Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Com'n
| Decision Date | 24 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 26984.,26984. |
| Citation | 139 P.3d 712 |
| Parties | Aha Hui Malama O KANIAKAPUPU, Appellant-Appellant, v. LAND USE COMMISSION, State of Hawai`i; Elizabeth Midkiff Myers fka Elizabeth Midkiff Morriss; and Office of Planning, Appellees-Appellees, and Robert H. Midkiff; Joan H. Shigekane, as Trustee of the Joanne H. Shigekane Revocable Living Trust, Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Gerard A. Jervis and Lissa D. Shults, Honolulu, (and Michael R. Cruise, Wailuku, with them on the reply briefs), on the briefs, for appellant-appellant.
Diane Erickson and Russell A. Suzuki, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for appellee-appellee Land Use Comm'n, State of Hawai`i.
Deborah Day Emerson and John W.K. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for appellee-appellee Office of Planning.
Donna Y.L. Leong and Stacey Kawasaki Djou, Honolulu, (of Cades Schutte LLP), on the briefs, for appellee-appellee Elizabeth Midkiff Myers.
In this secondary appeal, appellant-appellant Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu (the Hui) appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's November 5, 2004 judgment1 in favor of appellees-appellees State of Hawai`i (State) Land Use Commission (LUC), Elizabeth Midkiff Myers fka Elizabeth M. Morris (Myers), Robert R. Midkiff, Joanne H. Shigekane as trustee of the Joanne H. Shigekane Revocable Living Trust, and State Office of Planning [hereinafter, collectively, Appellees]. Therein, the circuit court dismissed the Hui's agency appeal from the LUC's March 25, 2004 order that denied the Hui's motion for an order to show cause, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In upholding the LUC's determination, the circuit court concluded that, inasmuch as Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14(a) (1993), quoted infra, requires that a contested case occur before appellate jurisdiction may be exercised and a contested case hearing did not occur in the instant case, the Hui could not seek judicial review of the LUC's decision.
On appeal, the Hui essentially claims that the circuit court erred in dismissing its agency appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the Hui's contention lacks merit inasmuch as a contested case hearing did not occur in the instant case, thereby precluding judicial review pursuant to HRS § 91-14(a). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's November 5, 2004 judgment.
On February 1, 1989, the Henry H. Shigekane Revocable Living Trust and the Joanne H. Shigekane Revocable Living Trust [hereinafter, collectively, the Shigekanes], Midkiff, and Myers petitioned the LUC to amend the land use district boundary for approximately 9.917 acres situated in an area known as Nu'uanu, in Honolulu, Hawai`i (the 1989 boundary amendment petition). The Shigekanes, Midkiff, and Myers sought to amend the land use district boundary from "Conservation Land Use District Boundary" (conservation district) to "Urban Land Use District Boundary" (urban district). The approximately 9.917 acres consist of two adjoining homesteads assigned tax map key (TMK) numbers: (1) 2-2-55:02; and (2) 2-2-55:04. TMK # 2-2-55:02 is owned by the Shigekanes and their family (the Shigekane Parcel).2 Midkiff and Myers, who are brother and sister, each hold an undivided one-half interest in TMK # 2-2-55:04 (the Midkiff/Myers Parcel) [hereinafter, the Shigekane Parcel and the Midkiff/Myers Parcel are collectively referred to as the Property]. The Shigekane Parcel consists of approximately 5.104 acres, and the Midkiff/Myers Parcel consists of the remaining 4.813 acres.
Reclassification of the Property was sought to enable the Shigekanes, Midkiff, and Myers "to subdivide the Property, construct both replacement and new houses on the Property, and make such other repair and improvements of the existing units in a manner ordinarily and customarily allowed for urban residential uses and thereby provide house lots or homes for their children." The LUC conducted a hearing on the 1989 boundary amendment petition on July 27, and 28, 1989.
On November 9, 1989, the LUC entered its findings of fact (FOFs), conclusions of law (COLs), decision, and order, approving the reclassification of the Property from conservation district to urban district (the November 1989 order). The LUC found that,
[i]n order to provide reasonable assurance to the [LUC] that the proposed development is a family enterprise to provide housing for the family members and not a commercial enterprise for speculation, [the Shigekanes, Midkiff, and Myers] have represented that they are willing to be subjected to a condition that members of the famil[ies] of [the Shigekanes, Midkiff, and Myers], respectively, would have a right of first refusal to purchase if any interest in the Property were sought to be sold.
Indeed, the LUC imposed the following relevant conditions on Midkiff and Myers:
4. That [Midkiff and Myers] shall agree to a covenant, said covenant to run with the land and in a form agreeable to the Office of State Planning that, with respect to the Midkiff/Myers [P]arcel (TMK: 2-2-55:04), for a period of 20 years after the date of this [o]rder, if [Midkiff] or [Myers] desires to sell or convey all or portions of their ownership interest in said parcel, he or she shall first offer such interest each to the other or in the alternate convey such interest to any of his or her children, as the case may be; and if any of the children so acquiring said interest desires to sell or convey all or portion[s] of their interest in said parcel, they shall first offer such interest in the parcel to their siblings and/or [Midkiff] and [Myers], as the case may be, however, provided that the holder of interest in the Midkiff/Myers [P]arcel may mortgage the interest at any time.[3]
. . . .
