CourtListener 10804229

Texte intégral

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

495 Martin Luther King Blvd., Fourth Floor
MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN Newark, New Jersey 07102
JUDGE 609 815-2922, Ext. 54560
Fax: 609 815-3079

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL
OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

November 7, 2025

Joseph F. Ranieri, Attorney at Law
Weiner Law Group, LLP
629 Parsippany Road
P.O. Box 438
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-0438

Kevin Justin, Inc. C/O Eminent Sports
145 County Avenue
Secaucus, NJ 07094

Re: Town of Secaucus v. Kevin Justin, Inc. C/O Eminent Sports
Docket Nos.: 004633-2024, 006512-2025

Dear Mr. Ranieri and Representative of Kevin Justin, Inc. c/o Eminent Sports:

This constitutes the court’s opinion determining the Town of Secaucus’

motion to enter default judgment against taxpayer/defendant Kevin Justin Inc. C/O

Eminent Sports in relation to a 2024 reverse tax appeal. For reasons of judicial

economy and efficiency, the court, on its own motion, has included the Town of

Secaucus’ 2025 reverse tax appeal in its decision.
This motion decides a procedural issue that is not expressly provided for in

our existing court rules. Specifically, this court1 is faced with determining the proper

procedure in the Tax Court when a taxing district requests default judgment against

a taxpayer.2

For the reasons set forth below, and in the absence of a specific court rule, this

court determines that when a taxpayer/defendant in a reverse tax appeal fails to

defend the complaint, the taxing district/plaintiff must file a motion, served upon the

party in default, requesting that default be entered and, that a proof hearing be

scheduled for the entry of default judgment.

The moving papers shall include certified proof of service in accordance with

the court rules and any other documents indicative of due process on the taxpayer.

The motion for the entry of default should be filed no later than the first scheduled

trial date.

1
The term “this court” is singular and not representative of the other judges of the
New Jersey Tax Court.
2
In New Jersey, real property is assessed to its owner. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 provides,
“[a]ll real property shall be assessed to the person owning the same on October 1 in
each year.” While it is well established that one need not be the owner of real
property to be an aggrieved taxpayer entitled to initiate a tax appeal, this court has
determined that by virtue of holding title to the property, the owner maintains
independent standing as an aggrieved taxpayer even in situations where other
aggrieved taxpayers exist. See B&D Assoc., Ltd. v. Twp. of Franklin, 32 N.J. Tax
81, 88-89 (Tax 2020). Thus, the proper defendant or defendants would be the owner
of record and any known aggrieved taxpayer.

2
If default is entered, the court shall schedule the matter for a proof hearing for

the entry of default judgment. In addition, prior to the proof hearing, the plaintiff

shall provide the defendant/taxpayer with a second notice of the date, time and place

of the proof hearing, and identify evidence to be submitted at the proof hearing in

support of the alleged true market value of the real property.

Consistent with previous unpublished decisions of this court, default

judgment shall proceed by the plaintiff/taxing district providing the court with

cogent evidence that the presumption of correctness of the assessment has been

overcome.3 If overcome, the court shall determine the true market value of the real

3
The presumption of correctness is not a mere evidentiary mechanism used solely
to allocate the burden of proof. Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 413
(1985). Rather, the presumption expresses the view “that in tax matters it is to be
presumed that governmental authority has been exercised correctly and in
accordance with law.” Ibid. (citing Powder Mill, I Assocs. v. Twp. of Hamilton, 3
N.J. Tax 439 (Tax 1981)).

In determining whether the presumption of correctness has been overcome, the court
should weigh and analyze the evidence employing the evidentiary standard that
evidence must be “definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity to overcome
the presumption.” Pantasote Co., 100 N.J. at 413 (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v.
Newark, 10 N.J. 99, 105 (1952)). To overcome the presumption, the evidence “must
be ‘sufficient to determine the value of the property under appeal, thereby
establishing the existence of a debatable question as to the correctness of the
assessment.’” West Colonial Enters., LLC v. City of East Orange, 20 N.J. Tax 576,
579 (Tax 2003) (quoting Lenal Props., Inc. v. City of Jersey City, 18 N.J. Tax 405,
408 (Tax 1999), aff’d, 18 N.J. Tax 658 (App. Div. 2000), cert. denied, 165 N.J. 488
(2000)).

