City of Jersey City v. Wright JC Suites LLC

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

495 Martin Luther King Blvd., Fourth Floor

MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN Newark, New Jersey 07102

JUDGE 609 815-2922, Ext. 54560

Fax: 609 815-3079

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL

OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

September 19, 2025

William Maslo, Attorney at Law

City of Jersey City Law Department

364 MLK Drive

3rd Floor

Jersey City, NJ 07305

Wright JC Suites LLC

67 West Street

Ste 401-C6

Brooklyn, New York 11222

Re: City of Jersey City v. Wright JC Suites LLC

Docket No.: 010126-2023

Dear Mr. Maslo and Representative of Wright JC Suites LLC:

This constitutes the court’s opinion determining the market value of real

property when there is an absent taxpayer in a reverse/increase tax appeal. For the

reasons set forth below, the court finds that when a party in a tax appeal fails to

defend the complaint or counterclaim, or when a business entity fails to retain

counsel pursuant to R. 8:3-3; R. 1:21-1(c), the court shall proceed to resolve the

appeal through the issuance of default judgment employing the lower burden of

proof as established in Heimbach v. Mueller, 229 N.J. Super 17 (App. Div. 1988).

Applying this lower burden of proof to the evidence produced, the court finds in

favor of plaintiff, City of Jersey City (“Municipality”), increasing the 2023 tax

assessment of Wright JC Suites LLC (“Defendant”).

I. Findings of Fact and Procedural History

This tax appeal relates to land and improvements identified on the Jersey City

tax map as Block 10302, Lot 3, with a street address of 12 Wright Avenue (“Subject

Property”). Defendant purchased the Subject Property on April 26, 2017, for

$210,000. For the 2023 tax year, the Subject Property had an assessment of

$342,600. Applying the 2023 Chapter 123 average ratio (82.91%)1 results in an

implied market value of $413,219.

The Subject Property consists of a 1,999 square foot lot improved by a two-

story, two-family residential dwelling. The improvement, built in 1920, was

1

After a revaluation, all assessments in a municipality must be set at 100% of true

market value measured as of October 1st of the pre-tax year. The State Division of

Taxation (the “Division”) determines an equalization ratio (also known as the

“average ratio”) for any municipality that has a deviation in assessments from 100%

of true market value. The equalization ratio represents the average relationship in

any given year between the assessed values and the true market values of properties

within the municipality, which is based upon the Division’s annual analysis of

relevant sales data. It is commonly referred to as “Chapter 123,” based upon the

enactment of Chapter 123 of P.L. 1973. The goal of Chapter 123 is to verify the

fairness of tax assessments in New Jersey – specifically, to confirm that the

relationship between the total assessment and the true market value of a property, as

viewed as a ratio or percentage, is within an acceptable range (known as the

“common level range”) for the municipality. If it is not, then the current assessment

is viewed as either too high or too low.

2

renovated in 2018, and the Subject Property is in a neighborhood zoned for

residential housing (R-1). The lot is generally level, rectangular in shape, and has

approximately twenty (20) feet of frontage along Wright Avenue.

There are two separate apartments, one on each floor. Each apartment has

three (3) bedrooms, one (1) full bathroom, kitchen, dining room, and living room.

The improvement also houses a partially finished basement. The Gross Living Area

is 1,940 square feet. The improvement is described as being in “Good” condition

with a brick exterior wall and a flat roof. Inside, the walls are primarily sheetrock,

and flooring is primarily hardwood and ceramic tile.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(a)(1), taxing districts which may feel

discriminated2 against by an assessed valuation of property in the taxing district may,

on or before April 1, file a complaint with the county board of taxation. 3 N.J.S.A.

2

In the context of property tax appeals, "discrimination" refers to the situation where

a property's assessed value is considered unfair when compared to other similar

properties in the same municipality. It essentially means that the assessed-to-market

value ratio applied to a specific property is beyond the legally permitted range. This

standard recognizes that property values fluctuate over time due to various factors

like inflation or depreciation after a revaluation or reassessment. Therefore, the

common level range is a permissible range within which assessed values can deviate

from the true market value. In New Jersey the common level range for a taxing

district is generally plus or minus 15% of the average ratio for that district. Chapter

123 establishes the annual ratios.

