One of the bigger developments, at least in Hawaii law, came in the last week of the year. We’re talking about the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008) (and we’re not just hailing the case because we’re the attorneys for the landowner).
Note: for those attending the Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation conference, this is the case Professor Kanner mentioned in the morning session as being not reported yet. See below for the link to the slip opinion.
The Court held that government, not property owners, bears the financial risk that a condemnation fails and, importantly, joins a number of courts in holding that the government’s proclamation that a taking is for public use is not immune from judicial inquiry. All five Justices agreed that under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27(1993), the government must pay damages (including attorneys fees and courts costs) to make a property owner whole when a taking attempt fails. Three Justices, in an opinion by Justice Acoba (joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy) held that a reviewing court must take seriously a property owner’s claim that the asserted public use is merely a pretext:
We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.
Slip op. at 5. The majority opinon is posted here. The Hawaii Supreme Court joined other courts addressing the issue in 2008. Those opinions will be covered in a separate post, shortly.