424 P.3d 458 (Hawaii 2018), SCAP-17-0000482, Kalaeloa Ventures, LLC v. City and County of Honolulu
|Citation:||424 P.3d 458, 143 Hawaii 103|
|Opinion Judge:||POLLACK, J.|
|Party Name:||KALAELOA VENTURES, LLC, Appellant-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Appellee-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Frederick W. Rohlfing III, Nancy J. Youngren, Lisa K. Johnson, Honolulu, for petitioner. Lee M. Agsalud, Karen K. Lee, Honolulu, for respondent. Clyde J. Wadsworth, Honolulu, Ewan C. Rayner, for amicus curiae, State of Hawaii.|
|Judge Panel:||RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.|
|Case Date:||July 27, 2018|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Hawai'i|
APPEALS FROM THE TAX APPEAL COURT (CAAP-17-0000482, CAAP-17-0000483, CAAP-17-0000484, CAAP-17-0000485, CAAP-17-0000486, CAAP-17-0000487, CAAP-17-0000488, CAAP-17-0000489, CAAP-17-0000490, CAAP-17-0000491, CAAP-17-0000492, CAAP-17-0000493, CAAP-17-0000494, and CAAP-17-0000495) (TX NOS. 17-1-0203, 17-1-0204, 17-1-0205, 17-1-0206, 17-1-0207, 17-1-0208, 17-1-0209, 17-1-0210, 17-1-0211, 17-1-0212, 17-1-0214, 17-1-0215, 17-1-0216, and 17-1-0217)
Frederick W. Rohlfing III, Nancy J. Youngren, Lisa K. Johnson, Honolulu, for petitioner.
Lee M. Agsalud, Karen K. Lee, Honolulu, for respondent.
Clyde J. Wadsworth, Honolulu, Ewan C. Rayner, for amicus curiae, State of Hawaii.
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.
This case arises from the Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaiis dismissal of fourteen appeals of real property tax assessments as untimely filed. The notices of appeal were filed on Tuesday, January 17, 2017— the next business day following the
January 15 deadline set by a county real property tax ordinance. The tax court dismissed the appeals, reasoning that the county ordinance superseded the "weekend rule" established by Hawaii state law, which typically extends legal deadlines that would otherwise fall on a weekend or holiday to the following business day. Although the January 15, 2017 appeal deadline fell on a Sunday and was immediately followed by a State holiday, the tax court found that strict adherence to the deadline was required. We conclude that the tax court erred in determining that the timeliness of the appeal was determined by county ordinance and not state law.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2015, the City Council of the City and County of Honolulu (the City) passed Bill 39 FD1 to amend Revised Ordinance of Honolulu (ROH) § 8-1.16 (1990) to add an exception to the provisions general rule extending legal deadlines falling on weekends and holidays to the following business day. The addition provided that "[n]otwithstanding the foregoing, the due date for any appeal shall comply with the jurisdictional requirements set forth in the law establishing the right to appeal." (Emphasis added.)
On December 19, 2016, Kalaeloa Ventures, LLC (KV) received notices of real property tax assessments (Assessment Notices) from the City for fourteen parcels. Page 2 of each notice stated under "Important Dates to Remember" that the deadline for filing appeals was "January 15 (on or before)." The Assessment Notices further provided that the assessments could be appealed to the Citys board of review or the Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaii (tax court). Appeals to the board of review, it noted, could be filed online, and the "[d]eadline to file is on or before January 15, 2017. Any appeals submitted after January 15, 2017 will be subject to dismissal." (Emphasis omitted.) Regarding appeals to the tax court, the Assessment Notices provided as follows: "Appeals to the Tax Appeal Court are filed at 777 Punchbowl Street, 1st Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813, on or before January 15 preceding the tax year."
January 15, 2017, was a Sunday, and January 16, 2017, was Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a state holiday. The tax court clerks office was closed on both dates. On January 17, 2017, KV filed a notice of appeal to the tax court for each of the fourteen parcels (collectively, Notices of Appeal) challenging the Citys Assessment Notices.
