Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ends on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.

No. SCWC-19-0000776, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

No. SCWC-19-0000776, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 28, a Hawaii Non-Profit Corporation, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 29, a Hawaii Non-Profit Corporation, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 38, a Hawaii Non-profit Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

The above-captioned case was set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliiōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument was also livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ʻŌlelo Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 28, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 29, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 38:

     Paul Alston, Claire Wong Black, Maile Osika of Dentons US LLP

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant STATE OF HAWAII:  

     Kalikoonālani D. Fernandes, Solicitor General, Lauren K. Chun, Deputy Solicitor General, David Day and William J. Wynhoff, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 06/18/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 07/31/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/12/24.

NOTE: Order Granting Joint Motion to Reschedule Oral Argument, filed 09/10/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Devens, JJ, and Circuit Judge Kimura, in place of Ginoza, J., recused.

Brief Description:

          Petitioners Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28, Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 29, and Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 38 brought an inverse condemnation action against the State of Hawai‘i in 2005.  At that time, they argued that the State effected a taking of accreted lands via Act 73 of 2005.  In 2009, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that Act 73 “effectuated a permanent taking of littoral owners’ ownership rights to existing accretions to the owners’ oceanfront properties that had not been registered or recorded or made the subject of a then-pending quiet-title lawsuit or petition to register the accretions.”  Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State, 122 Hawai‘i 34, 57, 222 P.3d 441, 464 (Ct. App. 2009).

On remand from the ICA, Petitioners sought just compensation for the alleged temporary taking of their accreted lands between 2005 and 2012.  At trial, the circuit court concluded that $0 was just compensation for the alleged temporary taking of the accreted land and no nominal damages should be awarded to the petitioners.  It also determined that the petitioners were not entitled to attorney’s fees.

The ICA affirmed the circuit court’s decision.  With regard to attorney’s fees, the ICA held that the petitioners’ “claim for attorneys fees against the State for obtaining declaratory relief is barred by sovereign immunity.”  The ICA further held that the Ohanas were not entitled to attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine. 

In their application for certiorari, the petitioners argue that the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court’s award of $0 in just compensation with no nominal or severance damages.  Petitioners also contend that the ICA erred by concluding that sovereign immunity bars an award of attorney’s fees, and that they would not be entitled to fees under private attorney general doctrine.  The State contends that the ICA did not err in affirming the circuit court’s award of $0 in just compensation or declining to award nominal damages to petitioners.  It also argues that the ICA correctly held that sovereign immunity bars petitioners’ claim for attorney’s fees, and that even if it did not, petitioners would not be entitled to attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine.