

For administrative purposes, assessors break down assessments into land and

improvement components. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v Township of East

Amwell, 13 N.J. Tax 24, 34 (Tax 1992), aff'd sub nom., 18 N.J. Tax 126 (App. Div.

1999). See also In re Kents 2124 Atl. Ave., Inc., 34 N.J. 21, 33-34 (1961). For the

three properties in question, the assessor placed the land assessment at $1.59 million.

The improvement assessment varied for each property.1

After the devastation of Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012, the assessor

adjusted the assessments of the properties to reflect the awesome devastation of the

storm.2 The assessor reduced the improvement assessments between thirty to one-

hundred percent. 3 The assessor also reduced the land assessments by twenty-five

1
The lot 1 improvement assessment was $535,900. The lot 3 assessment
improvement was $211,300. The lot 5 assessment improvement was $486,400.
2
The storm damaged 325,000 housing units in New Jersey. Stephanie Hoopes
Halpin, Rutgers Univ. Sch. of Pub. Affs. and Admin., The Impact of Superstorm
Sandy on New Jersey Towns and Households 8 (2013). For ninety-municipalities,
power was out for more than ten days. Ibid.
3
The lot 1 structure was reduced 30%. The lot 3 structure was reduced 100%. The
lot 5 structure was reduced 60%.

3
percent, from $1.59 million per lot to $1.19 million for external obsolescence.4

External obsolescence is generally a reduction due to factors external to the land that

affect the utility of the land. BASF Corp. Coating & Ink Div. v. Town of Belvidere,

23 N.J. Tax 551, 580 (Tax 2007), Westwood Lanes, Inc. v. Borough of Garwood, 24

N.J. Tax 239, 262 (Tax 2008). The reductions here reflected external obsolescence

seemingly attributable to the destruction of the road and public utility infrastructure.

With the repair or rebuilding of the houses on the properties, the assessor

increased the improvement assessments. For example, the lot 1 improvement

assessment increased in 2013 and then again in 2015; the lot 3 improvement

assessment increased in 2016; and the lot 5 improvement assessment increased in

2017. However, the assessor did not increase any of the land assessments until 2021.

Just prior to the 2021 increase, the assessments were as follows: 5

Assessed Value with Twenty-Five Percent Land Reduction

Block 58, Lot 1 Block 58, Lot 3 Block 58, Lot 5
Land $ 1,189,000 $ 1,070,100 $ 1,189,000
Improvement $ 535,900 $ 501,700 $ 486,400
Total $ 1,724,900 $ 1,571,800 $ 1,675,400

4
To be exact, the assessor reduced the land assessment for each parcel from
$1,585,300 to $1,189,000.
5
It is unclear why between 2013 and 2020, the Lot 3 land assessment was further
reduced to $1,070,100.

4
In 2021, the assessor increased the land assessment for each property to $1.43

million which is still ten percent below the 2010 assessment. The increased

assessments are now: 6

Assessed Value with Ten Percent Land Reduction

Block 58, Lot 1 Block 58, Lot 3 Block 58, Lot 5
Land $ 1,426,800 $ 1,428,000 $ 1,426,800
Improvement $ 535,900 $ 501,700 $ 486,400
Total $ 1,962,700 $ 1,929,700 $ 1,913,200

The township engineer certified repair of the roads and public utilities, and

the construction of a dune structure and revetment. However, the assessor has not

clearly spelled out the reason for the increases, or why the increases did not revert

to the pre-Sandy level.

II.

The taxpayers move for summary judgment asserting the municipality has

engaged in spot assessments or failed to have an approved compliance plan. On

summary judgment, the court assesses “whether the competent evidential materials

presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are

sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor

of the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540

6
It is likewise unclear why the lot 3 land assessment was increased to $1,428,000
which is greater than the $1,426,800 land assessment on lots 1 and 5.
5
(1995). Since there are factual issues in dispute, this matter is not ripe for summary

judgment.

