Title: Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Concerned Citizens of Palolo.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘## FOR PUBLICATION ***

 
  
 
    

= 000 —-

KOREAN BUDDHIST DAE WON SA TEMPLE OF HANAT
‘Appellant Appellee,

vs.
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PALOLO, a Hawaii non-profit corporation;

‘GND LIFE OF THE LAND, INC., @ Hawai'i non-profit corporation,
‘Appellees-Appellants,

 

and

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
‘Appellee-Appellee.

a
No, 24497

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIV. No. 94-4056)

JUNE 24, 2005

MOON, C.d., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, AND DUFFY, JJ.»
AND CIRCUIT JUDGE IBARRA, IN PLACE OF ACOBA, J., RECUSED

OPINION

‘The appellees-appellants Concerned Citizens of Palolo
[hereinafter, “Concerned Citizens”], @ Hawai'i non-profit
corporation, and Life of the Land, Inc. [hereinafter, “LOL"],
Hawai'i non-profit corporation [collectively hereinafter, “the
Appellants”}, appeal from the July 30, 2001 post-judgment order
of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Gary
W.B. Chang presiding, regarding the Appellants’ July 18, 2000
motion for issuance of order to show cause and for contempt

judgment. The Appellants also allege in the points of error

qa
‘4% FOR PUBLICATION ***
section of their opening brief that the circuit court erred in
entering the July 6, 2001 decision and post-judgment order
granting the March 16, 2001 motion for reconsideration of the
“4

 

appellant-appellee Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawa:
(hereinafter, “the Temple”) of (1) the circuit court’s September
15, 2000 order regarding the July 18, 2000 motion for issuance of
order to show cause and for contempt judgment and (2) the circuit
court’s January 9, 2001 Order No. 1 modifying the September 15,
2000 order regarding the July 18, 2000 motion for the issuance of
an order to show cause and for contempt (hereinafter, “the
‘Temple's motion for reconsideration] [collectively hereinafter,
“the order granting the Temple's motion for reconsideration} .

on appeal, the Appellants argue, inter alia, that the
circuit court “had no jurisdiction to alter or modify the 66-foot
height Limitation by the Hawai'i Supreme Court in 1998.” The
Appellants pray that this court (1) “reverse and remand the July
30, 2001 and July 6, 2001 [olrders of the [circuit clourt,” (2)
“direct (or order directly) that appropriate fines be levied
against the TEMPLE for its defiance since December 1, 1993 or any
other such date as this [cJourt deems just and proper,” (3)
“direct (or order directly) that the TEMPLE’s representatives or
some of them be imprisoned unless and until the 66-foot height
Limitation is completely complied with by the TEMPLE,” (4)
“direct (or order directly) that the TEMPLE be required to pay
[the Appellants’] attorney's fees and costs for this Order to
Show Cause and appeal,” and (5) “award to (the Appellants] (or,
against the TEMPLE) any and all other relief which it deems just
*#* FOR PUBLICATION *#*

 

and proper.
‘The appellee-appellee Zoning Board of Appeals of the
city and County of Honolulu [hereinafter, “the 2BA”] counters,
Anter alia, that the circuit court “had jurisdiction to clarify
the allowable height of the Temple.”
‘The Temple responds, inter alia, that it “adopts and

incorporates, as if fully set forth herein, the (2BA’s] arguments

 

in their [answering brief.1”

‘The Appellants reply, inter alia, that “neither the
[zaa) nor the Temple address the ‘finality’ of the Supreme
court's 1998 decision, its affirmance of the [circuit] court’s
orders, and the resulting consequence that” the circuit court and
the Department both lack “Jurisdiction to alter or change the
order to remove all of the roof ‘exceeding 66 feet in height.’

As discussed infra in section III, we hold: (1) that
jurisdiction reverted to the 2BA following this court’s decision
in Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 87
Hawai'i 217, 953 P.2d 1315 (1998) (Korean Buddhist Temple 11),
such that the circuit court had no authority to consider (a) the
Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion for issuance of order to show
cause and for contempt judgment, (b) the Temple’s March 16, 2001
motion for reconsideration, and (c) all other related motions;
4 (a) the July 6, 2002

 

(2) that, because the circuit court rend
decision and order granting the Temple’s motion for
reconsideration, (b) the July 30, 2001 order regarding the
Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion for issuance of order to show
cause and for contempt judgment, and (c) all other related orders
*** FOR PUBLICATION

 

without jurisdiction, the foregoing orders are void; (3) that,
notwithstanding that we do not possess jurisdiction to address
the merits of the present matter, we retain jurisdiction to

correct the circuit court’s error in

 

juming jurisdiction, such
that we leave any future adjudication of the issues raised by the
parties to the jurisdiction of the 28A; and (4) that the
Appellants’ unsupported prayer for attorney's fees and costs is
denied.

