University of Hawaii v. Leahi Foundation, 5587

• Citation: 537 P.2d 1190,56 Haw. 404
• Decision Date: 11 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 5587,5587
• Parties: UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a public body corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEAHI FOUNDATION, a non-profit Hawaii Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 1190

537 P.2d 1190

56 Haw. 404

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, a public body corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEAHI FOUNDATION, a non-profit Hawaii Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 5587.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

July 11, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 7, 1975.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Without more, the factors of passage of time, changes in social and health condictions in the community, and changes in the situations of the parties do not empower the trial court to disregard the strict language of an Act.

2. The court is bound by the plain, clear and unambiguous language of an Act.

Arthur K. Goto, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gary L. Wixom, Honolulu (Case, Stack, Kay, Clause & Lynch, Honolulu, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., KOBAYASHI, OGATA and MENOR, JJ., and Circuit Judge SHINTAKU assigned by reason of vacancy.

KOBAYASHI, Justice.

This is an appeal by the University of Hawaii, a public body corporate of the State of Hawaii.

Appellant instituted a proceeding in eminent domain ¹ to condemn certain land and improvements owned by the Leahi Foundation, ² a nonprofit Hawaii corporation, formerly Leahi Home (appellee). On the question of whether the appellant was entitled to a credit of $1,500,000.00, to be deducted from the condemnation award the trial court held that the appellant was entitled to a credit of no more than $333,870.00.

We modify the trial court's judgment as hereinafter stated.

ISSUE

Resolution of the appeal depends upon the construction of Section 4, Act 276, Session Laws of Hawaii 1945, which provides:

Section 4. There is hereby also appropriated from said general fund the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) for the construction of additional buildings, and the repair of present buildings, of Leahi Home, Honolulu, and equipment for the same, provided, however, that this appropriation is made upon the express condition, which shall be deemed to have been accepted by the trustees of Leahi, Home if they accept any of the benefits of said appropriation, that in case the Territory or the city and county should desire to acquire any of the Leahi Home premises, any amount of money expended from said appropriation for permanent improvements shall constitute a credit against the purchase price or the amount otherwise required to acquire said premises.

In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court stated, inter alia, as follows:

A. Findings of Fact:

1. The funds provided under Act 276 were expended for the construction of buildings and purchase of equipment as follows:

Parcel A: $738,351.97, of which amount $612,349.79 were expended for permanent improvement and $126,002.18 were expended for equipment.

Parcel 1: $616,747.70, of which amount $545,755.73 were expended for permanent improvement and $70,991.97 were expended for equipment.

Parcels 2 and 4: $144,900.33, of which amount $117,387.05 were expended for permanent improvement and $27,513.28 were expended for equipment.

2. The value of the properties condemned are as follows:

                Land          $1,429,600.00
                Improvements     512,050.00
                              -------------
                Total         $1,941,650.00
                

B. Conclusions of Law:

1. The court has consider the language of Act 276 (1945), the legislative history, and events transpiring since 1945, including changes in social and health conditions. The passage of time and the changed situation have reduced the significance of legislative history and rather than be bound by the strict language of the Act, and disregard the events transpiring since the Act's passage, that is, the passage of some 25 years of time, the changed situation of the parties and the social situation in the community, . . . the court has weighed all these factors to reach an equitable result, and concludes that the contentions of the Defendant Leahi Foundation are well founded. (Emphasis added.)

2. The Defendant (appellee) is entitled to receive as compensation . . . the amount agreed to be the fair market value of the land and improvements as of January 27, 1972, less the credit amount ($333,870) which shall be the value of the buildings on those parcels as of the same date, constructed with funds provided under Act 276 (1945), such compensation being the amount of $1,607,780.

3. The Defendant Foundation is further entitled to receive interest (blight of summons) at 5 per cent as follows: . . .

In our opinion, the terms of Act 276 are plain, direct, and unambiguous. The Act unequivocally states:

(A)ny amount of money expended from said appropriation for permanent improvements shall constitute a credit against the purchase price or the amount otherwise required to acquire said premises. (Emphasis added.)

The provision states with clarity that whatever amount that is expended from the appropriated funds for permanent improvements, that amount shall constitute a credit against the purchase price or the amount required to acquire the appellee's properties. The fair market value of the condemned premises has no relevancy in determining the amount of credit to which the appellant is entitled. And in our opinion, in the context of this case, the term 'permanent improvements' as used in Act 276 does not include any equipment, whether affixed to a building or movable.

We strongly disagree with the conclusion of the trial court that passage of time, change in the social and health conditions of the community, and 'the changed situation of the parties', without more, empower the trial court to disregard the strict language of the Act (276).

We are of...