III.

The Uniformity Clause of the New Jersey Constitution generally requires

assessment of all real property at the same standard of value. N.J. Const. art. VIII,

§ 1, ¶ 1(a). Proper assessment valuation is the bedrock of uniformity.

Assessed property values are set and maintained a number of ways. First, a

municipality can conduct a revaluation. An outside appraisal company values all

properties in the municipality after an inspection of the exterior and an attempt to

inspect the interior. N.J.S.A. 54:1-35.35. N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(b)(4). The exercise

is usually an expensive endeavor for the municipality. See generally N.J.S.A. 54:1-

35.36, N.J.A.C. 18:12-4.1 to 4.11.

Second, the assessor can conduct a district-wide reassessment to adjust the

values of all properties after review of the exterior of all properties. N.J.S.A. 54:4-

23, N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(c). This is generally an interim measure between

revaluations. It is a timely and possibly costly endeavor.

Third, assessors must perform basic assessment maintenance. N.J.S.A. 54:4-

23. See N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(j)(3)(viii). The assessor needs to be alert for changes

in individual properties that affect assessed value. Tri-Terminal Corp. v. Borough of

Edgewater, 68 N.J. 405, 414 (1975). The assessor must track changes in the physical

6
characteristics or the legally permissible uses of the property. Ibid. For example,

physical changes could be an addition to a residence, or a garage may burn to the

ground. See N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(j)(3)(viii). Legal changes include variances

allowing a larger structure to be built or changes in the zoning code limiting

commercial construction. See Ibid. These changes do not always dictate a change

in the assessed value of the property. However, these changes alert an assessor that

further investigation is necessary.

Both physical and legal changes differ from appreciation or depreciation

driven by the broad market. Market driven changes are already captured by an

“average ratio” which the Director of the Division of Taxation calculates each year

through a sales study. N.J.S.A. 54:1-35a, -35b, -35.1 to -35.3.

Fourth, the assessor can employ a compliance plan. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. A

compliance plan is a specially authorized type of assessment maintenance designed

to equalize uneven appreciation or depreciation between (1) different neighborhoods

in a municipality or (2) different types of property classes (residential versus

commercial). Ibid., N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(j), City of Elizabeth v. 264 First Street,

LLC, 28 N.J. Tax 408, 437 (Tax 2015) (compliance plans required for property class

reviews). Prior to the Legislature codifying this procedure and the subsequent

adoption of detailed regulations by the Director, our courts found that compliance

plans to adjust certain property classes to be appropriate. Regent Care Ctr., Inc. v.

7
City of Hackensack, 362 N.J. Super. 403, 419-420 (App. Div. 2003), Frieman v.

Township of Randolph, 216 N.J. Super. 507, 510-11 (App. Div. 1987).

The following example demonstrates the importance of a compliance plan.

Neighborhood A values are increasing at ten percent over base per year and

neighborhood B values are increasing at twenty percent over base per year. After a

few years, the average ratio for the entire municipality may not be applicable to

either neighborhood. If both neighborhood A and neighborhood B have a property

assessed at $100,000, after five years the property would be worth $150,000 in

neighborhood A and $200,000 in neighborhood B. The owners of each respective

property would continue to pay the same amount of tax even though the property in

neighborhood B is worth one-third more.

Recognizing the inequities of uneven appreciation (or depreciation) within a

municipality between municipal-wide revaluations or reassessments, the Legislature

allows assessors to implement a compliance plan reassessing only a portion of a

municipality. L. 2001, c. 101, § 1 (codified as amended N.J.S.A. 54:4-23).

Previously, an assessor could only correct this inequity by undertaking a reevaluation

or reassessment of the whole municipality. This is a costly and time-consuming

proposition. With a compliance plan, an assessor can focus in on the neighborhoods

or property classes experiencing a change in value not commensurate with the

balance of the municipality.