3
property in question, employing the lower burden of proof as established in

Heimbach v. Mueller, 229 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 1988).

The court may, on its own motion enter default and schedule a proof hearing

for default judgment when a properly served business entity fails to retain counsel

pursuant to R. 8:3-3; R. 1:21-1(c).

I. Findings of Fact and Procedural History

This tax appeal relates to land and improvements identified on the Town of

Secaucus (Secaucus) tax map as Block 26, Lot 11.01, with a street address of 145

County Avenue (the Subject Property). For the 2024 and 2025 tax years, the

Subject Property had an assessment of $1,140,000. Applying the 2024 Chapter 123

average ratio (49.81%) results in an implied market value of $2,288,697. Applying

the 2025 Chapter 123 average ratio (36.43%) results in an implied market value of

$3,129,289.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(a)(1), taxing districts which may feel

discriminated against by an assessed valuation of property in the taxing district may,

on or before April 1, file a direct complaint with the Tax Court if the assessed

valuation of the property subject to appeal exceeds $1,000,000.

Service of the Complaint is to be made as instructed by R. 8:5-4(3), which

states in part:

Service upon a taxpayer in a local property tax matter shall
be:

4
(ii) … if the complaint is a direct appeal by a taxing district
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, service shall be made upon
the taxpayer by personal service or by certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested, and if by mail, at
the address listed on the County Board of Taxation petition
by the taxpayer, or if none, at the last known address as it
appears on the last taxing district tax duplicate

[R. 8:5-4(3).]

New Jersey’s Rules of General Application are also implicated. R. 1:5-2

states that service upon a party shall be made as provided in R. 4:4-4 or by registered

or certified mail, return receipt requested, and simultaneously by ordinary mail to

the party’s last known address. Precedent holds that service on a party by

simultaneous certified and regular mail, constitutes good service even if the party

refuses to claim the certified mail. See EMC Mortg. v. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. Super.

126, 140 (App. Div. 2008) (stating “the [Plaintiff’s] failure to claim the certified

mail . . . will not defeat [ ] compliance”).4

The named defendant, Kevin Justin Inc. C/O Eminent Sports (Defendant), is

the owner of record on the tax roll. Defendant designates itself as a corporation. The

court rules provide that an entity other than a sole proprietorship, however formed

and for whatever purpose, shall neither appear nor file any paper in any action in the

4
See Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. on R. 1:5-2 (2025).

5
Tax Court except through an attorney authorized to practice in New Jersey. R. 8:3-

3; R. 1:21-1(c). 5

2024 Appeal.

On March 27, 2024, Secaucus timely filed a direct complaint with the Tax

Court, challenging the 2024 assessment and naming Kevin Justin Inc. C/O Eminent

Sports, the owner of record, as defendant. The complaint asserts that the 2024

assessment is below its true market value. Proof of Mailing pursuant to R. 8:5-4 and

a Case information Statement were included.

On June 25, 2024, the Tax Court Management Office issued a deficiency

notice indicating that as a business entity, Defendant had to retain an attorney to

defend the appeal. The Tax Court Management Office, however, did not send a copy

of the deficiency notice to Defendant.

On August 27, 2024, the court issued an Order giving Defendant until October

22, 2024 to have an attorney file an appearance on its behalf, or its defenses would

be stricken, and a proof hearing would be scheduled. The Court uploaded the Order

on eCourts and sent a copy by regular mail to Defendant. The mailing by the court

was not returned.

On January 30, 2025, counsel for Secaucus uploaded a supplemental proof of

service which included the certified mail return receipt “green” card with markings

5
Except in the instance of limited liability partnerships for the practice of law.

6
indicating that it had been sent on March 28, 2024, properly addressed, and bearing

a receipt signature.

On October 7, 2025, Secaucus filed this motion for default judgment. The

moving papers included supporting documents and certifications.

2025 Appeal.

On March 31, 2025, Secaucus timely filed a direct complaint with the Tax

Court, challenging the 2025 assessment and naming Kevin Justin Inc. C/O Eminent

Sports, the owner of record, as defendant. The complaint asserts that the 2025

assessment is below its true market value. Proof of Mailing and a Case information

Statement were included. On April 11, 2025, counsel for Secaucus uploaded

supplemental proof of service indicating that service on Defendant was by certified

and ordinary mail at the address of record on the tax roll.

On July 17, 2025, the Tax Court Management Office issued the following

notice to Defendant:

An attorney must file a notice of appearance on the
defendant entity’s behalf within 30 days of the date of this
notice, if you wish to oppose the relief sought in the above-
captioned local property tax complaint. If you fail to have
an attorney appear to represent your interests, the case may
proceed without your participation and may result in a
judgment adverse to your interests.

The notice was addressed to “Kevin Justin, Inc. C/0 Eminent Sports, 145 County

Avenue, Secaucus, NJ 07094” was sent by regular mail, and was not returned.

7
Defendant did not respond to the complaint, did not respond to the notice sent

by the Tax Court Management Office, has not had an appearance filed by an

attorney, and has not filed an answer.

II. Legal Analysis

The New Jersey Constitution charges the New Jersey Supreme Court to "make

rules governing the administration of all courts in the State and, subject to the law,

the practice and procedure in all such courts." N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2, ¶ 3.

The practice of law in the New Jersey courts is guided by The New Jersey

Rules of Court. The purpose of the court rules is to ensure the fair, orderly and

efficient administration of justice in New Jersey's courts. These rules govern the

procedural aspects of a case, such as filings and timelines, as well as the professional

conduct of attorneys and judges. They establish a consistent framework for all legal

proceedings, ensuring fairness, reducing unnecessary expense and delay, and

promoting a just determination of legal issues. They provide the necessary guidance

for attorneys and individuals to navigate the legal system, covering such aspects as

discovery, motions, and trials.

Practice and procedure in the Tax Court is dictated by three sections of the

Rules of Court. Part I are rules of general application. Part VIII governs the practice

and procedure in all actions in the Tax Court. When not addressed in the Part VIII

8
rules, the rules in Part IV apply to the Tax Court. As observed by the Appellate

Division:

Judge Pressler has stated:

[t]he basic scheme of Part VIII is to conform the practice
and procedure of the Tax Court as nearly as possible to
that applicable to all other trial courts in the State and yet
to retain insofar as possible a high degree of expedition in
the initiation, progress and determination of the matters
constituting the business of the Court. These rules also are
designed to prescribe with particularity the practice of the
Tax Court in respect of these procedural considerations
unique to it. Thus, to a large extent the rules of Part IV
have been incorporated by reference where appropriate.
[PRESSLER, Current N.J. Court Rules, Comment R. 8:1
(1991 ed. at 1393)].

Significantly, R. 4:1 provides that “[t]he rules in Part IV,
insofar as applicable, govern the practice and procedure of
civil actions in the ... Tax Court except as otherwise
provided in ... Part VIII.”

