*1 forbidding the structural school expansion of theological in a residence “A” and district was held to unreasonable in that arbitrary, there was no reasonable ground appre- hend that health, menace proposed would buildings comfort, morals, or welfare of the safety, general community. Morris, Beirn v. an supra, had different factual altogether context. The reasonableness of land control of necessity use depends the circumstances of the case. particular
And it is fundamental that the judicial authority may substitute its own for the independent judgment specialized judgment of entrusted agency with Legislature administrative function, where the of the local findings record; have substantial basis in authority such, I submit, Morris, the case plainly here. Beirn v. supra.
I would affirm. Jr.,
William Bkennan, joins in this opinion. For Vanderbilt, reversal —Chief Justice and Justices Burling Oliphant, Waoheneeld —4.
For Hepier, Jacobs Brennan —3. affirmance—Justices CO., INC., AL., GIBRALTAR CORRUGATED PAPER ET PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE OF TOWNSHIP NORTH BERGEN IN THE OF COUNTY AND HUDSON APPEALS, OF TAX DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. September Argued 1955 Decided December *3 Mr. C. Glavin Joseph the cause for argued plaintiffs- Glavin, appellants C. (Mr. for Joseph attorney plaintiffs- Co., Inc., and The appellants Paper Gibraltar Corrugated America; Prudential Mr. Company Insurance Joseph Gullum, V. Max for Eckhardt attorney plaintiffs-appellants M. Son, Inc., & M. Pitman Trans- Triple Harold Company, Co. Block Messrs. Oils portation Company; and Calumet & Kilkenney, for Grand attorneys plaintiff-appellant Levenson, M. Jay attorney Container Mr. for Corporation; Electric plaintiffs-appellants High Corp., Ecco Frequency Weber; A. Grocery Company North Hudson and Constance Burke, ILourigan, (cid:127)& attorneys plain- Messrs. Sheridan Co., Felix W. L. Cameron tiffs-appellants Tagliabue, A. Co., Nine One Ave- Inc., Shippen Sixty Bergenline Holding nue et Company, al.). Nicholas argued
Mr. S. Schloeder defendants-re- spondents. of the was delivered opinion court J. This stems an order of the appeal from
Bueling, defendant Division of the motion of Appeals granting as of North referred to North Township Bergen (hereinafter Bergen) appeal dismiss so much of petitions the various were based taxpayer plaintiffs prayer for relief to their assessments at true value “to the reduce same level and value used in levying standard of district. We types property” on certified the on our motion to considera- controversy prior B. Division. B. 1:10—1. Appellate tion town- Bergen part County, North Hudson being annual assessment list and duplicate assessor filed the ship *4 It is Hudson Board of Taxation. uneon- properties that assessments on the plaintiffs’ tradicted the the prior “a substantial over for 1950 increase” represented 1, April Prior to properties. 1949 assessments the same on the “examining, met for county purpose 1950 the board lists, B. the North tax and correcting” Bergen revising of that 54:4^46, the to the collector duplicates and certified the increased assess- any without way district altering plaintiffs’ properties. ments on 15, Subsequently prior 1950, the August indi- vidual plaintiffs took board, the separate appeals county B. 54:3-21, c. 125, am. the alleging assessments their upon properties had been “ac- computed to a cording standard of value different from and higher than the standard used the by Township North Bergen in assessing other types of property” within the taxing dis- trict in “an resulting unconstitutional discrimination” against the property owners. The relief requested signals the importance the question: * * * petitioner prays “Xour that said true value levying be reduced to the same and standard of value level used types property on in said district.”
The board, after the for consolidating appeals hearing decided that the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of showing an unconstitutional discrimination. This burden was conceived to of an “intentional proof sys- tematic undervaluation” and “an intentional violation of the essential principle practical uniformity.” record before us indicates that the was clearly board of the opinion that the relief sought be afforded in case. might proper
Thereafter, 15, 1950, and before December the plaintiffs of Tax separately appealed Appeals Division alleging discrimination and the same relief advanced be- requesting fore the county board.