8
A compliance plan allows an assessor to update assessments despite the lack

of any physical or legal change. To prevent abuse, the assessor must obtain approval

from the County Board of Taxation. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23, N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(j)(2).

The assessor must demonstrate a sufficient variance in assessment between classes

or neighborhoods. See N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(j)(3)(v).

In adopting compliance plan regulations, the Director provided examples of

what constitutes traditional assessment maintenance not requiring a compliance

plan. N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(j)(3)(viii). Physical changes which do not require a

compliance plan include added assessments, omitted assessments, omitted-added

assessments, demolitions, site contamination, removal of contaminated soil and

property remediation, and damage from storm, cyclone, tornado, earthquake, fire,

flood, hurricane, vandalism or other casualty. Ibid. Legal changes not requiring a

compliance plan include governmentally imposed restrictions, planning board

and/or zoning board of adjustment approvals, subdivisions and mergers.7 Ibid.

7
The Director also recognized corrections of errors such as those caused by clerical,
typographical, transpositional, physical descriptive or mathematical errors do not
constitute or need a compliance plan but are obviously part and parcel of assessment
maintenance. Ibid. It also goes without saying that approved revaluations do not
require a compliance plan since revaluations are approved by the Director. Ibid.
Qualified farmland does not require a compliance plan since this is addressed in a
separate statutory section. Ibid. Changes resulting from appeals or settlement
agreements do not require compliance plans since they are subject to oversight of
either a county board of taxation or the courts. Ibid.
9
Finally, an assessor cannot engage in spot assessments. A spot assessment is

an illegal adjustment of assessed value based upon an appreciation in value not tied

to any physical or legal change, nor authorized by a compliance plan. See Centarino

v. Township of Tewksbury, 347 N.J. Super. 256, 266-67, 20 N.J. Tax 35, 44-45 (App.

Div. 2001). Sale of the subject property or a nearby property usually presages such

change. Township of West Milford v. Van Decker, 120 N.J. 354, 361-62 (1990). In

the normal course, the average ratio prepared by the Director captures increases in

value that are not the result of physical or legal changes. See N.J.S.A. 54:1-35a(a).

Spot assessments short-circuit that process.

Spot assessments are especially egregious if the decision to spot assess is

based solely upon the sale of the property. The spot assessment impacts the taxpayer

twice. First, and most obvious, is the increase in the assessed value. Second, the

sale, as part of the sales study of the municipality, impacts the average ratio. Ibid.

With this double effect, the taxpayer would face an effective increase in taxation

even beyond the intent of the spot assessment.

IV.

In this case, the taxpayers allege that the assessor engaged in either illegal spot

assessments or failed to secure proper approval of a compliance plan. However, the

court has more to decide than whether there are spot assessments or an unapproved

compliance plan. The municipality has filed a counterclaim challenging the

10
assessor’s assessment. Assessors “‘perform quasi-judicial functions” by applying

‘independent judgment.’” VNO 1105 State Hwy. 36, LLC v. Township of Hazlet,

33 N.J. Tax 20, 26 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting Ream v. Kuhlmen, 112 N.J. Super.

175, 190 (App. Div. 1970)). Municipalities are free to challenge the assessments of

their own assessor.8 N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(a).

There are two competing interests at play. First, the appealing property

owners have an interest in not having their properties spot assessed or subject to a

rogue compliance plan. Second, all the taxpayers in the municipality have an interest

in having all properties assessed fairly by the assessor to ensure everyone pays their

fair share of taxes. Despite competing interests, the goal is the same, the

constitutional mandate of uniformity in taxation.

