Kalima v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 24784.,24784. |
| Citation | 137 P.3d 990 |
| Parties | Leona KALIMA, Dianne Boner, and Raynette Nalani Ah Chong, Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Ching, Deceased, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE of Hawai`i; State of Hawai`i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; State of Hawai`i Hawaiian Home Lands Trust Individual Claims Review Panel; Linda Lingle, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, Defendants-Appellants, and John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, and Doe Governmental Entities 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Charleen M. Aina (Girard D. Lau, with her on the briefs), Deputy Attorneys General, for defendants-appellants.
Carl M. Varady (Thomas R. Grande and Stanley E. Levin, with him on the briefs), Honolulu, for plaintiffs-appellees.
The instant interlocutory appeal centers around threshold issues in a class action involving 2,721 claimants, brought by three representatives on behalf of all those similarly situated [hereinafter, the plaintiffs],1 who are beneficiaries of the Hawaiian home lands trust [hereinafter, the trust or the Hawaiian home lands trust] under the "Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920" (the HHCA), adopted in the Hawai`i State Constitution, article XII, section 1 (1993).2 The plaintiffs brought the instant suit against defendants-appellants the State of Hawai`i (the State), the State of Hawai`i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL), the State of Hawai`i Hawaiian Home Lands Trust Individual Claims Review Panel (the Panel), and Linda Lingle,3 in her official capacity as Governor, State of Hawai`i [hereinafter, collectively, the State defendants]. The complaint alleged breaches of the HHCA's trust obligations from the time the trust became the responsibility of the State, on August 21, 1959, until the State's first attempt to address the mismanagement of the trust on June 30, 1988. The plaintiffs contended that breaches of the Hawaiian home lands trust caused damage to individuals, as opposed to the trust as a whole, including: (1) mismanagement of the extensive waiting list; (2) mishandling of the plaintiffs' applications; (3) preference policies regarding eligibility requirements; and (4) the awarding of raw lands lacking infrastructure.
Briefly stated, the State, in 1988, granted the HHCA beneficiaries a prospective right to sue for breaches of the Hawaiian home lands trust arising after July 1, 1988, under Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 673, entitled "Native Hawaiian Trusts Judicial Relief Act" [hereinafter, Chapter 673 claims]. In 1991, the legislature enacted HRS chapter 674, entitled "Individual Claims Resolution Under the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust," to resolve individual beneficiary claims arising between August 21, 1959 and June 30, 1988 [hereinafter, individual claims or Chapter 674 claims]. Chapter 674 created a two-part process, which included an administrative procedure, to address the claims of individual beneficiaries, such as the plaintiffs, followed by judicial proceedings in cases where the claimants were dissatisfied with the outcome of the administrative process. However, Chapter 674, as amended, also provided that any claims filed after December 31, 1999 were barred.
Although the plaintiffs participated in the Chapter 674-administrative process, none of the them received any administrative remedy for their claim. The plaintiffs eventually filed the subject seven-count complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on December 29, 1999. At some point early in the proceedings, the plaintiffs and the State defendants — with the approval of the circuit court — agreed to limit the proceedings by addressing only the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether the plaintiffs were entitled to sue under HRS chapter 674 and/or chapter 661 ("Actions By and Against the State") for breach of contract [hereinafter, Count I or Count I (right to sue)]. Thus, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to Count I only; the State defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings,4 arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by sovereign immunity. In granting partial summary judgment as to Count I on August 30, 2000, the circuit court, the Honorable Victoria S. Marks presiding, ruled that the plaintiffs were permitted to pursue their claims under Count I in circuit court and denied the State defendants' motion.
On December 21, 2001, the State defendants brought this interlocutory appeal for judicial review of the circuit court's August 30, 2000 findings of fact (FOFs), conclusions of law (COLs), and order granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to Count I and denying the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings (August 30, 2000 order).5
On appeal, the State defendants contend that the circuit court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment because the statutory conditions of the State's waiver of sovereign immunity were not met. Additionally, the State defendants argue that the circuit court should have dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for money damages for breaches of trust or constitutional violations.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and vacate in part the circuit court's December 14, 2001 judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
During the early 1900s, concern about the plight of the Hawaiian people who had been displaced from rural to urban areas began to emerge as a result of the serious disruption in their traditional way of life. Out of concern for the declining numbers of full-blooded Hawaiians and the recognition that all previous systems of land distribution were ineffective, Congress entertained various homesteading proposals designed to rehabilitate the native Hawaiian people. Eventually, Congress enacted the HHCA, creating a land trust from ceded crown and public lands that was intended to rehabilitate the native Hawaiian people by, inter alia, making them eligible to receive the benefits of homesteading through leased land and related programs from the trust.6 The HHCA designated certain public lands on the five major Hawaiian islands as "available lands." HHCA § 203 (1993). However, notwithstanding the efforts of various individuals, including Senator John Wise and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana`ole, the available-land designation excluded some of the best agricultural lands of the territory, leaving the trust lands under the HHCA poorly suited to achieving the act's intended purposes. Title to the Hawaiian home lands vested in the United States until the Territory of Hawai`i became a state on August 1, 1959, at which time the newly formed State of Hawai`i entered into a compact with the United States to assume the management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands. Hawai`i Admission Act of March 18, 1959, Pub.L. 86-3, §§ 4 & 5, 73 Stat. 4 (1959) (Hawai`i Admission Act or Admission Act). The HHCA, together with the Hawai`i Admission Act, impose upon the State the duties and obligations of trustee to oversee the operations carried out under the authority of the HHCA.
