Cherry Hill Township v. the Center at Cherry Hill, LLC, 005725-2018 005727-2018 002946-2019 002947-2019

Background

The Center at Cherry Hill, LLC owned two commercial parcels (Block 285.25, Lots 2 & 3). 2017 assessments: Lot 2 $4,844,000; Lot 3 $6,593,000. Plaintiff (Cherry Hill Township) kept the same assessments for tax years 2018 and 2019.
Defendant purchased the property on February 23, 2018 after 2018 assessments were certified. Cherry Hill filed Tax Court appeals for 2018 and 2019 asserting the assessments were "below the true or assessable value." Appeals were filed in the municipality's name and signed by municipal counsel.
For each year the Township Council adopted resolutions authorizing the Tax Assessor and/or municipal tax counsel to "file and settle Tax Appeals, Assessor's Appeals and other contests" on behalf of the Township.
The Assessor identified properties (based on income/expense statements) he believed were underassessed and advised municipal staff and special counsel; he did not change the municipal assessment rolls because he believed reassessment of isolated properties might be improper.
Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the Assessor (not the municipality) was the true plaintiff and that the Assessor improperly appealed his own allegedly false assessments, violating statutory and constitutional safeguards. The court denied summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cherry Hill)	Defendant's Argument (Center)	Held
Who is the real plaintiff in municipal assessment appeals?	The municipality is the plaintiff; council resolutions authorized filing.	The Assessor effectively controlled and initiated the appeals, so the Assessor is the true plaintiff.	Municipality is the plaintiff; council resolution and filing by municipal counsel establish municipal action and presumption of regularity.
May a municipality appeal assessments identified by its Assessor?	Yes; statute contemplates taxing-district appeals and assessor recommendations are within his duties.	No; allowing the Assessor to prompt appeals of assessments he set permits appealing his own false assessments and circumvents taxpayer protections.	Court rejects defendant's absolute bar; assessor may recommend appeals and municipality may file them without violating statutory scheme.
Did the Assessor improperly "appeal his own assessment" or violate uniformity/constitutional protections?	The Assessor recommended appeals to avoid improper spot reassessments; selection for appeal is not itself an assessment.	The Assessor knew assessments were false when made and thus deprived taxpayers of notice and proper process by prompting appeals.	Selection for appeal is not equivalent to reassessment; no constitutionally protected right was violated and the process did not constitute an improper assessment.
Is summary judgment appropriate for dismissal of the complaints?	Cherry Hill contends there are no factual issues requiring trial on the legal question and that defendant is not entitled to dismissal.	Center contends legal defect (wrong plaintiff / improper process) mandates dismissal as a matter of law.	Summary judgment denied; court finds no genuine dispute of material fact but concludes defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Key Cases Cited

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (establishes New Jersey summary-judgment standard)
Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67 (movant must exclude reasonable doubt about genuine factual issues)
West Milford Tp. v. Van Decker, 120 N.J. 354 (spot reassessment and uniformity-clause concerns)
Tri-Terminal Corp. v. Borough of Edgewater, 68 N.J. 405 (assessor duties in valuation)
Glen Wall Assocs. v. Wall Tp., 99 N.J. 265 (court applies independent judgment to valuation evidence)
Forbes v. Bd. of Trustees of South Orange Village, 312 N.J. Super. 519 (presumption of regularity for municipal action)
Charlie Brown of Chatham, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 202 N.J. Super. 312 (municipal agencies afforded wide latitude in delegated discretion)
F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418 (municipal appeals asserting assessments are "too low" are cognizable)