3

Or directly with the Tax Court if the assessed valuation of the property subject to

appeal exceeds $1,000,000.

3

54:51A-9 allows parties dissatisfied with the judgment of the Board to seek review

of the judgment in Tax Court according to the procedures and time limits determined

by the Director of the Division of Taxation, which is forty-five (45) days.

Municipality filed a Verified Petition of Appeal with the Hudson County

Board of Taxation (“Board”) alleging that the Subject Property was underassessed

for tax year 2023. Neither Defendant nor an attorney on Defendant’s behalf

appeared at the County Board hearing. On August 3, 2023, the Board issued a

Memorandum of Judgment with Judgment Code #6B “Hearing Waived” affirming

the $342,600 assessment. On August 28, 2023, the Board mailed a copy of the

Memorandum of Judgment to the Municipality, and a copy to Defendant at its

address of 67 West Street Ste 410-C6 Brooklyn, New York 11222.

Part VIII of the New Jersey Rules of Court govern the practice and procedure

in all actions in the Tax Court. R. 8:1. The Tax Court has initial review jurisdiction

of all final decisions of a county board of taxation. R. 8:2.

On October 11, 2023, Municipality timely filed a complaint with the Tax

Court, appealing the Board’s judgment and naming WRIGHT JC SUITES, LLC, the

owner of record, as defendant. The complaint alleges discrimination, asserting that

the 2023 assessment is below its true market value.

R. 8:5-3(a)(2) provides that a complaint by a taxing district to review the

action of a County Board of Taxation shall be served on the County Board of

4

Taxation and, if the action to be reviewed involves the assessment of a specific parcel

of property, on the taxpayer of said property and the assessor of the taxing district.

Furthermore, R. 8:5-4(3) states:

Service upon a taxpayer in a local property tax matter shall

be: (i) By personal service or by certified or registered

mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney who

appeared for the taxpayer in the County Board of Taxation

proceeding which resulted in the judgment contested in the

complaint. (ii) If there was no attorney for the taxpayer in

the County Board of Taxation proceeding which resulted

in the judgment contested in the complaint or if the

complaint is a direct appeal by a taxing district pursuant

to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, service shall be made upon the

taxpayer by personal service or by certified or registered

mail, return receipt requested, and if by mail, at the

address listed on the County Board of Taxation petition by

the taxpayer, or if none, at the last known address as it

appears on the last taxing district tax duplicate. (iii)

Consistent with due process of law, service by mail

pursuant to this subsection shall have the same effect as

personal service, and the mailing shall constitute effective

service unless the mail is returned undelivered by the

Postal Service. (iv) When service by certified or

registered mail, return receipt requested, is not effected

initially because the mail is returned undelivered, the party

making service may make reservice simultaneously by

certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and

ordinary mail, and if the addressee refuses to claim or

accept delivery of the certified or registered mail and if the

ordinary mail is not returned, the simultaneous mailing

shall constitute effective service, and the additional time

required for service shall not affect the validity of the

complaint. (v) If service cannot be made by any of the

modes provided by this rule, a taxpayer may be served as

provided by court order, consistent with due process of

law.

5

[R. 8:5-4(3). Emphasis added.]

New Jersey’s Rules of General Application are also implicated. R. 1:5-2

states that service upon a party shall be made as provided in R. 4:4-4 or by registered

or certified mail, return receipt requested, and simultaneously by ordinary mail to

the party’s last known address. Precedent holds that service on a party by

simultaneous certified and regular mail, constitutes good service even if the party

refuses to claim the certified mail. See EMC Mortg. v. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. Super.

126, 140 (App. Div. 2008) (stating “the [Plaintiff’s] failure to claim the certified

mail . . . will not defeat [ ] compliance”).4

In New Jersey, real property is assessed to its owner. 5 While it is well

established that one need not be the owner of real property to be an aggrieved

taxpayer entitled to initiate a tax appeal, this court has determined that by virtue of

holding title to the property, the owner maintains independent standing as an

aggrieved taxpayer even in situations where other aggrieved taxpayers exist. See

B&D Assoc., Ltd. v. Twp. Of Franklin, 32 NJ Tax 81, 88-89 (Tax 2020). Thus, it

4

See Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. on R. 1:5-2 (2025).

5

N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 provides, “[a]ll real property shall be assessed to the person

owning the same on October 1 in each year.”

6

stands to reason that, in the absence of any other known aggrieved taxpayers,

Defendant, as the record owner, is the appropriate party in this appeal.6

On October 11, 2023, Municipality served the complaint on Defendant via

certified and ordinary mail at the address of record on the tax roll, 7 pursuant to R.

8:5-4. On December 10, 2023, the United States Postal Service (USPS) returned the

certified mail return receipt card (green card) marked “Refused.” USPS did not

return the complaint sent by regular mail. The Board, the Jersey City assessor, and

the Jersey City Clerk were also served.

Review of Jersey City’s online Tax Inquiry and Payment website at

“taxes.cityofjerseycity.com/Viewpay?accountNumber=253153” discloses that on

December 15, 2023, Municipality issued Tax Sale Certificate 2023-0555 to Lien

Holder Trystone Capital Assets LLC (“Trystone”) in the amount of $1,826.51 for

the first quarter of 2023, and $2,742.26 comprising the second quarter payment real

estate taxes as well as solid waste, water and sewer payments for 2023. For this

reason, the court is considering Trystone to be an interested party in this decision.

Defendant designates itself as a limited liability corporation. The New Jersey

Court Rules provide that an entity other than a sole proprietorship, however formed

6

While the Subject Property is a two-family dwelling, leases are absent.

7

Municipality’s counsel also confirmed Defendant’s address by a search of the

Subject Property’s Deed dated April 26, 2017, which stated Defendant’s address as

“67 West Street, Suite 401-C6, Brooklyn, NY 11222.”

7

and for whatever purpose, shall neither appear nor file any paper in any action in the

Tax Court except through an attorney authorized to practice in New Jersey. R. 8:3-

3; R. 1:21-1(c). 8

For this reason, on October 24, 2023, the Tax Court Management Office

issued the following notice to the Defendant:

An attorney must file a notice of appearance on the

defendant entity’s behalf within 30 days of the date of this

notice, if you wish to oppose the relief sought in the above-

captioned local property tax complaint. If you fail to have

an attorney appear to represent your interests, the case may

proceed without your participation and may result in a

judgment adverse to your interests.

The notice was addressed to “WRIGHT JC SUITES LLC 67 WEST STREET

SUITE 401-C6 BROOKLYN, NY 11222,” was sent by regular mail, and was not

returned.

Our court rules provide that in local property tax cases, every defendant may

but need not file an answer. R. 8:3-2(b) (emphasis added). In the present case,

Defendant did not respond to the complaint, did not respond to the notice sent by the

Tax Court Management Office, has not had an appearance filed by an attorney, and

has not filed an answer.

Based on the foregoing, on December 1, 2023, the court issued an Order

barring Defendant from raising defenses for failure to appear in court or otherwise

8

Except in the instance of limited liability partnerships for the practice of law.

8

comply with the notice issued by the Tax Court Management Office. The Order also

scheduled a proof hearing for August 9, 2024. The Order was sent by regular mail

to Defendant. It was returned to the court with a “RETURN TO SENDER

ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD” stamp postmarked

January 22, 2024. The court received it on February 16, 2024.

The court adjourned the proof hearing at the request of Municipality.

A second Order was sent to the Defendant on January 16, 2025, rescheduling

the proof hearing to April 11, 2025. USPS returned this mailing with the same

“RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO

FORWARD” stamp postmarked February 18, 2025. The court received it on

February 25, 2024.

Both the December 1, 2023 Order and the January 16, 2025 Order sent by the

court had an incorrect suite address of “4-1-C6” instead of “401-C6.”

On March 7, 2025, and on July 28, 2025, the court sent notices to Defendant

at the correct address rescheduling the proof hearing. USPS has not returned either

of those mailings.