The Division never heard these and similar appeals, pro- 1951, 1952, were initiated the ceedings plaintiffs the County- and 1954. In each decision of the Hudson year and in year plaintiffs ap- been same each the Division of same Appeals praying pealed in 1950. requested relief as 1954, no hearing having
In been conducted November much Division, North moved to dismiss so Bergen as were based appeal prayer the petitions value below true on two seeking for relief reduction first, allege did not basis petitions because grounds, relief, because Division was without secondly, *5 218 54:2-39, 1954, at least under R. am. L.
authority, S. 115, c. to afford the The was requested remedy. motion the Division it had no granted, opinion being relief. That the Di- jurisdiction to grant requested was its in this vision somewhat uncertain about action in 1952 regard by is indicated the fact November similar motion was advanced North and denied. by Bergen this May involved is narrowed to question inquiry: Tax assess- the Division of Appeals remedy discriminatory ment at true value the common ratio by reduction thereof to the same taxing employed levying throughout district P under
The basic law was enacted statutory State, IV, 1844 Art. Constitution of this specifically 1875, added, 7, VII, Sec. 12 election par. (as September 28, “Prop proclamation September 1875) provided: * * * assessed taxes under laws erty general shall be 54:4h-23, R. as am. L. to its true value.” according 120, de c. 281 and L. c. directs the assessor to all termine “full and fair value” of the real property as, his it would his district “at such price judgment, by private sell at a fair and bona sale contract.” fide determined value standard which is generally This is true for money, the value the property exchange 9 N. J. 295 Newark v. West Township, (1952); Milford v. Division 2 Appeals, Hackensack Water Co. cf. statutory duty We have recognized N. J. 157 (1949). the true apply with assessment to charged party Hoboken, Delaware, & W. R. Co. v. City value standard. 418, 433 10 N. J. (1952). no in the change The new Constitution worked in terms of leaving it speaks only equality, standard for attained legislative this is to be at which denominator Constitution, I, 1 VIII, Art. Sec. par. determination. alia: inter provides, general “Property laws and for taxation under shall be assessed * * * property shall be assessed All real uniform rules. * * value; according same standard of
The Legislature has not disturbed which provisions call for true value assessment, but the dominant principle now is of equality burden, treatment and the standard em is but ployed the level on which the is be objective realized. Baldwin Construction v.Co. Essex Board County Taxation, 16 N. 329, J. 340 The failure to (1954). reach a uniform state of at true value is equality probably due to the frailties of human nature.
In Baldwin Construction
v. Essex County
Co.
Board of
Taxation,
we
supra,
held that
taxpayers who were visited
with
assessment burdens
seek relief
discriminatory
might
in the courts of this State in
accordance
principles
Cromwell,
laid down in Hillsborough
v.
326 U. S.
Township
620, 66
445,
S. Ct.
The which was not in the present squarely decided case, Baldwin wether is the administrative supra, agencies must also the rule of dominant apply equality affording relief in their P gwasi-judicial capacities of discrimination a complainant against fact determined the state R. taxpayer may agencies. 54:3-21, 1945, 125; 54:2-35, as am. L. c. R. S. as am. 54:2-39, 240, am. L. 1946, 161; 1944, c. R. S. c. L. 161, 1954, 115; L. c. c. see v. Division Jersey City 5 N. 384 Div. Super. 1949), Appeals, (App. 220
affirmed 5 N. J. 433 It is difficult to conceive of (1950). more from abuse of prevalent grievance arising It that the dis- clear fact of process. equally erased whether remedy crimination cannot be for lack of it occurs the true value standard. above or below
North the determination of Bergen emphasizes Ap Division in Baldwin Construction v. Essex pellate County Co. Taxation, Board 28 N. J. 1953). Div. Super. (App. That ease dealt with the the Baldwin procedural aspects of merits, Baldwin which we later decided on the litigation Taxation, Construction Co. v. Essex N. J. 329 The tax board and had (1954). city sought dismissal of the on the that ad plaintiffs’ ground action exhausted, ministrative remedies had been *7 was made that the were without reply agencies authority relief the were to unless assessments of grant complained Division, Court, above true value. The Superior Appellate held that address initially the were not to plaintiffs required the to authority because the latter were without agencies case,” relief, at least “in the the present posture afEord of When the which concerned 1952 assessments. litigation procedural aspects presented, reached this court the were than that but we went no further this regard deciding the be had for the correction of interposition may “judicial that remedies discrimination” and administrative wrongful a the need not be exhausted where redress of grievance by “in courts the interest of essential appears justice.” (Bald Taxation, win v. Essex Board County Construction Co. of J., 16 N. at We neither affirmed nor page 343). supra, matters denied to of discrimination. agency