City and County of Honolulu v. Manoa Inv. Co., Inc., 6180

Decision Date27 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 6180,6180
Citation613 P.2d 662,1 Haw.App. 52
PartiesCITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANOA INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., a Hawaii Corporation, John Doe 1 through John Doe 25, inclusive, and Jane Roe 1 through Jane Roe 25, inclusive, unknown heirs of Kalamakee, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtHawaii Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Once there is a subdivision and lots are sold and conveyed which lots have rights of way over the designated roadway lot then there is an implied dedication of the roadway.

2. General rule is that an appellate court may consider only such questions as were raised and properly preserved in the lower court.

3. Where an issue not called to the attention of the trial court is raised for the first time on appeal, the appellate court as a general rule will not consider such issue, although the record may contain facts relating to such issue.

Roy Y. Nihei, Honolulu, for defendants-appellants.

Wesley F. Fong, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HAYASHI, C. J., BURNS, J., and HIROSHI KATO, Circuit Court Judge, First Circuit, in place of PADGETT, J., disqualified.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Defendant Manoa Investment Company, Inc. from the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in an eminent domain proceeding brought by the City and County of Honolulu as plaintiff, awarding the sum of $1.00 as just compensation for the taking of a road easement identified as Parcel 19 in the Complaint.

Parcel 19 was owned by Defendant Manoa Investment Company, Inc., who succeeded Hirotoshi Yamamoto in ownership of the interest in Parcel 19. The City and County Master Plan, approved on July 9, 1942, and amended by Resolution 525 on November 13, 1953, set aside Parcel 19 as part of the Woodlawn Drive-Lowrey Avenue Extension, Improvement District No. 250.

On August 18, 1964, Hirotoshi Yamamoto, then owner of the tract of land of which Parcel 19 was a portion, subdivided the tract into lots 1 through 7 and set aside Parcel 19 as part of Kanu Street and the proposed Woodlawn Drive-Lowrey Avenue Extension. Mr. Yamamoto submitted the subdivision and consolidation plan and map to the City Planning Department on October 1, 1964, and it thereafter was recorded by Mr. Yamamoto in the Office of the Registrar of Conveyances.

Subsequently, on December 22, 1964, Mr. Yamamoto conveyed Lots 1 (por.) 2, 5, 6 and 7 (por.), Lot 3 (por.) and Lot 4 (por.) to Francis Y. Wong, who in turn sold and conveyed Lots 5 and 6 to John Tek Lum and Lots 1 (por.) and 2 to Yin Tai Lum.

On or about May 4, 1967, the City adopted its Development Map Plan Sheet Pattern Layout showing Parcel 19 as a roadway and part of the Woodlawn Drive-Lowrey Avenue Extension.

On June 28, 1968, Mr. Yamamoto conveyed his interest in Parcel 19 by deed to Defendant Manoa Investment Company, Inc.

On these facts, Plaintiff City and County of Honolulu filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that Parcel 19 was impliedly dedicated as a roadway with the nominal value of $1.00 and after a hearing on November 12, 1975, the court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant Manoa Investment Company, Inc.'s major contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in ruling that there was an implied dedication of Parcel 19 as a roadway for public use.

In Territory v. Ala Moana Gardens, et al., 39 Haw. 517 (1952), where the owner of a subdivision voluntarily set aside certain lots as streets, registered the maps thereof in the Land Court, and sold lots according to such plans which were subsequently approved by the City Planning Commission as coming under its Master Plan, the court held that the streets therein were impliedly dedicated in favor of the public for roadway purposes and that the dedication became binding on all subsequent owners and that it was not necessary for such streets to be opened immediately for the dedication to become complete. In rendering its decision, the court stated:

However, in the present case the dedication for said purposes was made by the then owners, recorded on the land-court map, and became binding on all subsequent owners. The statute regarding land registration makes clear provision for this. (R.L.H.1945, §§ 6638, 12641, 12644.) Its dedication was approved by the city planning commission in its plans for the development of Waikiki.

That such maps and plans duly recorded and the sale of lots based on these plans constitute a dedication, particularly when adopted by public officials, is well settled; nor need the streets dedicated by such plat for sale be opened immediately but may be opened by the proper local authorities at such time as the public interest may require, and of this the local authorities are the judges. (Elliott, Roads and Streets, 4th ed., Vol. 1, §§ 128, 129.) See also, In Re Title Yamaguchi, 39 Haw. 608; City and County of Honolulu v. Boulevard Properties, 55 Haw. 305, (517 P.2d 779) (1973).

Defendant Manoa...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Shanghai Inv. Co., Inc. v. Alteka Co., Ltd., No. 20709.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 2000
  • Bloudell v. Wailuku Sugar Co.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1983
    ...duty and we will not address that question if in fact they are now attempting to raise it. City and County of Honolulu v. Manoa Investment Co., 1 Haw.App. 52, 613 P.2d 662 (1980). If Bloudells are contending that the action taken by WSC was contrary to the dictates of common prudence then t......
  • Chock v. Bitterman, s. 9086
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • 1 Marzo 1984
    ...Wilson Enterprises, Ltd. v. Carrier Terminal Service, Inc., 2 Haw.App. 128, 627 P.2d 294 (1981); City and County of Honolulu v. Manoa Investment Co., 1 Haw.App. 52, 613 P.2d 662 (1980). Further, we hold that Appellant's motion to reconsider was nothing more than an attempt to renew argument......
  • Ventura v. Grace, 7723
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • 16 Septiembre 1982
    ... ... 376] Jerry I. Wilson, Honolulu, Wilson & Berman, Honolulu, of counsel, for ... 1982); Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1980); Upchurch v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT