TOMS RIVER, N.J. — An Ocean County Superior Court judge has denied Seaside Park’s request for emergency relief in its legal fight with Berkeley Township over millions of dollars in property tax revenue generated in South Seaside Park following the community’s annexation.
Judge Francis R. Hodgson Jr. denied Seaside Park’s Order to Show Cause seeking immediate injunctive relief, writing that the request was “respectfully denied for the reasons expressed on the record” and directing that “this matter will proceed as ordinary litigation.”
The ruling represents an early legal victory for Berkeley Township, whose attorney, John J. Novak, argued the court should reject the emergency application because Seaside Park had failed to satisfy the legal standards required for an injunction. Novak also urged the court to either dismiss the lawsuit or consolidate it with the separate annexation commissioners proceeding.
Berkeley argued tax dispute belongs with annexation process
In filings submitted to the court, Berkeley contended Seaside Park could not demonstrate irreparable harm because any financial dispute could ultimately be resolved through monetary damages rather than emergency court intervention.
Novak further argued that commissioners appointed under New Jersey’s annexation statutes must first determine the value of Berkeley’s assets, liabilities and potential offsets before the municipalities’ financial obligations can be resolved. Berkeley maintained that taxes collected from the disputed properties are among the financial issues tied to the broader annexation process and asked the court to avoid issuing what it characterized as premature relief.
The township also asserted that Seaside Park’s separate lawsuit improperly split issues that should be resolved in a single action under New Jersey’s Entire Controversy Doctrine.
Seaside Park rejects Berkeley’s jurisdiction arguments
Following Berkeley’s motion to dismiss, attorneys for Seaside Park, Cipriani Law Firm, refused demands to withdraw the lawsuit, arguing Berkeley had fundamentally misread New Jersey’s annexation law.
In a response to Berkeley’s sanctions warning, the firm argued the commissioners created under Chapter 7 of New Jersey law are limited to performing an accounting and apportioning indebtedness between the municipalities. According to Seaside Park, the commissioners have no authority to decide which municipality is legally entitled to disputed tax revenues after the annexation.
“The Verified Complaint asks the Court to determine which municipality is legally entitled to the post-deannexation tax revenues and, if Berkeley has no right to retain them, to order their turnover,” the firm wrote. “Those are judicial determinations that only the Court can make.”
The borough also argued that the New Jersey Constitution requires property to be taxed for the benefit of the taxing district in which it is located, contending Berkeley has no statutory right to retain tax revenue attributable to periods after South Seaside Park officially became part of Seaside Park.
Financial stakes remain significant
The dispute centers on property taxes collected after South Seaside Park officially left Berkeley Township following a lengthy annexation battle.
Seaside Park argues it is entitled to the prorated portion of second-quarter property taxes after annexation, along with all subsequent tax revenue generated from properties now located within its municipal boundaries. Berkeley maintains those financial questions should be addressed as part of the statutory annexation accounting process before court intervention.
Judge Hodgson’s ruling does not resolve the underlying question of which municipality is ultimately entitled to the disputed revenue. Instead, it denies only the request for immediate emergency relief and allows the case to continue through the normal litigation process.