On June 24, 2025, the Jersey City tax collector certified that the owner of

record was still Wright JC Suites LLC, with a mailing address of 67 West Street Ste

410-C6 Brooklyn, New York 11222. The tax collector further certified that all

correspondence from the tax collector’s office, including but not limited to property

9

tax bills, are sent to that address, and that to date all property tax payments are

current, except for municipal charges related to water/sewer assessments.

The court finds that Municipality has identified the appropriate

party/defendant, and it has met the pleadings and proof of service requirements

mandated by the court rules. Municipality served defendant at the last known

address as it appears on the taxing district tax duplicate. The court finds that it is the

taxpayer that has the obligation to maintain an accurate mailing address on the tax

roll, and it is not a municipality’s obligation to hunt down a taxpayer in the taxing

district for purpose of service of process in a tax appeal.

The court makes these findings with the acknowledgment that the statutory

and rule requirements of the use of the USPS to effectuate service may be outdated

in 2025. For almost two decades, business communications have increasingly relied

upon electronic mail, to the point where individuals are now charged a fee by private

entities for the delivery of business records through the postal system. However,

until such time the service-of-process requirements are updated to reflect or be

compatible with current business practices, the onus is on the owner to provide an

address to the municipality to effectuate service of process. Perhaps with the

issuance of this opinion, the legislature and municipalities will consider

10

implementing an option for delivery of process by email to coexist with the use of

the USPS.9

On August 25, 2025, the court issued an Order to Show Cause notifying

Defendant of the expert appraisal report submitted by Municipality in support of

default judgment. The court set September 19, 2025, as the date for Defendant’s

response. The court also sent the Order to Trystone. Neither Defendant nor Trystone

responded.

Given the above, the court will now proceed to resolution of the consequences

of Defendant’s nonappearance, and the merits of Municipality’s tax appeal.

Procedures in the Tax Court are governed by New Jersey Court Rules IV10

and VIII. There is no provision in Rule VIII for default in a local property tax appeal.

In certain circumstances, Rule VIII adopts provisions from Rule IV governing civil

9

Another option would be the adoption of a court rule similar to Federal Rule of

Procedure 4(d) that allows service by regular mail but provides that if the defendant

does not acknowledge service and personal service has to be effectuated, the cost of

personal service can then be shifted to the defendant, so as not to place the financial

burden on the municipality.

10

R. 4-1. The rules in Part IV, insofar as applicable, govern the practice and

procedure of civil actions in the Superior Court, Law and Chancery Divisions, and

the surrogate's courts and the Tax Court except as otherwise provided in Part VI

and Part VIII.

11

practice11. However, in the context of a local property tax appeal, the default

provisions of Rule IV are inapplicable because they contemplate the mandatory

filing of an answer by a defendant.

In the absence of a default provision, the court proceeds to R. 8:8-4, which

states:

If any party fails to appear the court may order any one or

more of the following:

(a)In the absence of an appearance by a plaintiff, dismiss

the complaint;

(b) In the absence of an appearance by a defendant

(1) proceed to hear the matter on the designated date;

(2) dismiss the counterclaim, if any;

(c) Take such other action authorized by R. 1:2-4(a) as it

shall deem appropriate.

11

R. 8:2 conferring jurisdiction to the Tax Court pursuant to R. 4:3-4(a) for matters

with issues as to which expertise in taxation is desirable; R. 8:3-4 referencing R.

4:57 regarding contents of a complaint; R. 8:3-6 requiring that an Answer filed in

Tax Court conform to the requirements of R. 4:5-3; R. 8:3-8 requiring that

amendments to conform to the evidence be permitted in accordance with R. 4:9-2;

R. 8:4-3 specifying the time for filing of all pleadings other than the complaint be

prescribed by R. 4:6-1; R. 8:5-4 requiring that service of the Complaint be made

personally or by certified or registered mail , return receipt requested, as provided in

R. 4:4-4; R. 8:6-1(a) stating that discovery may be taken in accordance with the

provisions of R. 4:10-1 through R. 4:18-2 and R. 4:22 through R. 4:25; R. 8:6-3

adopting the provision of R. 4:23-5 relating to discovery; R. 8:7 with respect to the

governing provision of R. 4 with respect to motions; R. 8:9-1 referencing R. 4:42-1

regarding form of judgment; R. 8:10 referencing R. 4:49-1 (motions for new trials)

and R. 4:49-2 (motion to alter or amend a judgment or final pleading).

12

R. 1:2-4(a) provides that if without just excuse or because of failure to give

reasonable attention to the matter, no appearance is made on behalf of a party on the

call of a calendar, on the return of a motion, at a pretrial conference, settlement

conference, or any other proceeding scheduled by the court, or on the day of trial,

the court may order the striking of the answer and the entry of judgment by default.

Thus, the court finds that by virtue of R. 1:2-4(a), the consequence of the absence of

a taxpayer defendant is to proceed with the entry of default judgment.

Furthermore, R. 8:8-1 allows the court to exercise its discretion to hear a tax

appeal by submission and without trial. As to this tax appeal, the court has reviewed

Municipality’s evidentiary submissions and is satisfied that the evidence is adequate

to proceed without the necessity or expense of testimony from Municipality’s fact

and expert witnesses. In the absence of rebuttal or contradiction, the evidence

provided to the court is sufficient to allow the determination of default judgment to

proceed by submission and without hearing. 12

The court set September 19, 2025, as the date for determination with notice to

both parties.

12

Precedence for the submission of a certified real estate appraiser report in lieu of

testimony can be found in R. 4:94-2.

13

II. Legal Analysis

The court first addresses the issue of discrimination. The requirement of equal

treatment is mandated by the New Jersey Constitution, which specifies that all

property be assessed for taxation under general laws, by uniform rules and in

accordance with a single standard of value. N.J. Const. art. 8, § 1(1). If such equal

treatment is not given to the taxpayer, the taxpayer is entitled to judicial relief.

Piscataway Assoc., v. Piscataway Twp., 73 N.J. 546, 556 (1977). Relief from such

assessment discrimination is governed by Chapter 123.

Discrimination, within the context of local property taxation, arises when a

taxpayer’s property is assessed at a value that results in an effective tax rate

inconsistent with the standard required by law. In non-revaluation years, when

Chapter 123 applies, an assessment may be increased if the Tax Court finds that the

ratio of assessed to true value falls below the lower end of the common level range.

In these circumstances, the underassessment means the taxpayer is remitting less

than their proportionate share of the municipal tax burden, effectively shifting a

greater obligation onto other property owners.

A common argument posited by taxpayers in response to municipal claims of

underassessment is that the municipality does not experience a tangible loss because

of a single underassessment. Because municipal budgets are funded in full, their

argument continues, any shortfall attributable to a particular property necessarily

14

results in a marginally increased share borne by the remainder of the taxpayers. In

this way, the municipality itself is always made whole, while the remaining

constituents absorb the difference created by the underassessment.

However, such reasoning misconstrues the role and nature of the municipality

in the tax context. A municipality exists not as a profit-seeking beneficiary but as a

collective body acting on behalf of its residents and taxpayers. The constitutionally

enshrined principle, and the mandate of the Tax Court, is to ensure that each taxpayer

pays no more and no less than their lawful portion of the municipal budget. If a

property is underassessed, the resultant deficit, though initially abstract at the

municipal level, is in reality absorbed by the other property owners of the same

municipal body who are thus compelled to pay more than their fair share.

To accept the proposition that a municipality cannot suffer discrimination in

cases of underassessment would render worthless the statutory and constitutional

mechanisms that permit municipalities to challenge inequitable assessments. It

would negate the legislative grant permitting reverse appeals by municipalities and

compromise the integrity of the equitable taxation system.

Therefore, this court holds that discrimination is established where the

municipality demonstrates, through evidence and application of Chapter 123, that a

property is underassessed to the detriment of other taxpayers. In so holding, this

15

court affirms its charge to safeguard the principle of tax uniformity, ensuring that no

individual taxpayer’s burden is unjustly shifted to others.

The court now turns to valuation.

To determine whether the Subject Property is underassessed the court begins

its analysis with the well-established principle that “[o]riginal assessments and

judgments of county boards of taxation are entitled to a presumption of validity.”

MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Mountain Lakes Borough, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 373

(Tax 1998); see also Byram Twp. v. Western World, 111 N.J. 222 (1988) (stating

“[w]hile a municipality’s original assessment is entitled to a presumption of validity,

this presumption attaches to the assessment of the County Board when it is the

determination of that body that is challenged before the Tax Court.”).

The presumption of correctness is not a mere evidentiary mechanism used

solely to allocate the burden of proof. Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J.

408, 413 (1985). Rather, the presumption expresses the view “that in tax matters it

is to be presumed that governmental authority has been exercised correctly and in

accordance with law.” Ibid. (citing Powder Mill, I Assocs. v. Township of Hamilton,

3 N.J. Tax 439 (Tax 1981)).

In determining whether the presumption of correctness has been overcome,

the court should weigh and analyze the evidence employing the evidentiary standard

that evidence must be “definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity to

16

overcome the presumption.” Pantasote Co., 100 N.J. at 413 (quoting Aetna Life Ins.

Co. v. Newark, 10 N.J. 99, 105 (1952)). In order to overcome the presumption, the

evidence “must be ‘sufficient to determine the value of the property under appeal,

thereby establishing the existence of a debatable question as to the correctness of the

assessment.’” West Colonial Enters., LLC v. City of East Orange, 20 N.J. Tax 576,

579 (Tax 2003) (quoting Lenal Props., Inc. v. City of Jersey City, 18 N.J. Tax 405,

408 (Tax 1999), aff’d, 18 N.J. Tax 658 (App. Div. 2000), certif. denied, 165 N.J.

488 (2000)).

Municipality submitted the certified report of a real estate appraiser

(“Expert”). The Expert currently serves as the Tax Assessor for both Wall Township

and the Borough of Manasquan and is a Director at the Associated Appraisal Group.

The Expert has qualified as an expert witness in the field of real estate appraisal in

many courts, including the Tax Court, and he is also a State certified appraiser in

New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and is an associate member of the Appraisal Institute.

An inspection of the Subject Property took place on March 26, 2025, 13 and

the Expert prepared a report dated March 28, 2025, summarizing the data considered

and the basis for his value conclusion.

13

The Expert did not conduct the inspection himself. An agent under his authority

performed the exterior site inspection and took photographs.

17

The court finds that Municipality produced sufficient cogent evidence to

overcome the presumption of validity attached to the assessment. The court

concludes that Municipality has raised a debatable question regarding the

correctness of the assessment. Municipality identified four comparable sales and

included necessary adjustments to make each sale and comparable property as close

to identical to the Subject Property.

Having found the presumption of correctness overcome, the court must

determine the true market value of the Subject Property as of October 1, 2022, based

on the evidence in the record, which is limited to Municipality’s proofs.

The court acknowledges that historically, there are very few reverse/increase

tax appeals filed by municipalities. Most local property tax appeals are filed by the

taxpayer with notice to the municipality, the county board of taxation, and the

municipality’s assessor. These are often referred to as affirmative appeals as they

seek reduction of the assessment.

Since approximately 2012, the Tax Court has docketed an increased number

of tax appeals filed on behalf of municipalities seeking to increase a property’s

assessment. Many of the defendants in reverse appeals are entities required to be

represented by legal counsel. The prevailing cause of default judgment cases in the

Tax Court involves defendants who do not respond and do not hire an attorney.

18

Generally, the contested local property tax appeal involves the production of

persuasive evidence at trial establishing the true market value of the property in

question implementing a “preponderance of the evidence” burden of proof. This,

however, is not the applicable burden of proof in determining default judgment.

The leading case in the context of a default judgment, Heimbach v. Mueller,

id., holds that the burden of proof is less than the civil trial standard of

“preponderance of the evidence,” and the court is not to engage in a “weighing” of

the evidence. Instead, a plaintiff must adduce proofs which demonstrate that the

facts alleged “might have been the case” or that they could conceivably be proved at

trial, and that, if proved, they would establish the legally required elements of

plaintiff’s claim for relief. Heimbach, 229 N.J. Super. at 23.