Traditionally, a taxpayer had to establish that assessed value exceeded true

value. See Royal Mfg. Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of Taxes, 76 N.J.L. 402, 404-05

(Sup. Ct. 1908), aff’d, 78 N.J.L. 337 (E. & A. 1909). With stable property values,

this was a workable standard for tax appeals. With appreciating property values, the

assessed value may represent only a fraction of true value after only a couple of

years. Thus, even if a property was over-assessed as compared to other properties,

so long as the assessed value was below true value, no downward adjustment in

8
Typically, the assessor and the municipality are on the same side with the
municipality merely defending the assessor’s assessment from attack by a taxpayer.
See N.J.A.C. 18:17-4.1(a)(5)
11
assessed value was warranted. Ibid. If a taxpayer wanted the fair taxation which

results from fair assessments, the remedy was to raise the assessments of all

properties in the taxing district to true value. Kents, 34 N.J. at 25. A taxpayer would

have the Herculean task of proving the individual true values of all properties in the

taxing district.

By the early 1960’s, with assessed values only representing a fraction of true

value, a tax appeal was fast becoming an illusionary remedy. Recognizing the

inequities, the Supreme Court in Kents allowed taxpayers to utilize the Director’s

school aid ratio to establish discriminatory treatment. Kents, 34 N.J. at 31-32. The

Legislature had mandated the Director promulgate the school aid ratio for “the

purpose of fixing a basis for the distribution to municipalities of State aid for

education.” Id. at 26. See N.J.S.A. 54:1-35.1. The ratio compares assessed value

to true value, based upon sales of properties sold in each municipality. N.J.S.A.

54:1-35.3, Township of Jefferson v. Dir., Div. of Tax'n, 26 N.J. Tax 1, 5 n.5

(Tax 2011) (citing Memorandum from the Dep't of the Treas., Div. of Tax'n, Local

Prop. Tax Bureau, to The Sec'y of Each Cnty. Bd. of Tax'n, All Mun. Assessors, and

All Mun. Clerks (July 30, 1970)). For consistency, the school aid ratio calculation is

uniform statewide. See Ibid.

The Legislature further advanced the goal of uniformity by enacting Chapter

123 in 1973. L. 1973, c. 123. Initially, Chapter 123 relied upon an average ratio

12
similar to, but not the same as, the school aid ratio. Id. at § 1. In 1979, the

Legislature amended Chapter 123 to rely upon the school aid ratio as the average

ratio. L. 1979, c. 51, § 1 (codified at amended at N.J.S.A. 54:1-35a).

In adopting Chapter 123, the Legislature recognized that determining property

values is not an exact science. “Mathematical perfection in taxation is unobtainable,

and hence relief should not be denied merely because the result lacks absolute

precision. The injured taxpayer is entitled to practical relief.” Kents, 34 N.J. at 32.

Thus, there is a “common level range” of plus or minus fifteen percent of the

“average ratio.” L. 1973, c. 123, § 1 (codified as amended at N.J.S.A. 54:1-35a(b)).

The bounds of the “common level range” are known as the “lower limit” and the

“upper limit.” See N.J.S.A. 54:3-22(c), 54:51A-6(a). Dividing the assessed value

by the true value yields a ratio. A ratio outside the lower or upper limit requires

adjustment of the assessed value. 9 N.J.S.A. 54:3-22, 54:51A-6.

Except for revaluation years and district-wide reassessment years where the

assessed value is set to one-hundred percent of true value, the municipality has an

automatic counterclaim despite the lack of an affirmative counterclaim. Campbell

Soup Co. v. City of Camden, 16 N.J. Tax 219, 228 (Tax 1996). In this case, the

9
Certain exceptions apply in revaluation and district-wide reassessment years where
the assessment is set to true value, the assessment is greater than true value or the
Chapter 123 ratio is greater than 100%. A handy chart for dealing with these issues
can be found in Passaic St. Realty Assoc., Inc. v. City of Garfield, 13 N.J. Tax 482,
486 (Tax 1994).
13
municipality filed an affirmative counterclaim challenging the assessed value of the

property. An affirmative counterclaim precludes a taxpayer from unilaterally

withdrawing the claim if things are not going well for taxpayer at trial. Id. at 228.