authority remedy adverse determination is Appellate clearly Division But that the recent they contention here. plaintiffs’ argue County this Passaic v. Passaic City of court opinions of Taxation, Borough Board 18 N. J. 371 (1955), of of Taxation, 18 N. J. v. Board Ferry Bergen County Little of that the authorities recognition taxing indicate (1955), and, value at a level below true assessments may equalize individual so, the same authorities must reduce this being assessments where can equality only obtained at a point short the falling of standard. statutory of Equalization the related aggregates, although by necessity to individual assess- ment, ain different operates mathematical Its sphere. pur- pose to distribute the burden county the equally among districts, and to this achieve it is first necessary to revise the individual submitted aggregates the districts will figure reflect common ratio of of 100% true value. Whether the burden is then distributed upon a basis or of of true value will not undermine 50% 100% the for requisite equality, been equality already es- tablished according far direction so the the districts within are concerned. 54:3-17. R. S. The Passaic case is important respects however. Mr. present Justice in a question Brennan, sed- ulous consideration of equalization made aggregates, this statement: significant equalization appears aggregate “It thus method is at value, adopted local
best substitute at true express purpose defeating competitive the results of under- necessarily valuation. The extent to which it achieves its ends is dependent precision average with average degree ratios reflect of undervaluation.” Passaic Taxation, supra, pages v. Passaic 18 N. 381, 382. the 1953 the State Tax Report A citation from Sixth Commission, was by Justice Policy page employed his Brennan in conclusion: support *8 “ experience everywhere proved super- ‘The assessors’ has that original any good vision or device cannot substitute for a other * * * everyone recognized by local assessor. assessment the procedure costly disappointing (equalization that this and sometimes competent aggregates) and local of cannot substitute effective year year give from to assessors who continuous attention ” County problem equality Passaic v. of of taxation.’ Passaic of Taxation, supra, page Board 18 N. at 381. by the
Equalization aggregate method is legislative local not recognition that assessors do their always perform the duties as statute. B. S. 54:3-11 required by requires ratio or general board of taxation to ascertain the county the value which real of each percentage property of full an district assessed. It is then to is taxing prepare equaliza- the assessments of each indicating aggregate tion table district and the which each district aggre- ratio taxing value, true this be to reflect gate to increased re- a each district manner to obtain revised aggregate true value. flecting in the does work equalization process
Although v. value, Borough true Totowa Passaic dividual revision to Taxation, J. 454 it is indica 5 N. (1950), that is to be achieved legislative equality tive the intent fall the We below standard required. though itself the are thus of the statute reflects opinion factor, and that as this equality predominant prin rule of in Baldwin v. approved which was Construction Co. ciple Taxation, 16 N. County Board Essex (1954), antagonistic but consonant meaning is not manner in of the statute philosophy are be effected. remedies to
A discriminated feeling against by taxpayer the district in com property valuation of assessed may assessment to county with his own appeal parison 1945, 54:3-21, as L. 125. taxation, B. am. c. board made board or judgments Determinations of Tax Appeals, pursuant to Division appealed may 1946, 161, 39, c. S. 54:2-35, as am. L. or B. B. S. 54:2— 1946, 161, 1954, L. L. c. c. 115. c. am. therein as it may such “give judgment Division is to The B. S. 54:2-39 B. 54:2-35. Although think proper.” shall relief by general prayer seek that the petition directs or to the true be increased decreased there mandate that is no question, the property value of rendered. If in cannot be variety the Baldwin relief is rendered statutory appeal the entire otherwise terpreted failure of local through persons aggrieved impotent duty. statutory ap- his' statutory perform assessor
223 pellate procedure remedy must accommodate the con- stitutional requisite.
It is to be noted that we are not called upon assay administrative deficiencies in the assessment process but rather the guasi-judicial function of the Division in relief Appeals affording to persons aggrieved thereby. Mr. Heher, words of Justice for this speaking court Baldwin Construction Co. v. Essex County Board Taxa tion, 16 N. at supra, 344-345, pages are to this apropos observation: assessing authority peremptory duty “If the fails in its under laws, may Constitution then resort be had to the remedies appropriate particular Here, injury default. we redress the justiciable plaintiffs; only controversy
sustained this is the be- us; fore we are concerned with administrative deficiencies way inquiry.” no vital to that The administrative determination on re- jurisdiction versed. The cause will be remanded Division of Tax Appeals for prompt consideration of the plaintiffs’ alleged grievances.
