191 A.3d 597
N.J.2018Background
- GAF subdivided land in Linden, NJ; Goodman sought planning-board approval in 2014 to develop one parcel (the Property). Cherokee claimed ownership of an adjacent Superfund site (the Neighboring Property) and objected at the Board hearing; the tax-certificate purchaser (Equities) did not appear. Seventeen days later Equities assigned three tax sale certificates to Linden 587; foreclosure proceedings were pending.
- The Board approved Goodman’s application (with conditions, including a roadway to preserve access); Cherokee appeared and litigated before the Board; Linden 587 had not participated in the hearing.
- Cherokee and Linden 587 filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the Board approval. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing; the trial court dismissed with prejudice, finding Linden 587 (a tax lienholder) lacked an ownership or possessory interest. The Appellate Division affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether a tax lienholder has standing under the MLUL to challenge development on neighboring property when its right to use, acquire, or enjoy property may be affected.
- The Court: (1) held that a tax sale certificate holder can be an “interested party” under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4 if it shows its right to use, acquire, or enjoy property is or may be affected; and (2) reversed and remanded for further fact development, rejecting categorical dismissal because the record was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a tax lienholder can be an "interested party" under the MLUL | Linden 587: its right to acquire or use the Neighboring Property may be destroyed by approval, so it has standing | Defendants: MLUL notice rules and ownership/proximity show only titled owners should have standing; lienholder lacks present title/possession | A tax lienholder may qualify as an interested party if it shows its right to use, acquire, or enjoy property is or may be affected (case-by-case) |
| Whether absence of foreclosure or recorded judgment defeats standing | Linden 587: lack of recorded foreclosure does not eliminate its inchoate statutory rights (right to acquire; limited right to enter abandoned property) | Goodman/LPH: without foreclosure or possession, the lienholder has no present property interest and thus no standing | Foreclosure is not a prerequisite to standing; contingent inchoate rights can support standing if they may be affected, but facts must be developed |
| Whether motive or timing of assignment (after hearing) is relevant to standing | Plaintiffs: motive and assignment timing are irrelevant; successor-in-interest stands in assignor’s shoes | Defendants: assignment after hearing and plaintiffs’ motive undermine standing and procedural fairness | Motive and timing are not dispositive; standing depends on whether the statutory rights may be affected, considered case-by-case; record needs development |
| Whether MLUL notice list (owners within 200 feet) limits who is an "interested party" | Linden 587: MLUL’s notice rule is distinct from the broader MLUL definition of "interested party"; notice list does not limit standing | Defendants: notice scheme reflects who should be heard; non-noticed lienholders should not have standing | MLUL notice requirement does not restrict who is an interested party; the statutory definition governs standing, not the notice provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Princeton Office Park, L.P. v. Plymouth Park Tax Servs., LLC, 218 N.J. 52 (discusses rights and inchoate nature of tax sale certificate interests)
- Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304 (examines redemption rights and tax-sale-foreclosure process)
- Varsolona v. Breen Capital Servs. Corp., 180 N.J. 605 (describes the tax sale process and priority of municipal liens)
- Township of Jefferson v. Block 447A, Lot 10, 228 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.) (holds that a tax sale certificate purchaser lacks title until foreclosure)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (explains de novo review for standing in land-use cases)
- Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, 124 N.J. 398 (standing is a threshold issue to be resolved before merits)