Preview:

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals 29887 10-NOV-2010 11:50 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o---

COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee vs. C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant and ROBERT NIGEL RICHARDS, TRUSTEE UNDER THE MARILYN SUE WILSON TRUST; and MILES HUGH WILSON, Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------------C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant vs. 1250 OCEANSIDE PARTNERS aka HOKULI#A, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee (CIV. NO. 00-1-0181K) COUNTY OF HAWAI#I, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee vs.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross Claimant-Appellant and 1250 OCEANSIDE PARTNERS aka HOKULI#A, Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant-Appellee and ROBERT NIGEL RICHARDS, TRUSTEE UNDER THE MARILYN SUE WILSON TRUST; and MILES HUGH WILSON, Defendants (CIV. NO. 05-1-015K)

NO. 29887 APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NOS. 00-1-0181K; 05-1-015K) NOVEMBER 10, 2010 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE PERKINS, ASSIGNED DUE TO A VACANCY OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J. This case is the post-remand sequel to County of Hawai#i v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, 119 Hawai#i 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) [hereinafter, Coupe I]. In that case, this court

reviewed two condemnation actions (Condemnation 1 and Condemnation 2) brought by Plaintiff/Counterclaim DefendantAppellee County of Hawai#i (the County) to condemn property belonging to Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership in Civ. No. 00-1-0181K and Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross Claimant-Appellant in Civ. No.

-2-

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

05-1-015K (Coupe).

In the instant appeal, we hold that

(1) the County's asserted public purpose for Condemnation 2 was not a pretext for a primarily private benefit, (2) Coupe's challenge to the value of just compensation set for the property in Condemnation 2 could not be considered on remand, (3) the circuit court of the third circuit (the court)1 erred in denying Coupe's request for attorneys' fees associated with the preparation of billing records and/or preparation of Coupe's fee petitions for the failed Condemnation 1, and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Coupe's request for prejudgment interest on attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred in Condemnation 1. Therefore, we affirm the court's

conclusion that Condemnation 2 was not pretextual, its valuation of just compensation set for the property in Condemnation 2, and its denial of Coupe's request for prejudgment interest. We

remand to the court to decide Coupe's request for attorneys' fees associated with the preparation of billing records and/or preparation of Coupe's fee petitions in Condemnation 1. I. BACKGROUND A. Condemnation 1 and Condemnation 2 While the facts giving rise to Condemnations 1 and 2 are discussed in Coupe I, a recitation of the facts is necessary

1

The Honorable Ronald Ibarra presided.

-3-

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

to an understanding of the instant appeal.2

Third-Party

Defendant-Appellee 1250 Oceanside Partners in Civ. No. 00-1-0181K and Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant-Appellee in Civ. No. 05-1015K (Oceanside) is the developer of the Hokuli#a subdivision (Hokuli#a) which extends from the ocean almost to the M

Download 29887.pdf

Hawaii Law