Case law relating to burden of proof in default judgment hearings is notably

sparse and primarily discussed in unpublished Appellate Division decisions. This is

not surprising given that such an appeal would only occur in instances where the

plaintiff was unsuccessful at the trial court level.

When determining default judgment, it is recognized that a trial court

imposing a preponderance standard may be imposing too heavy a burden on a

plaintiff and giving an improper benefit of the doubt as to every issue to the defaulted

defendant. Fairness dictates that judgment may only be denied after a defendant’s

default where a court finds that “some necessary element of plaintiff’s prima facie

19

case was missing or because plaintiff’s claim was barred by some rule of law whose

applicability was evident either from the pleadings or the proofs presented.”

Heimbach, 229 N.J. Super. at 23-24. A court should ordinarily only apply the prima

facie standard to plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions or hearing, thus not weighing

evidence or finding facts but only determining bare sufficiency. See Kolczycki v.

City of East Orange, 317 N.J. Super 505, 514 (App. Div. 1999).

Applying this reduced burden of proof and having found that the presumption

of correctness has been overcome, the court now considers the evidence in the record

in support of valuation.

III. Analysis of Evidence

To prove its claim that the Subject Property is underassessed, Municipality

must provide the court with evidence to indicate true market value exceeding the

Chapter 123 Lower Limit ratio of 70.47%, which results in an implied market value

of $486,165.

In support of its request for default judgment, the court will consider the

evidence provided in the Expert’s March 28, 2025 report.

After reviewing the current market trends, past market activity, actual supply

and demand for like-properties, municipal zoning, and neighborhood compatibility,

the Expert found that the Subject Property’s highest and best use, as improved, was

consistent with its continued use as a residential property. The Expert also

20

concluded that the highest and best use of the Subject Property, if vacant, would be

for the continued use as a residential lot. Under the four (4) part test of the highest

and best use,14 the Subject Property’s continued use as a residential dwelling

satisfied all four (4) elements.

When initiating the appraisal on the Subject Property, the Expert considered

the three appraisal methods: the Sales Comparison Approach; the Income

Capitalization Approach; and the Cost Approach. The Expert chose not to apply the

Cost nor Income Capitalization Approach citing that the Subject Property type is not

typically valued based on its income generating purpose. Instead, the Expert chose

to utilize the Sales Comparison Approach.

The Sales Comparison approach requires recent sales similar to the Subject

Property, preferably in a nearby location. The approach necessitates that all listings,

offerings, and rental data be considered as factors that could affect current market

conditions. While each sale is analyzed and compared to the Subject Property,

adjustments are made where comparable properties are dissimilar in aspects

including location, time of sale, size of lot, and condition, to name a few. The goal

14

Highest and Best use may be defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of

vacant land or an improved property, that is legally permissible, physically possible,

appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value.

See APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THE APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE, 305 (15th ed. 2020).

21

is to make each comparable sale nearly equal to the Subject Property in an effort to

narrow the value range supported by sound and reasonable comparisons.

The Expert selected four (4) recent sales that he believed most closely

reflected the Subject Property. The properties used for comparison are listed below:

22

Subject Sale Comp. Sale Comp. Sale Comp. Sale Comp.

Property

Property 1 2 3 4

Address, 12

21 Wright 62 Wright 10 Bryant 32 Wallis

Jersey Wright

Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue

City Avenue

April, February, January, September,

Date of Sale July, 2022

2017 2022 2022 2022

Sale Price $210,000 $520,000 $675,000 $600,000 $825,000

Sale Price/sq. $108.25 / $390.98 / $472.22 / $401.07 / $689.80 /

ft. of GLA sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.

1,999 sq. 1,668 sq. 1,999 sq.

Lot Size 2,500 sq. ft. 1,999 sq. ft.

ft. ft. ft.

Gross Living 1,940 sq. 1,330 sq. 1,580 sq.

1,496 sq. ft. 1,196 sq. ft.

Area ft. ft. ft.