[Union City Associates v. City of Union City, 247 N.J.
Super. 249, 252 (App. Div. 1991)]

While the New Jersey Supreme Court has the definitive say on the interpretation of

court rules, this court, when interpreting the rules, is guided by their standard of

review. Specifically, "ordinary principles of statutory construction to interpret the

court rules." DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212, 228 (2023) (quoting State v. Robinson,

229 N.J. 44, 67 (2017)). The court begins "with the plain language of the rule, and

'ascribe to the [words of the rule] their ordinary meaning and significance . . . and

9
read them in context with related provisions so as to give sense to the [court rules]

as a whole." Ibid. (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Wiese v. Dedhia,

188 N.J. 587, 592 (2006)).

There is no provision in Rule VIII for default or default judgment in a local

property tax appeal. The court acknowledges that historically, there were very few

reverse tax appeals filed by municipalities. Most local property tax appeals are filed

by the taxpayer seeking a reduction of the assessment. Since in taxpayer filed

appeals the defendant is a known municipality, the rules do not require the filing of

an answer but provide very specific service of process on the municipality, the

county board of taxation, and the municipality’s assessor.

In approximately 2012, the Tax Court began docketing an increased number

of tax appeals filed on behalf of municipalities seeking to increase property

assessments, referred to as reverse or increase tax appeals. The assessor's

involvement in a reverse tax appeal is unusual, for it is the assessor’s employer that

is challenging the assessment. The challenge by the municipality creates an inherent

conflict as the assessor's duty is to fairly assess all properties in the municipality

based on market value, trends, and data.

However, in New Jersey, despite being paid by the municipality, an assessor

is an agent of the state, not the municipality, which intends to ensure neutrality in

10
their valuations.6 This creates a legal and procedural separation that allows the

municipality to appeal the assessor's work.

Another aspect of these reverse tax appeals is that many of the

taxpayer/defendants are entities required to be represented by legal counsel. The

prevailing cause of default in the Tax Court involves defendants who do not hire an

attorney as required.

So, in the absence of a Tax Court Rule relating to default or default judgment,

how does plaintiff’s counsel and the court proceed to resolve the outstanding local

property tax complaint.

The court first looks to the default provisions of Rule IV. Unfortunately the

procedures set forth there cannot be adopted as is, because they contemplate the

mandatory filing of an answer by a defendant. However, R. 4:43 -1 and R. 4:43-2

6
Tax assessors are not typical municipal officials. Although municipalities appoint
them ( N.J.S.A. 40A:9-146), county tax administrators direct them (N.J.S.A. 54:3-
16), county tax boards revise and correct their work (N.J.S.A. 54:4-46 to – 48), and
the State Division of Taxation's Director certifies, regulates, investigates, and
removes them (N.J.S.A. 54:1-25, -35.25, -35.29, -36, -37). Yet, assessors are also
agents of the Legislature. See Ream v. Kuhlman, 112 N.J. Super. 175, 190 (App.
Div. 1970). They implement the Legislature's power of taxation, See Daniels v.
Borough of Point Pleasant, 23 N.J. 357, 360(1957), by determining "the full and fair
value" of property in their taxing district, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. In doing so, they also
perform "quasi-judicial functions" by applying "independent judgment." Ream, 112
N.J. Super. at 190.

11
clearly establish the doctrine of default and default judgment and provide guidance

as to the framework for a similar procedure in the Tax Court.

The court also is guided by R. 8:8-4, which states:

If any party fails to appear the court may order any one or
more of the following:

(a)In the absence of an appearance by a plaintiff, dismiss
the complaint;

(b) In the absence of an appearance by a defendant

(1) proceed to hear the matter on the designated date;
(2) dismiss the counterclaim, if any;

R. 1:2-4(a) provides that if without just excuse or because of failure to give

reasonable attention to the matter, no appearance is made on behalf of a party on the

call of a calendar, on the return of a motion, at a pretrial conference, settlement

conference, or any other proceeding scheduled by the court, or on the day of trial,

the court may order the striking of the answer and the entry of judgment by default.

Thus, the court finds that by virtue of R. 1:2-4(a), the consequence of the absence of

a taxpayer defendant is to proceed with the entry of default and default judgment.

12
III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing reasons, default is entered. Contemporaneously with

the issuance of this opinion, the court shall issue an Order scheduling a proof hearing

for the entry of default judgment.

/s/ Mary Siobhan Brennan
Hon. Mary Siobhan Brennan, J.T.C.