No will costs be allowed to any party. Beennan, J. Whether the failure (concurring). to make assessments at true value is “due to the of human frailties reasons, nature” or other day arrived when certainly at all officials levels of the administrative are process utterly continue practice. without defense to I that the fully agree dominant of assessment is principle burden”; of treatment but “equality the achievement of that contemplates equality through scheme value, local assessments at true and the duty of assessors with the and those concerned revision function is to assess I as I at true value. did in recognize, joining in his dissent Baldwin Chief Justice Construction Co. v. Taxation, Essex 16 N. page also, that, matter, in this as a it case practical et would seq., without untoward results to enforce the true be impossible tax value statutes for the here year question. *10 But the assessment is an annual and occurrence process that is now in its initial for the process stages year tax 1956. Whatever merit there have may been formerly the excuse of assessment officers and boards of taxa county that personnel sup tion insufficient financial inadequate port left them to their functions helpless perform statutory value, of assessments at true that excuse is making original now of the work of the Director of the empty light true value data in all Division of Taxation collecting the the for the of con districts of State purpose a table which state valuations structing equalized N. aid the municipalities. school is apportioned among material A. 54:1-35.1 et There is now wealth of seq. and county the Director’s files which local assessors leads as to should, consult for may, boards of taxation value. assessments in terms of true the of local accuracy that material as who does not consult local assessor Any dupli in the of his 1956 preparation to his municipality the board of taxa county their submission to cates before 10, 1956, and board of any county January tion before the material for the munic which does not consult taxation the revision of completing in its before county ipalities them the assessors by to local and returning duplicates runs the risk of the well-founded 1, 1956, certainly May failed and consciously have deliberately suspicion they later develops if it statutory their function to perform general pattern reflect the duplicates True, does not collect the Director than true value. less techniques but uses sampling every property value data for We have a mass basis. on application are useful for true value assessments however, that the goal recognized, appraisals, demand tailor-made does not every property Taxation, 18 Passaic Passaic v. the assess identified with No one N. J. 395 (1955). approximation that a substantial deny will ment process charged if those be reached can standard true value at hand the tools will use only duty with result. accomplish effort make a determined There are doubtless methods for doing job superior those employed Director, but at the least conscientious local assessors and boards of taxation should be to avail quick themselves product of the of the Director’s labors to improve their own if performance other equally good or better material is not at hand.
I am certain also that many county boards taxation have themselves collected much material supplement data collected Director. must They be in certainly position better than in the past to on the check duplicates of delinquent local assessors which exhibit the failure of *11 the assessors to do this sworn If duty. of local equality assessment and burden through assessments at true value is the objective, is, and is definitely it it not enough the Director and the county boards of taxation take may steps to remove from office local assessors who “willfully fail, or intentionally or refuse to neglect comply constitution and laws of this State to the assess- relating taxes,” ment and collection 54:1-36, 54:1-37, B. B. 8. 8. as amended L. c. 51. The use of that sanction will not excuse the failure of the members of the boards taxation from the material at hand consulting to revise value, to show assessments at true duplicates which it their 54:A-47, is to do under B. duty 8. as amended by c. 413.
And Director himself has the under responsibility B. 54:1-26 to order the local in a assessors case proper undervalued, a to make re-assessment of or a any property all district; re-assessment of a property taxing proper presented is when the data the Di- clearly case collected by reveals that the dis- duplicates any rector particular a breach tax trict reflect serious the local duty case, ease, In the Baldwin this this again assessor. it possible, has found within con- justiciable court us, to deal with the failures admitted troversies before Mr. at all levels. But Justice statutory duty Burling here the Mr. opinion his observation of Justice repeated “If Baldwin case that the assessing authority Heher in the under fails its Constitution peremptory duty laws, appropriate be had to the remedies may then resort to citizens This is reminder default.” particular if the authorities that, assessing and taxpayers generally discrimina- unfairness and for 1956 the indefensible repeat than at less of assessments fixing which result from the tion it their to force the power have value, true within they in lieu proceeding through hands of officials assessing to a looking action appropriate writ or prerogative ample There compliance. their compelling court order become the duplicates before proceeding time for such 1, 1956. final on May in this concurring opinion. joins C.
Vanderbilt, and remandmenl —Chief Justice For reversal Vander- Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Justices Heher, bilt, and Brennan — U Burling, Jacobs in result. J., concurring Wacheneeld, For affirmance —None. *12 ZACCONE, ATTORNEY THE OF JOSEPH V. AN MATTER
IN -AT-LAW. September 7, Argued September 1955 Decided