Street

20 feet 16.67 feet 20 feet 25 feet 40 feet

Frontage

Bathrooms /

2/6 2.5 / 4 2/4 2/2 2/3

Bedrooms

Unfinished

50% Basement /

Unfinished Unfinished

Amenities finished None 3-Car

Basement Basement

Basement Detached

Garage

Adjustments n/a 42.04% 10.50% 27.29% 25.97%

Adjusted

n/a $827,250 $768,250 $832,480 $1,060,000

Price

23

Considerations that required adjustments included the timing of the sale; the

lot size; age/condition-quality of construction; number of bathrooms; total Gross

Living Area; basement conditions, or lack thereof; and availability of garage

parking.

All four (4) comparable sales closed between January and September of 2022,

when there was an increasing marketplace at a rate of 12% per annum, requiring

values to be adjusted upward. Because comparable sales 1, 3, and 4 had not been

renovated and were in inferior condition, their values were adjusted upward. Half

bathrooms were adjusted upward $15,000 where necessary, and any square footage

more than the Subject Property was adjusted upward $20.00/square foot. Exclusive

parking was afforded two different values based on kind: $20,000 per car utilized

for garage parking; $10,000 per car for off-street parking. Finally, the Expert

adjusted sales $175.00 per square foot of gross livable area where necessary.

Prior to adjustment, the sales reflected a range of $520,000 to $825,000.

Applying adjustments, the Expert concluded the range of value was between

$768,000 to $1,060,000 (rounded). When considering the facts and specific features,

conditions, and amenities that the Subject Property provided, the Expert concluded

the value of the Subject Property to be $850,000 as of October 1, 2022.

24

Municipality’s evidence of value relies upon application of the Sales

Comparison Approach, which is generally accepted as an appropriate method of

estimating value for family residences. See Brown v. Borough of Glen Rock, 19

N.J. Tax 366, 377 (App. Div. 2001); APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THE APPRAISAL OF REAL

ESTATE, 353 (15th ed. 2020) (stating “[t]he sales comparison approach is applicable

to most type of real property interest when there are sufficient recent, reliable

transactions to indicate value patterns or trends in the market.”). This method of

valuation has been defined as a procedure in which a value indication is derived by

comparing the property being appraised to similar properties that have been sold

recently, selecting the most relevant units of comparison, and adjusting the price of

each comparable, reflecting how it differs to equate it to the subject property.

APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THE APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE, at 355. A purchaser in the

marketplace on October 1, 2022, would determine the value of the Subject Property

through the use of comparable sales. The court finds that this approach best

determines the true market value of Defendant’s property.

After careful consideration of the record, the court finds the Expert’s opinion

of the Subject Property’s true market value supported by the evidentiary record. His

comparable sales were all similar use properties and are sales which occurred

between only nine (9) months in 2022. His analysis contains appropriate

25

adjustments to the sales prices of the comparable sales and appropriate estimates of

the cost to replace or reproduce the improvement on the land.

The court finds the true market value of Block 10302, Lot 3 as of October 1,

2022, to be $850,000. Municipality has proven its claim that the Subject Property is

underassessed, as this value exceeds the 2023 Chapter 123 Lower Limit ratio value

of 70.47%, with an implied market value of $486,165. Applying the Chapter 123

average ratio of 0.8291, the court finds an assessment value for the 2022 tax year to

be $704,735, which it will round to $705,000.

IV. Conclusion

Municipality has proven its claim that the Subject Property is underassessed,

as this value exceeds the 2023 Chapter 123 Lower Limit ratio value of 70.47%, with

an implied market value of $486,165.

Applying the Chapter 123 Average ratio of 82.91% to the Subject Property’s

value of $850,000, the court finds an assessment value for the 2023 tax year to be

$704,735 which the court will round to $705,000.

Accordingly, a judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2023 tax year

assessment will be entered as follows:

Block 10302, Lot 3

Land: $ 180,000

Improvement: $ 525,000

Total: $ 705,000

26

Contemporaneously with the issuance of this opinion, the court shall enter the

above-referenced judgment.

/s/ Mary Siobhan Brennan

Hon. Mary Siobhan Brennan, J.T.C.

27