Taxpayers Denied a Second Bite at the Apple
Plaintiffs in Dennis P. & Mary G. Connelly v. Twp. of Galloway contested the 2014 assessment of a single family home located in an age-restricted development. The case was tried by the Tax Court on June 5, 2015. At trial, Mr. Connelly, a licensed real estate broker, did not submit an expert appraisal report but testified on his own behalf. The Township called a licensed real estate appraiser as its witness. Despite its non-compliance with court rules which require the municipality to supply the plaintiff with an appraisal report at least twenty days prior to the date of trial, plaintiffs did not object to the Township’s expert witness at trial. After hearing both sides, the court ultimately affirmed the assessment.
Disappointed with the outcome of their trial, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial and to vacate the court’s prior judgment. In their motion papers, plaintiffs urged the court to “allow for the submission of plaintiff’s expert appraisal” and for “a new trial.” Plaintiffs argued that the appraisal submitted by the Township violated Court Rules since it was received by plaintiffs less than 20 days from the trial date. If offered a new trial, plaintiffs contended that an appraisal report can be prepared “which will contradict, oppose and correct the mistakes submitted by the township.”
The Tax Court was not convinced that a new trial was warranted. The court indicated that plaintiffs attempt for a new trial appeared “to be little more than an excuse to make a belated, post-trial request to obtain their own expert.” Whether plaintiffs’ decision to forego obtaining an appraisal was by reason or oversight, the court stated that plaintiffs “had a first bite at the apple,” and “are bound by the outcome of the trial.” Plaintiffs had an opportunity to explore all facets of the Township’s report and did in fact cross-examine the Township’s expert at length during trial. According to the court, any of the perceived flaws or omissions raised by plaintiffs in the Township’s report is not a basis for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court reasoned that plaintiffs’ failure to raise the timing of the service of the Township’s report until after the judgment was entered “effectively waived any defect in the timing of the service.”
We are again reminded of the burden taxpayers carry when they challenge their assessments. When the burden of proving the value of one’s property rests with the taxpayer, it is imperative that the value conclusion is supported by persuasive, and credible evidence. Although not always true, but testimony from an expert witness will carry greater weight compared to that of the opinions of the owner. After all, that is the purpose of retaining an expert. It appears that plaintiffs in this case will not make the same mistake twice given that they intend to engage an expert witness for trial of their tax year 2015 appeal.
A copy of the Tax Court’s opinion in Dennis P. & Mary G. Connelly v. Twp. of Galloway may be found here.
