Croft, Robert v. Montclair Township, 006061-2022; 002341-2023

Plaintiff Robert Croft challenged the 2022 and 2023 property tax assessments for his mixed-use property (office and residential) located in Montclair, NJ, specifically for Lot 10.
The property consists of a historical building with five office units and one apartment, with some areas located in flood hazard zones.
Both parties used expert appraisers to establish the market value, employing the income capitalization approach as the preferred method due to the property’s income-producing nature.
Procedurally, Croft's appeals only concerned Lot 10; assessments for Lots 11 and 12 were not timely appealed and thus not under review, though their values needed to be considered in the valuation process.
The court conducted a detailed review of the experts' testimonies, comparable leases, and applied stabilized income, expense, vacancy, and capitalization rates.
The court found that the assessed-to-market value ratios for Lot 10 remained within permissible statutory ranges for both tax years, so no adjustment to the assessments was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's (Montclair) Argument	Held
Presumption of assessment validity	Presented expert evidence to rebut the presumption	Plaintiff's expert’s report/corrections undermine credibility	Plaintiff presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption, but burden remained on him
Highest and best use	Subject's highest and best use is current mixed-use; commercial construction feasible with a variance	Highest and best use as vacant is for residential under current zoning; existing use is interim best use	Court found improved use is current mixed-use, but agreed with Montclair on vacant use as residential
Economic/market rent calculations	Relied on comparable leases, but only starting rents	Used average rent over term and more physical/market analysis	Court found Montclair's approach more credible for office units, Plaintiff’s for apartment unit
Stabilized expenses/tenant improvement allowance	Sought higher stabilized expenses, allowance customary	Lower expenses; tenant improvements not customary	Court adopted a blend of proposed expenses, but did not allow a tenant improvement allowance
Final tax assessment adjustment	Assessments should be lowered based on lower value	No reduction necessary; proper methodology supports assessment	No adjustment: assessed-to-market value ratios fall within statutory range for both years

Pantasote Co. v. Passaic Cty., 100 N.J. 408 (explains presumption of validity for tax assessments and need for cogent evidence to rebut)
Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Twp., 127 N.J. 290 (burden of proof remains on taxpayer even after presumption is rebutted; importance of highest/best use)
Parkway Vill. Apartments Co. v. Cranford Twp., 108 N.J. 266 (importance of economic/market rent in property tax valuation)
MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Mountain Lakes Borough, 18 N.J. Tax 364 (standard for rebutting presumption of assessment validity)