McNally v. Township of Teaneck
1977 N.J. LEXIS 253, 379 A.2d 446, 75 N.J. 33 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may use a front-foot formula to apportion the costs of a local improvement among benefited properties, as the cost is presumptively equal to the benefit conferred. However, the final assessment on any individual property may not exceed the actual increase in market value (the peculiar benefit) it received from the improvement.
Facts:
- In March 1971, the Township of Teaneck adopted an ordinance to install new paving and curbs on several streets, designating them as local improvements.
- The ordinance specified that the costs would be assessed upon the lands benefited by the improvement.
- The Township appointed three commissioners to determine the assessments for the 313 affected residential properties.
- The commissioners first calculated a proposed assessment for each property based on its street frontage, dividing the total improvement cost for a given street by the total frontage on that street (a front-foot formula).
- Following the initial calculation, the commissioners visually inspected each property to identify any special circumstances.
- The commissioners held public meetings with property owners to discuss the proposed assessments.
- After their review, the commissioners concluded that for each property, the benefit received was at least equal to the calculated cost-based assessment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Township of Teaneck levied special assessments against residential properties for street paving and curb installation.
- Owners of 74 properties appealed the assessments to the Superior Court, Law Division (the trial court of first instance).
- The trial court found the assessment method improper, vacated the assessments, and remanded the matter to the Township for reassessment.
- The Township of Teaneck appealed the trial court's decision to the Superior Court, Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction but remanded the case back to the trial judge to personally reassess each property.
- Both the plaintiff landowners and the defendant Township filed motions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the state's highest court), which were granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipality's use of a cost-per-front-foot formula to calculate special assessments for street paving violate the statutory requirement that such assessments not exceed the peculiar benefit, advantage, or increase in value received by each property?
Opinions:
Majority - Schreiber, J.
No. A municipality's use of a cost-per-front-foot formula for special assessments does not violate the statutory requirement, as it is a presumptively valid method for apportioning costs, provided the final assessment does not exceed the peculiar benefit received by the property. The ultimate test is the difference between the property's market value before and after the improvement. While the cost of the improvement is presumed to equal the enhancement in value, this presumption can be rebutted by a property owner who provides clear and convincing evidence that the increase in market value is less than the cost. Special assessments are not general taxes and do not require the uniformity of ratios among properties that general taxation demands; the key limitation is that no single property owner is forced to pay more than the value of the benefit they personally received, which prevents a taking of private property without compensation. In this case, the commissioners' method was appropriate, but for the 22 properties where expert testimony proved the assessed cost exceeded the enhanced market value, the assessments must be reduced to the amount of the actual benefit. For the remaining properties where the presumption was not rebutted, the assessments are affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a practical, two-tiered framework for levying special assessments that balances municipal cost-recovery with constitutional protections for property owners. It affirms the front-foot method as a valid starting point, creating a rebuttable presumption that cost equals benefit. This places the burden on property owners to prove an assessment is excessive, while establishing a firm ceiling: the actual increase in market value. The ruling distinguishes special assessments from general taxes, clarifying that uniformity among the assessment-to-value ratios of different properties is not required, thereby preventing challenges based on such disparities and ensuring municipalities can proceed with local improvements without facing unworkable calculation standards.
Unlock the full brief for McNally v. Township of Teaneck