Secretly Recorded Phone Conversation Fails to Support New Trial Claim
A very routine tax appeal trial took a very unusual turn after entry of judgment in the matter. Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on his single family home in Barnegat Township before the Ocean County Board of Taxation, which reduced his assessment from $300,000 to $283,000. Plaintiff then appealed to the Tax Court challenging the Board’s judgment where, at trial, Plaintiff testified on his own behalf without an expert. The Tax Assessor testified regarding Plaintiff’s sales, including his explanation as to why the sales were not reliable market transactions. The court found Plaintiff’s comparable sales lacked reliability as market transactions, and that the adjustments to the sales prices also lacked credibility. The Tax Court affirmed the County Board’s judgment.
Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial based on evidence he “uncovered” after trial. Specifically, Plaintiff recorded a conversation he had with a real estate agent regarding a sale the Tax Assessor rejected as being in “pre-foreclosure” at the time of the sale. Plaintiff’s motion paperwork explained that he recorded the conversation because “he knew that regular people were afraid to get involved with court matters. . . .” Plaintiff alleged that the assessor offered perjured testimony to discredit the comparable sale, and that the perjury warranted a new trial or entry of judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Barnegat cross-moved for the imposition of sanctions. The Tax Court denied the motion after finding that, if assumed true, the real estate agent’s conversation with Plaintiff did not support the conclusion that the tax assessor provided false testimony at trial or that the judgment should be vacated. The Tax Court also denied Barnegat’s motion for sanctions because the Plaintiff’s allegations, however fanciful they may sound, did have legal support and did not appear to be made in bad faith.
A copy of the Tax Court’s unpublished opinion in Steven D’Agostino v. Township of Barnegat can be found here.
For more on how pro se litigation issues have been addressed previously by the Tax Court, please see the following blog posts:
Tax Court Requires Inspection Despite Owner’s Prior Protests
Property Owner’s Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Follow Court Rules