A. Citys Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motions for Summary Judgment
The City filed a "Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment" for each of KVs Notices of Appeal (collectively, the Citys Motion). The City requested that the tax court dismiss KVs Notices of Appeal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP), or, alternatively, grant summary judgment pursuant to HRCP Rule 56 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The City argued that KV did not timely file the Notices of Appeal on or before January 15, 2017, as required by ROH § 8-12.1(a)2 and Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 232-16.3 Anticipating KVs counterarguments, the City contended that HRS § 1-32,4 one of the statutory "weekend rules" allowing acts that are legally required to be performed
on a particular date to be done the next business day when the specified day is a Sunday or a holiday, does not apply to filing real property tax assessment appeals. The 2015 amendment of ROH § 8-1.16 excluded these appeals from the weekend rules operation, the City argued. The amended ordinance made the deadline for perfecting appeals mandatory, the City asserted, and it thus could not be extended by the weekend rule.
In addition, the City submitted that, where a conflict between specific and general statutes cannot be resolved in pari materia, the county ordinances dealing specifically with the deadline for real property tax assessment appeals— ROH § § 8-12.1(a) and 8-1.16— must prevail over the general weekend rule.
The City also asserted that article VIII, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution5 broadly grants counties the exclusive authority over functions, powers, and duties relating to the taxation of real property, including the authority to set filing deadlines and any procedures relating to the filing of real property tax assessment appeals, so long as those deadlines and procedures do not violate the state or federal constitution. The City concluded that KVs Notices of Appeal were untimely executed, filed, and served, and therefore the tax court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
KV opposed the Citys Motion, contending that the date for filing the Notices of Appeal extended to January 17, 2017, because HRS § 1-29,6 the weekend rule that sets forth the method for computing deadlines, excludes Sundays and holidays from the computation of time. Under this courts precedent, KV argued, the Citys constitutional authority has not been interpreted to broadly extend to setting filing deadlines and any procedures related to real property tax assessment appeals. KV also asserted that the tax courts subject matter jurisdiction derived from HRS § 232-11.7 Based on precedent, the City did not have authority to expand or limit the jurisdiction of the tax court beyond that provided by state statute, KV contended.
KV alternately argued that, because statutes related to the same subject matter must be construed together, statutes establishing filing deadlines must be read in conjunction with HRS § 1-29. KV added that statutory deadlines must be interpreted in a manner that achieves the intent of the legislature to provide a meaningful opportunity to appeal.
In reply, the City rejected KVs argument that ROH § 8-1.16 may be interpreted as allowing application of the weekend rule, contending that the ordinance provides specificity in regard to the appeal filing deadline. The City submitted that, because HRS § 1-32 conflicts with ROH § 8-1.16, the former does not apply here.
B. Tax Court Hearing and Order
On May 1, 2017, the Citys Motion came on for hearing before the tax court.8 The tax court consolidated the Notices of Appeal for
purposes of the hearing and granted the Citys request for the matter to be considered only as a motion to dismiss and not as a motion for summary judgment. The tax court stated that the dispositive issue in the case was whether the City had the constitutional authority to negate the weekend rule by ordinance as it relates to real property tax assessment appeals. Construing ROH § 8-12.1 together with ROH § 8-1.16, the tax court noted that the City was "emphatic" that all appeals must be filed on or before "and not after January 15."
The tax court likened the case to State ex rel. Anzai v. City and County of Honolulu, 99 Hawaii 508, 57 P.3d 433 (2002), which it interpreted "as providing or recognizing the superiority of the counties interest in real property tax." Accordingly, the tax court explained that it "recognizes the constitutional principle of the superior power of the City to address matters of real property tax," noting that the counties do not have uniform appeals deadlines, "so there appears to be at least some variation in terms of a county or the Citys interest in setting their real property tax deadlines."
The tax court concluded that ROH § 8-1.16 negated the statewide weekend rule as it applied to tax appeals because the Hawaii Constitution grants exclusive authority to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP