The New Jersey Tax Court ruled on August 6, 2026, that Dragomir and Koviljka Zivkovic could not proceed with their tax appeal against the Borough of Ridgefield due to their failure to pay outstanding taxes. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to tax payment requirements when challenging property assessments in court.
The Zivkovics, who own a commercial property in Ridgefield, argued that their property was grossly over-assessed at $2,726,500 for the 2025 tax year. They presented an appraisal valuing the property at only $1,300,000. However, the court found that the Zivkovics had not paid the required taxes, totaling $34,834.10, which included outstanding amounts for the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first two quarters of 2025.
This case highlights the challenges taxpayers face when disputing property assessments in New Jersey. The court's ruling underscores the necessity for property owners to pay their taxes before filing appeals, a principle designed to ensure that municipalities receive timely tax revenue.
Background
The dispute began when the Zivkovics filed a complaint directly with the Tax Court on March 13, 2025, challenging their property assessment. The Borough of Ridgefield responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint due to the Zivkovics' non-payment of taxes, invoking N.J.S.A. 54:3-27, which mandates that property taxes must be paid as a condition for appealing an assessment.
As part of their argument, the Zivkovics claimed that their property had not changed significantly since a 2006 appraisal of $650,000. They asserted that the increasing tax assessments had financially burdened them and led to the departure of their tenant. Despite their claims, Ridgefield maintained that the Zivkovics owed substantial taxes, which remained unpaid.
The Tax Court's proceedings included two oral arguments and supplemental submissions from both parties. Ultimately, the court determined that it lacked the authority to grant the Zivkovics' request for tax payment relief under the relevant statute since they had not first applied to the county board of taxation.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Ridgefield, stating, "The court finds that it lacks statutory authority to consider plaintiffs’ tax payment relief request under N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 given that plaintiffs failed to first make an application to the county board of taxation and instead filed a direct appeal to the Tax Court." The ruling was issued by Judge Raffetto.
In its decision, the court emphasized that the Zivkovics had not met the requirements to challenge their property tax assessment due to their failure to pay the owed taxes. The ruling dismissed the Zivkovics' complaint with prejudice, meaning they cannot refile the same claim.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for property owners in New Jersey. It reinforces the principle that taxpayers must pay their property taxes before they can challenge an assessment in court. The decision serves as a reminder that the tax payment requirement is a critical aspect of the appeals process, ensuring that municipalities receive necessary funding for their operations.
The court's interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:3-27 clarifies that taxpayers cannot bypass the established tax payment requirements by directly appealing to the Tax Court. This ruling may deter other property owners from attempting to appeal without first satisfying their tax obligations, thereby maintaining the financial stability of local governments.
What's Next
While the Zivkovics can no longer pursue this appeal, they may still have the option to address their property assessment through other legal avenues, such as filing with the county board of taxation for future tax years. The court's ruling does not preclude them from seeking relief through proper channels in the future.