Township of Cherry Hill v. U. S. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 176 N.J. Super. 254, 261, 1

N.J. Tax 236, 243 (Tax 1980); Passaic St. Realty Assoc., Inc. v. City of Garfield, 13

N.J. Tax 482, 485, 488 (Tax 1994).

A finding of spot assessments or an unapproved compliance plan may require

the court to reduce the value imposed to reflect the twenty-five percent land

assessment reduction. The question then arises whether the court should deny the

municipality’s pursuit of a counterclaim. To deny the municipality the right to

pursue a counterclaim because of a misdeed of the assessor is extraordinary relief

reserved for the most egregious of circumstances. 264 First Street, 28 N.J. Tax at

451. “The appeal procedure is a necessary tool for attaining uniformity and equality

in a real estate tax system. . . .” Comment, The Road to Uniformity in Real Estate

Taxation: Valuation and Appeal, 124 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1418, 1445 (1976). Denying a

counterclaim cuts against the goal of the Uniformity Clause to ensure uniformity.

V.

The assessor adjusted the twenty-five percent reduction to the land

assessments to ten percent in 2021. Taxpayers appealed their 2022 assessments. The

14
common level range of values in 2022 for assessments with the land assessments

only being reduced ten percent are:

Common Level Range of 2022 Values
with Ten Percent Land Reduction

Block 58, Lot 1 Block 58, Lot 3 Block 58, Lot 5
Below $ 2,078,031 $ 2,043,092 $ 2,025,622
Average $ 2,389,748 $ 2,349,568 $ 2,329,478
Above $ 2,811,488 $ 2,764,217 $ 2,740,582

Taxpayers seek restoration of the twenty-five percent reduction in land

assessments. The common level range of values in 2022 for the total assessed values

with the twenty-five percent land assessment reductions are: 10

Common Level Range of 2022 Values
with Twenty-Five Percent Land Reduction

Block 58, Lot 1 Block 58, Lot 3 Block 58, Lot 5
Below $ 1,826,257 $ 1,664,161 $ 1,773,849
Average $ 2,100,207 $ 1,913,795 $ 2,039,937
Above $ 2,470,849 $ 2,251,540 $ 2,399,943

With the assessments based upon a ten percent land reduction, no increases

will occur unless the municipality can prove 2022 true values in excess of about $2.8

10
The calculations for the common level range of values are made by dividing the
total assessed value by the upper limit, average ratio and lower limit. The Chapter
123 ratio for Brick Township for 2022 is as follows:

Average Ratio 82.13%
Lower Limit 69.81%
Upper Limit 94.45%

15
million. 11 With a restoration of the twenty-five percent reduction, the municipality

only has to prove 2022 true values in excess of+- about $2.4 million. With reduced

assessments, the municipality has lower thresholds to cross to obtain an increase.

What does this all mean? If the taxpayers believe the properties will appraise

for more than $2.4 million dollars for 2022, they should consider abandoning their

claim of improper spot assessments or an unapproved compliance plan. This may

shield the taxpayers from an increase by requiring the municipality to prove a 2022

true value of at least $2.8 million instead of $2.4 million.

Overall, this is a thorny issue which summary judgment is not well-suited to

resolve. The court needs to hear from both the present and the prior assessor to

determine the credibility of their reasoning for adjusting the assessments. However,

this issue may be moot if the true value of each property exceeds about $2.4 million

for the 2022 tax year.

The court denies summary judgment. The matter will be set down for trial

with the court determining both the existence of improper spot assessments or a

compliance plan, and the value of the properties for 2022. The court will afford the

11
In deciding tax appeals, the court considers the total assessed value. The separate
land and improvement assessment are for the administrative convenience of the
assessor. Texas Eastern, 13 N.J. Tax at 34. See also Kents, 34 N.J. at 33-34.

16
parties additional time to finalize their appraisals and secure the attendance of their

appraisers at trial.

17

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11086535. Public record. Not legal advice.