8. [The Shigekanes, Midkiff, and Myers] shall develop the Property in substantial compliance with representations made to the [LUC] in obtaining the reclassification of the Property.
(Emphasis added.)
Sometime in 2000 — approximately eleven years after the November 1989 order — the Hui was formed in order to "care for and serve as a steward of Kaniakapupu, the historic ruins of the royal summer cottage of Kamehameha III." Kaniakapupu is located on property owned by the State that shares a common boundary with, and is situated approximately 200 to 300 feet from, the Midkiff/Myers Parcel.
On August 21, 2002, Myers listed 2.32 acres of the Midkiff/Myers Parcel for sale to the public with the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for $12,000,000. On January 20, 2003, Myers listed an additional 20,001 square feet of the Midkiff/Myers Parcel for sale to the public with the MLS.
On April 21, 2003, the Hui filed a "Motion for an Order to Show Cause Regarding Enforcement of Conditions, Representations, or Commitments" (motion for an order to show cause) pursuant to Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) §§ 15-15-704 and 15-15-93.5 The Hui sought to have the LUC issue an order to show cause as to why the classification of the Midkiff/Myers Parcel should not be reverted to conservation district. Generally, the Hui contended that Myers failed to perform her representations and commitments and the conditions of the November 1989 order by listing portions of the Midkiff/Myers Parcel for sale to the public with the MLS. The Hui apparently believed that Myers violated Condition No. 4 of the November 1989 order. In addition, the Hui alleged that Midkiff and Myers "represented and made commitments that their property was not going to be used for commercial venture, but rather[,] they sought reclassification for `family use purposes[.]'" Furthermore, the Hui expressed concerns that selling portions of the Midkiff/Myers Parcel "will result in the influx of many new people to the Kaniakapupu site and further endanger the preservation efforts carried out to date." The Hui requested a hearing on its motion for an order to show cause pursuant to HAR § 15-15-70(c).
In a facsimile dated April 24, 2003 and sent on April 28, 2003 from Myers to her listing agent, Myers withdrew her listings with the MLS. On January 7, 2004, Myers submitted her memorandum in opposition to the Hui's motion for an order to show cause, which Midkiff joined on the same day. Myers stated that she had complied with Condition No. 4 by first offering the MLS-listed portion of the Midkiff/Myers Parcel to Midkiff. Moreover, Myers contended that, inasmuch as the purpose of the instant proceeding was to consider the Hui's motion for an order to show cause, "[a]ny evidence or issues presented to the [LUC] about Kaniakapupu . . . is irrelevant to the purpose of [the] proceeding."
The LUC held a hearing on the Hui's motion for an order to show cause on January 15, 2004 (the January 2004 hearing). At the conclusion of the January 2004 hearing, the LUC orally voted to deny the Hui's motion on the basis that the Hui had not met its burden of demonstrating a failure to perform a condition, representation, or commitment on the part of Myers. On March 25, 2004, the LUC entered its written order denying the Hui's motion for an order to show cause. The LUC summarized the arguments advanced by the Hui and Myers as follows:
[The Hui] argued that an [o]rder to [s]how [c]ause should be issued because Midkiff/Myers failed to comply with representations and commitments made to the [LUC] during the original proceedings [i.e., the proceedings relating to the 1989 boundary amendment petition]. It argued that the [LUC] granted a "conditional" reclassification of the [Property] from the [c]onservation [d]istrict to the [u]rban [d]istrict because [Midkiff and Myers] represented that they were seeking the reclassification for continued family residential use through existing and new structures. [The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Maui Elec. Co., Ltd., SCWC-15-0000640
...by law, which may be required by "(1) agency rule, (2) statute, or (3) constitutional due process." Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm'n, 111 Hawai‘i 124, 132, 139 P.3d 712, 720 (2006).Sierra Club argues that a hearing was required by statute and by due process. I agree with the Majority that nei......
-
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res.
...is required by law "may be required by (1) agency rule, (2) statute, or (3) constitutional due process." Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm'n, 111 Hawai‘i 124, 132, 139 P.3d 712, 720 (2006). It is undisputed that Appellants were entitled to a contested case hearing. BLNR recognized as much when i......
-
In re ‘iao Ground Water Mgmt. Area High-Level Source Water Use Permit Applications
...matter jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewable de novo under the right/wrong standard. Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm'n, 111 Hawai‘i 124, 131, 139 P.3d 712, 719 (2006). "If a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a proceeding, any judgment rendered in that proceedin......
-
Alaka‘i Na Keiki, Inc. v. Matayoshi
...court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the beneficiaries' appeal. Id.Similarly, in Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Commission (Kaniakapupu ), 111 Hawai‘i 124, 139 P.3d 712 (2006), this court again determined that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to review an age......