University Cottage Club v. Princeton Borough
26 N.J. Tax 185
N.J. Tax Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff is a not-for-profit private eating club affiliated with Princeton University but not officially part of it.
- Plaintiff sought exemption for the subject property as an historic site under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.52 to -3.54.
- CONCLUSION: DEP certification as historic site was denied, rendering plaintiff ineligible for exemption for tax years 2002–2004.
- Plaintiff filed Tax Court appeals for 2002–2004 under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, but these remained on the inactive list pending related litigation.
- Litigation concluded against certification (Appellate Division and Supreme Court outcomes) in Univ. Cottage Club, leading to no exemption for 2002–2004.
- The court questioned whether the Tax Court complaints should include valuation or discrimination claims given the exemption-focused posture and the expiration of the 54:3-21 deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may amend to add time-barred valuation claims | Valuation and discrimination were raised in the complaints. | Valuation claims are time-barred; amendments adding new time-barred claims are not permitted. | Barred; claims of valuation/discrimination are time-barred and cannot be amended in. |
| Whether discrimination claims can be added after the statute of limitations | Discrimination was implicated in the pleadings and related filings. | Discrimination is a separate, time-barred claim not properly pleaded. | Barred; discrimination claims cannot be added after expiration. |
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider valuation for 2002–2004 given lack of pleading | Valuation issues were alleged through complaint forms and course of proceedings. | Jurisdiction limited by 54:3-21 deadlines and failure to plead valuation. | Jurisdiction to hear valuation waived; barred by statute and pleading rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackensack Water Co. v. Township of North Bergen, 8 N.J.Super. 139, 142 (App.Div.1950) (App.Div.1950) (amendment to add new cause of action after time bar prohibited)
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Borough of Closter, 190 N.J.Super. 528, 540 (App.Div.1983) (App.Div.1983) (discrimination not a new cause after Chapter 123; elements similar to valuation)
- Harr v. Allstate Ins. Co., 54 N.J. 287, 299 (1969) (Supreme Ct. 1969) (liberal construction of Rule 4:9-3; when amendment adds same core action, relation back applies)
- Schumar v. Borough of Bernardsville, 347 N.J.Super. 325, 332-33 (App.Div.2001) (App.Div.2001) (spot assessment as discrimination; supports saying amendments possible only to relate to underlying action)
- Prospect Hill Apts. v. Flemington Bor., 172 N.J.Super. 245, 411 A.2d 737 (Tax 1979) (Tax 1979) (tax-claim time limits not relaxed by court rulings)
- McMahon v. City of Newark, 195 N.J.526, 530, 951 A.2d 185 (2008) (Supreme Ct. 2008) (statutory time limit is jurisdictional and not for relaxation)
- F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 425, 495 A.2d 1313 (1985) (Supreme Ct. 1985) (application of timing rules to complaints in taxation)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Edison, 127 N.J. 290, 298-99, 604 A.2d 580 (1992) (Supreme Ct. 1992) (true value defined as price in a willing buyer-seller transaction)