Monday, November 21, 2011

Reminder: Basic Pleading Requirements STILL Matter….

We all remember pleading requirements right? You know, jurisdiction, causes of action, claims for relief, etc. Well guess what? THEY STILL MATTER. The New Jersey Tax Court just provided a refresher course to one party in University Cottage Club of Princeton v. Princeton Borough.

In University Cottage, plaintiff sought tax exemptions as a historic site in 1998. As of 2003 designation as a historic site had not been granted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner and litigation ensued. A decision was finally made in 2010 by the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirming the DEP Commissioner’s decision to deny exemption status. University Cottage also sought appeal of their property tax assessment for the years 2002 through 2004. It is the property tax assessments that are at the heart of University Cottage’s pleading issue.

At the conclusion of the tax exemption matter the court addressed University Cottage’s tax assessment applications after being put on an inactive status. However, although University Cottage’s counsel orally raised valuation as an issue, the filed complaints only sought relief for the claimed tax exemption and the catch all phrase “such other relief as may be appropriate.” So as the court noted, valuation was not originally plead and the statute of limitations had expired for the years in question.

University Cottage therefore had two problems: 1) not stating a factual basis of a claim and relief sought and 2) missing the April 1st jurisdictional deadline to file a valid valuation claim. Attempting to save the matter, University Cottage argued that its valuation claim was incorporated within its exemption claim. The court dismissed this argument by deciding that an exemption claim is vastly different from a valuation claim in that they require different elements of proof. Further, there was no requisite showing necessary to allow the time barred valuation claim. In the end, University Cottage’s valuation claim was denied simply because it was not plead which thereby resulted in a costly lesson learned.


Steven E. Taylor
Taylor Law Firm, LLC
www.TLF-LLC.com