Despite the HHCA's admirable goals, controversy plagued the trust from its inception in 1921 and continued after its transfer to the State in 1959. The problems were of such magnitude that, in 1983, a Federal-State Task Force on the HHCA was convened. The Task Force submitted a report to the State that identified several areas of concern and made recommendations for improvement. The areas included, inter alia: (1) problems with the HHCA program itself that affected the trust as a whole, involving (a) the lack of an inventory of the Hawaiian home lands, (b) the lack of useable lands, (c) the lack of proper funding sources, and (d) the improper use/sale/exchange of Hawaiian home lands by state and federal governments; and (2) administrative problems affecting individual beneficiaries, such as (a) delays related to the application and eligibility determination processes and (b) delays resulting from mismanagement of the long waiting lists. Commencing in 1988, the State began its efforts to resolve the issues relating to the trust as discussed below.
In 1988, the Hawai`i State Legislature attempted to address the criticisms of the Hawaiian home lands program and provide redress to its beneficiaries through the passage of "The Native Hawaiian Judicial Trusts Relief Act," 1988 Haw. Sess. L. Act 395, §§ 1-7 at 942-945 (Act 395), later codified as HRS chapter 673 (Supp.1988). Act 395 provided a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for beneficiaries of the trust to bring suits, prospectively, for money damages relating to breaches of the State's trust responsibilities occurring after July 1, 1988. 1988 Haw. Sess. L. Act 395, § 3 at 945. In addition, section 5 of Act 395 provided an unfettered right to sue for actual damages for past breaches of trust (i.e., between August 21, 1959 and June 30, 1988) [hereinafter, retroactive claims] and directed that all suits must be brought prior to June 30, 1993. 1988 Haw. Sess. L. Act 395, § 5 at 945.7 However, the act also provided an opportunity for the governor to present a proposal for resolution of such claims to accommodate the attorney general's concern about the impact of such claims on the State treasury. In the event that the governor failed to present such a proposal to the 1991 Legislature or the proposal was rejected, the right-to-sue provision would remain.8 1988 Haw. Sess. L. Act 395, § 5 at 945.
In 1991, then-Governor John Waihe`e submitted to the legislature "An Action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tamashiro v. Department of Human Services
... ... DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, State Of Hawai`i; Stephen Teeter, in his capacity as Business Manager for Ho`Opono, Joe Cordova, in his capacity as Administrator of the Division of ... at 239, 105 S.Ct. 3142 (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)) (brackets omitted). In Kalima v. State, 111 Hawai`i 84, 101, 137 P.3d 990, 1007 (2006), this court echoed the U.S. Supreme Court's language where it held that "a statutory waiver ... ...
-
Castro v. Melchor
... ... Leroy MELCHOR, in his official capacity; Wanna Bhalang, in her official capacity; Tomi Bradley, in her official capacity; State of Hawaii; and Hawaii Department of Public Safety, DefendantsAppellants, and Amy Yasunaga, in her official capacity; Roberta Marks, in her official ... Kalima v. State, 111 Hawaii 84, 100, 137 P.3d 990, 1006 (2006). "Generally, remedial statutes are those which provide a remedy, or improve or facilitate ... ...
-
Haynes v. Neshewat
... ... FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ... Plaintiff is a physician licensed in the state of Michigan with specialties in internal medicine and gastroenterology ... 477 Mich. 32 ... 729 N.W.2d 491 ... order to care for patients ... City of Gainesville, 768 So.2d 432, 435 (Fla., 2000). Georgia: Mitchell v. Wilkerson, 258 Ga. 608, 610, 372 S.E.2d 432 (1988). Hawaii: Kalima v. State, 111 Hawaii 84, 99, 137 P.3d 990 (2006). Idaho: Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., 141 Idaho 342, 346, 109 P.3d 1084 (2005). Illinois: Grant ... ...
-
Castro v. Melchor
... ... Leroy MELCHOR, in his official capacity; Wanna Bhalang, in her official capacity; Tomi Bradley, in her official capacity; State of Hawaii; and Hawaii Department of Public Safety, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants, and Amy Yasunaga, in her official capacity; Roberta Marks, in ... at 190, 366 P.3d at 1069. The ICA held: Pursuant to Hawaii precedent, remedial statutes are to be liberally interpreted. Kalima v. State , 111 Hawaii 84, 100, 137 P.3d 990, 1006 (2006). "Generally, remedial statutes are those which provide a remedy, or improve or facilitate ... ...