Accordingly, we (1) vacate the circuit court’s (a) July
6, 2001 decision and order granting the Temple’s March 16, 2002
motion for reconsideration, (b) July 30, 2001 order regarding the
Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion for the issuance of an order to
show cause and for a contempt judgment, and (c) all other related
orders and (2) remand this matter to the circuit court to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction (a) the Appellants’ July 18, 2000
motion, (b) the Temple’s March 16, 2001 motion for
reconsideration, and (c) all other related motions.

1. BACKGROUND
‘The procedural history of the present matter extends to
various events that are immaterial to the resolution of the
appeal before us. Accordingly, we set out only the relevant
background below.
A. Initial Building Permits And Agency Enforcement Action

On Septesber 25, 1986, the Honolulu Building
Department issued a building permit to the Temple to expand
the construction on its compound (then consisting of several
buildings, a courtyard, and statuary) in an “R-S"
Fesidential district, located at Wal‘dmoa‘e Road and
Halels‘au Place, Palolo Valley, City and County of Honolulu.
‘The permit authorized the construction of the fall, which|

 

‘
‘#4 FOR PUBLICATION *#*

tthe Temple expected to use for “offic
museum and [an] exhibition room inter
Understanding of the Korean. Buddh
Spproved the Teaple’ s batlaing plans accompanying its permit
Feguest, which indicated that the height of the Hall would
Bevapprosinately sixty-six feet above grade. No revision of
the bullding plans was ever subaitted to the Building
Department.” When the plans were approved, the Comprehensive
Zehing Code (C20) was in effect. Cac § 2i-5.4 (1984-1985
Suppe) allowed a maxinun height of twenty-five feet above
the shigh point of the buildable area boundary line”

(HBABL)| Rowever, after the Hall was actually built, @ OL
Mfspector determined that an extra floor had been built ang
thet the structure's height was sevanty-four to seventy-five
Feet “nine feet higher than authorized by the building
permit and 6,62 feet higher than the maximum height allowed
Byrcue $215.4 (Lag, 6.88 feet over the HBABL plus
thenty-five fest) Accordingly, the inspector issued 2
potice of violation on February 23, 1988, ordering tI

Tesple to stop work on the Hall.

(a) 1beary, (a)
fed to further the
religion.” ‘The permit

  
 

   

 

 

 

 

  

    

 

Korean Buddhist Temple II, 87 Hawai'i 217, 221-22, 953 P.2d 1315,
1319-20 (1998) (footnotes omitted) .

: 2 .

‘he Tenple filed its first application for » variance
on June 15, 1588.. The Director denied the appiication on
Septenber i6, 1986, after public hearing...

‘The Temple appeaied the Oirector’s decision to the
aaa, which affirmed the Director's denial of the variance in
an Order entered on January 11, 1990. See Korean Buddhas
‘Dae Hon Se Temple v, Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 9 Haw. App. 298,
Soi, e357 F2a 311, 32, cer, Ghamiased, 7¢ Haw. 652, 643
B.2d 144 (1992) (Korean Buddhist Temple 1). The Temple
filed an appeal of the ZBN's decision in the circuit court
on February 16, 1990. Ld at 301, 637 P.2d at 312. The 290
Soved to disniss the cireiie court appeal as untinely. Id.
e301, 837 Pad at 312-13. The circuit court denied the
Gba's notion, ‘The 2BA appealed the circuit court's order
Genying its dismissal motion to the Intermediate Court of
Appeals (Ica), [which] vacated the circuit court's order and
Tenanded with instructions to diseiss the appeal, as
Gneimely. Ida at 301, 306, 637 Pe2dat 322-43, 315,

   

 

 

Korean Buddhist Temple II, 87 Hawai'i at 222, 953 P.2d at 1320
(footnotes omitted) «

c.

Petition For Declaratory suling
‘The Temple filed a second variance application for a

height overage on February 1, 1983. The Director considered
the application "because the’ rules and regulations

 

5
+** FOR PUBLICATION *#*

pertaining to variance applications permit an applicant to
Feapply for the sane or substantially the same variance one
yest ftom the effective date of the denial.” Public
earings were pela on the 1993 variance application on
September 2, 1993 and October 14, 1993.

‘Despite the Temple's insistence that it was entitled
toa triai-like “contested case” hearing, the hearings
officer (#0) treated the hearings as “public,” allowing all
Witnesses to testify briefly without being subject to direct
Or cross-examination. - =

 

 

 

he Oitector filed his written “Findings of Fact,
conclusions of Law and Decision ang Order” on Deceaber’1,
{555, denying the Temple's application for # variance.
(Case No. 93/VARS3)o

 

injnd Dixector denied the Tenple’s variance
application and ordered renoval of that portion of the Hall
exceeding sixty-six feet in height.

after the hearings on its second variance applicaticn,
but before the Director's decision was filed, the Temple
fileg a petition for s declaratory ruling from the Director
that the height of the Hall and the setback of the
Soapound's ornamental gate did not violate the applicable
Zoning code... - The Director declined to enter the
Fequested declaratory ruling, stating that “the Petition
Teises substantially the same legal and constitutional
TSsuss that. have been raised in the Temple's variance
petition. ‘Those issues, we believe, ‘iil soon be the
Bubject of a 29A appeal, and possibie court review.”

Id, at 223-26, 953 P.2d at 1321-24 (footnotes omitted) .

D. The Temple‘s Appeal To The ZBA Of The Second
‘Application For Zoning Variance

‘The Temple appealed the Director's decision and order
regarding its request for a variance (Case No. 93/2BA-8) and
Ris refusal to iseue a declaratory ruling as to the legality
of the Hall’s size (Case No, 93/Z6A-11) to the ZBA on
December 23, 1993 and Decenber 30, 1993, respectively. Two
Community organizations, “Concerned Citizens of Palolo” and
SETEE"GE the Land" (collectively, Concerned Citizens]
intervened in the Temple's appeals. In addition, Concerned
Citizens sppealed that portion of the Director's decision in
Sinich be roled thst the Hell would be permitted to renain
Bixty-six feet in height as a nonconforming use (Cage No.
93/28A-9). The Temple intervened in this appeal. The
Tenple also appeaied the Director’ s decision and order on
it variance spplication and his refusal to issue a
declaratory ruling directly to the circuit court (Civil No.
$35080-12) on December 30, 1993, arguing that no appeal lay
to the 2BA under the city Chart

‘the 2HA held consolidated hearings on the Temple's and
Concerned Citizens’ appeals over six dates between February
17, 1994 end uly 14, 99.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
‘*#* FOR PUBLICATION *#*

‘ne EMA rejected the positions advanced in both of the
remple's appeals, #2 well as those taken in the appeal of
Conserned Citizens, entering findings of fact and
Conclusions of law similar Yo those of the Director.

Id. at 226-28, 953 P.2d at 1324-26 (footnote omitted). On
october 24, 1994, the ZBA entered its findings of fact,

 

 

conclusions of law, and decision and order sustaining the
Director’s December 1, 1993 written findings of fact, conclusions

of law and decision and order.

Circuit court

E 2 2Bn i

|. «The parties appealed the 28A"s “Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Lavy and Decision and Order” in all
those cases to the cirevit coure. In addition, the Temple
Elied yet enother{') appeal of the denial of its variance,
as well as of the Z8A's decision in Concerned Citizens’
Sgpeaif?) in the circuit court, raising largely the sane
aegunents 23 in its other appeals

‘On Nazch 5, 1996, the circuit court filed orders
rejecting ail five appeals.(*] First, the circuit court

+ Koxean Budshist Tesple IL noted that “an earlier and fourth appeal
was filed siSeeely nine clreuit court after the Director's initial decision
WSsalGi85 the 159% variance application.” 87 Hawai'i at 228 n.16, 953 P.2d at
1526 n-16.

2 Korean Buddniee Temple IL stated that, “(a]lthough the Temple
scons to haveprevailed on the itege raises by Concerned Citizens (i.e,
Ghether the Director was allowed to rule thai the height of the Hall can
TREECST ene Loo reguirenents ae a nonconforming use], it apparently decided to
Skpenl the decisions of the 28A and the circuit court on this question
eimay.” eT Hawai'd at 228 n.17, 953 P-2d at 1326 n.17.

 

 

   

+ the circuit court's March 5, 1996 decision and order provided in
relevant part:

1. the [cireuit clourt affirms the 2BA's decision in Civil No.
94-4362-11 and the Director's decision, in Case No. 93/VAR-3, denying
the Zenple’s variance request. The overwhelming weight of the evidence
Supports the decisions. There was no error of law. “Moreover, the
fomple’s representatives engaged in deceitful and “bad faith’ conduct,
2° “the Tenpie also failed to establish that the municipal zoning
laws, IA question here, placed a “substantial burden” on its religious
Beliefs ond practices. This was the factual foundation necessary to
‘Srtee Exercise” and First Amendment issues under the Religious
(continued...)

     
‘### FOR PUBLICATION *#*
dismissed the Temple’ s appeal to it of the Director's order

Geclining to issue a declaratory ruling, on the basis that
{WC lacked jurisdiction to hear it. Zhe cizcuit court

Ada at 228, 953 P.2d at 1326 (emphasis added). As noted supra in

note 3, on March 5, 1996, the circuit court entered judgment in

favor of the ZBA and against the Temple and the Appellants, “as
further provided by [the March 5, 1996] . . . Decision and
order," and dismissed all other claims.
F. This Court’s Decision In Korean Buddhist Temple IZ
“the Temple timely appealed all five orders on March

18, 1996 (including Concerned Citizens’ appeal from the ZBA’s

 

 

order, although Concerned Citizens did not itself appeal the
circuit court's order... ).” Korean Buddhist Temple Il, 87
>(. .scontinued)

Freedom Restoration Act of 1999 (Public Law 103-141), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb,
Si aeg,, and under the state and federal constitutions

4s, “Turthernore, the Temple intentionally created the hardship for
which if now elaine an exemption.

a, "the {eireuit clout’ decision in Civil No. 9
disposes of the issues raised by the Concerncs Citizens.

‘Sr “the (circuit cjourt’s decision in Civil No. 9)
incorporated into this decision.

 

 

 

362-11

 

4085-10 18 also

 

‘SEDER

Based on the foregoing, if 18 HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the Tenple’s appeal filed herein shall be denied, and the Z5N’s
Gecision, dated October 20, 1994, in Case No. 93/20A-9, sustaining the
Director, is hereby affirmed.

   

on the same day, the circuit court entered judgaent as follows:

IP 18 REREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this (clourt
affirms the dacision of the [ZBA], sustaining the decision of
Directors . sin case No. 93/VAR"3 and that judgaent is hereby entered
in favor of (the ZBAl, and against [the Temple] and (the Appellants], as
farther provided in by the [elrcuit clourt’s Decision and Order, dated
Marien] 5, 1996. All other clains are dismissed.

   
 

##* FOR PUBLICATION
Hawai'i at 229, 953 P.2d at 1327. On April 9, 1998, this court
ruled in Korean Buddhist Temple II that “[a]11 of the Temple's
arguments are without merit” and affirmed the orders of the
circuit court rejecting all five of the appeals from the ZBA’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order
sustaining the Director's December 1, 1993 written findings of
fact, conclusions of law and decision and order. Id. at 217, 953
p.2d at 1315. In its conclusion, Korean Buddhist Temple II
plainly stated that this court “affirm[ed) the orders of the
circuit court.” 87 Hawai‘! at 249, 953 P.2d at 1347, On May 14,
1998, this court entered the notice and judgment of appeal
stating that “the Decision and Order of the First Circuit Court
entered on March 5, 1996 and Judgment filed March 5, 1996 are
hereby affirmed.”

G. The Appellants’ Motion For Issuance Of Order To Show
Cause And For Contempt Judament

on July 18, 2000, the Appellants filed a motion in the
circuit court for the issuance of an order to show cause and for
the entry of a contempt judgment and a memorandum in support of
the motion, The Appellants did not identify the statute(s) or
rule(s) pursuant to which they invoked the circuit court's
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Appellants, inter alia, moved
the circuit court

for an Order to Show Cause. . - requir(ing the Temple)
for an Qr{nawer and show cause why it should not be adju
jn’contenpe of (the eircuit court}, and upon return of
Oraer:

1, To adjudge the Temple in contempt of (the circuit
court] for having violated and disregarded the terms of the
Fenoval Order, as repeatedly affirmed, and

2.°"fo order that the Temple be fined the sum of
91,000.00 foreach additional full day of continued
$3,000:00 ‘Grasse and until that day that said Temple's roof

 

3

 

9
**# FOR PUBLICATION *#*

 

and
(tion of the responsible
and until said

ke reduced in height by 9

3. to order the inca
Temple official (s) for civil contespt unl«
Tenple roof ie reduced in height by 9 feet, and

4. "to order the imposition of attorney("]s fees and
costs against the Tenple and in favor of [the Appellants]
herein for having to enforce the Ranoval Order, and

5. To order the imposition of such further sanctions
or penaities sliowable under law as the [circuit court] may
Seem just and proper.

on August 1, 2000, the 28A filed a statement of no

 

  
 

 

position as to the Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion, declaring
that, “if so requested at the hearing, the [28A] can provide the
(circuit court] with a summary of [its] efforts to obtain
compliance.”

on August 2, 2000, the Temple filed a memorandum in
opposition to the Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion, maintaining
that “[t]he Movants’ motion must fail for the basic reason that
there is no unequivocal order of [the circuit) court with which
{the Temple} has not complied.”

On August 10, 2000, the Appellants filed a reply
memorandum in support of their July 18, 2000 motion.

On August 23, 2000, the ZBA, at the request of the
cireuit court, filed a mendrandum of law “on the question of
whether ‘The Department of Planning and Permitting has the
authority to enforce the December 1, 1993 Decision of the
Director.’" On August 24, 2000, the Appellants filed a
supplemental memorandum in support of their July 18, 2000 motion,
noting that the circuit court “had requested additional
briefingi.]” On August 24, 2000, the Temple, “pursuant to the
[circuit clourt’s request,” filed a supplemental memorandum in
opposition of the Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion.

20
‘+#4 FOR PUBLICATION ***

on August 29, 2000, the circuit court conducted &

hearing on the Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion. After
entertaining arguments by counsel for the Temple and the
Appellants, as well as a statement by counsel for the ZBA, the

circuit court orally ruled on the matter. The circuit court's

oral ruling was memorialized in a written order, entered on

September

found and

15, 2000.
In its September 15, 2000 order, the circuit court

ruled as follows:

1. the Decision and Order entered in this case by
Judge Wendell k. Hoddy on March 5, 1996 (and later affirmed
By the Hawai'i Supreme Court on April 9, 2998) had the
effect of aking the December 1, 1993 Decision and Order of
the City Deparcnent of Land Utilization (*OLU Order”) the
Ultimate Jodgnent of this (court.

'o: “the BLU Order provides chat any portion of the
building Wain Temple Hall) exceeding 66 feet in height is
fot allowed and shall be renoved,

‘Since April 9, 1998 tne record shows that the
‘Temple submitted to the City Department of Permitting and
Planning (OPF") a nunber of proposals allegedly to comply
ith this [clourt’s judgment. DPP does not approve the
Protracted nature of the Temple's proposals and prefers a
Single, integrated proposal.

i. "Penaing OPP's approval of the Temple's plat
city had a stop-work order in effect, which prevents any
Construction work on the Hain Temple Hall from being done,
Shich includes work to Bring the building inte compliance
With the Law.

5, therefore, the record is clear that the Nain
Temple fiall has not yet been brought into compliance with
The {elourt’e dudgeent affirming the DLU’s Decenber 1, 1993
Order. The record ia not so clear that there has been
Girect viclation of an order of the (court.

‘6, The Movant has the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that there has been a violation of
Scurt orders This has not yet been done, However, the
[eloure recognizes the importance of the DLU"s December 1,
1583 Order, and the Temple appears motivated to effect
compliance:

‘Therefore, based on the above, this (court hereby
ORDERS, ADJUBGES AND OECREES as follows:

4. "nat [a Master]... is appointed . . . who will
meet with the parties in order to develop « fair timetable
Mithin which to effect compliance with the DLU's December 1,
993 Order:

 

 

 

 

 

the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
 

+*4 FOR PUBLICATION

4. Te Master shall prepare a report within ninety
(90) daye of the date this Order is filed, setting for a
Eeconnendation for a fair timetable to effect compliance
ith the DLU's December 1, 1983 Order.

 

5. ine master shall nave the authority to issue
sanctions for any failure to comply with any request or
order issued by the (circuit cloure or the Master.

fb, Any order Lsaued by the Master shall be
imediately appealable by written motion to this [clourt on
fan expedited bas!

‘3. fhe (circuit clourt is neither granting nor
denying ‘the motion.

Yo. (he Appeliants'} request for attorney(*]s f
and coats is denied without prejudice.

H. the a 4 No. 1 Modi fvin
Regarding The Appellants’ Motion

on January 9, 2001, the circuit court entered Order No.

 

 

1 modifying the September 15, 2000 order. The January 9 order
merely rescheduled the time for the hearing when the circuit
court would issue an order regarding the timetable for effecting
compliance with the DLU’s December 1, 1993 Order (i.e., from
‘Tuesday, December 19, 2000, to Thursday, June 7, 2001) and the
deadline for the Master’ report (i.e., from Friday, December 15,
2000, to Friday, June 1, 2001).

T. The Temple's Motion For Reconsideration Of (1) The

Es Ore 7 Motion
And_i2) The Circuit Court's Order No. 1 Modifying The
rail TST

on March 16, 2001, “pursuant to (Hawai'i Rule of Civil
Procedure (HRCP)] Rule 7 [(2001)‘] . . . and/or the general

 

‘RCP Rute 7 provides:

Rule 7. Pleadings allowed; fora of motions.
(a) Pleadings. ‘There shall be a complaint and an answers a reply
£0 a counterclai= denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if
the answer contains a cross-claim) a third-party complaint, if a person
‘iho was not an original party 1s summoned under the provisions of Rule
Tey and @ third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No
(continued...)

 

2
‘### FOR PUBLICATION ***

plenary powers of the [circuit clourt,” the Temple filed (1)
motion for reconsideration of (a) the circuit court’s September
15, 2000 order and (b) the cizcuit court’s January 9, 2001 Order
No. 1 modifying the September 15, 2000 order and (2) a memorandum
in support of the motion. In the Temple’s motion for
reconsideration, the Temple explained that

[t)ho relief sought . . . 42 the modification of said orders
{Qagtieitarly provide that the Department of Planning and
Fovabicing, as successor to the former Department of Lend
OeTiEseTes, "oe" ene ciey ana County of Honoluls has the
Gothority £9 allow [the Tesple] to modify its plans for the
BeUSing’sn question ("Main Temple Hall") in any way which
Peiconsistent with the applicable zoning ordinance
‘Gonprehensive Zoning Code) =

on april 12, 2001, the 2BA filed a joinder in the
emple’s March 16, 2001 motion for reconsideration, and a
menorandun in support of the joinder. In the memorandum, the 2BA
stated that its position “as to the amount of footage to be
removed from the existing structure of the Temple is 6.2 feet,
excluding certain embellishments.”

on April 16, 2001, the Appellants filed a memorandum in

‘opposition to the Temple's March 16, 2001 motion for

*(..-continued)
SLyeSPTeang shai2 be allowed, except that the court may order reply
fovan answer or a third-party answer.

(fe) Motions and Other Papers.

Tiyan application to the court for an order shell be by
notion which, unless sade during a hearing or trial, shall be sade
weNitlelng, Shall stave with particularity the grounds therefor,
AB ENS iset forth the relief or order sought.” The requirement
SE GIne'Ss folfialed if the motion is stated in a written
Rotice of the hearing of the moticn.

(G) the ules applicable to captions, signing, and other
matters bf form of pleadings apply to all motions and other papers
Provided for by these rules.

3) “Sil Zotsons shall be aigned in accordance with Rule 11
(c) Demurcers, Pleas, etc-, Abolished. Desurrers, pleas, and

exceptions for insufficiency of pleading shell not be’ used.

 

  

 

3
‘4% FOR PUBLICATION ***
reconsideration. In the memorandum, the Appellants asserted:

(2) that the circuit court “does not have jurisdiction to
overrule and negate” (a) “the April 9, 1998 decision of the
Hawai'i Supreme Court [,]” (b) “the March 5, 1996 decision and
order of Judge Wendell K. Huddyl,]” (c) “the October 20, 1994
decision of the (ZBA,]” and (d) “the December 1, 1993 decision of
the Director of the Department of Land Utilization”; and (2) that
the circuit “court has no further jurisdiction under [HRCP] Rule

59 [(2000)*] to hear or grant reconsideration.”

 

+ RCP Rule 59 provides:

Rule 59. New triale; anendnent of judgments.

(a) Grounds, A new trial say be granted to all or any of the
partion" and opal cr part ot the: Lesues! (2) "in tn actice Is unseen

n'a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials
heretofore been granted in actiona at law in the courts of the

in an action triea without a Jury, for any of the reasons
ings have heretofore been granted in suite in equity in
Efe Courts ot the state. Ona motion for a new trial in an action tried
without a Jury, the court may open the Judgment if one has been entered,
Take adaltional testimony, azend findings of fact and conclusions of law
of make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new
Sudgnent.| “

(b) Tine for Motion. K motion for a new trial shall be filed no
tater than 10 days after entry of the judgment.

(c) Tine for Serving Affidavits. When a motion for new trial is
based on affidavits, they shall be filed with the motion. |The opposing
party has 10 jeer service to file opposing affidavits, but that
Period may be extended for up to 20 days, either by the court for good
Eause or by the parties’ written stipulation. The court may perme
reply affidavits.

(a) On Court’s Initiative; Notices Specifying Grounds. No later
‘than 10 daye after entry of judgnent the court, on its ow, nay order a
hew trial for any reason that would Justify granting one on a party's
Rotion. After giving the parties notice and an opportunity tobe heard,
fhe court may grant a tinely motion for # new trial, for = reason not
stated in the motion. When granting a new trial on'its oun initiative
or for a resson not stated ina notion, the court shall specify the
Grounds in its order

{e) Motion to Alter or Anend Judgment. Any motion to alter or
amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the

judgnent.

 

   

      

   

  

 

 

 

 

a4
‘*** FOR PUBLICATION ***

on April 19, 2001, the Temple filed a reply memorandum
regarding its March 16, 2001 motion for reconsideration. The
circuit court did not finally adjudicate the Temple’s motion for
reconsideration until July 6, 2001. See infra section I.K.
3. the ts
Effect Roof Reduction Of The Main Temple Hall
on May 11, 2001, the Master filed his report regarding
a fair timetable to effect roof reduction of the main temple
hall. On May 30, 2001, the Appellants filed a memorandum in
opposition to the Master’s May 11, 2001 report.
kK m a
on April 24, 2001, the circuit court conducted a
hearing on the Temple’s March 16, 2001 motion for
reconsideration. After stating that it was inclined to grant the
‘Temple’s motion for reconsideration, the circuit court allowed
the Appellants’ counsel to “make a record.” The circuit court
then issued its oral ruling, which was memorialized in the July

6, 2001 decision and order granting the Temple’s March 16, 2002

 

motion for reconsideration, finding and ordering as follow:

(t]he [cireuit clourt hereby finds:

‘Tie supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, in the

cass, of Wgeaun Guha Teabls IU);  WRAP Rule 39(d) provided in relevant part that “(a] party ho
desires an award of costs shall state then in an itemized and verified bill of
Sosee, together witha statement of authority for each category of iten, filed
Wath the eppeliate clerk, with proof of service, no later than 14 days aftex

 

 

fhe entry EP dudanent+*"” (Eaphasis added.) Morcover, HRAP Rule 39(a) provide!
in relevant part that “if an appeal. . is dismissed, costs shall be taxed
against the appellant . . . upon proper application uniess otherwise agreed by

the pertics or ordered by the appellate court.” Erfective January 1, 2004,
TRAP Rule 39 was sonded in respects not Felevant to the present matter.

 

* tm Harcison, this court ruled as follows:

(continued...)

aa
‘#4 FOR PUBLICATION *#*
103 P.3d 939, 949 (2005) (quoting Jordan v. Hanada, 64 Haw. 446,
452, 643 P.2d 70, 72 (1982), which observed, in an appeal from an
administrative proceeding, “that as a matter of law and of sound
judicial policy, a court which has acquired jurisdiction over @
cause retains its power over the same to the exclusion of any
court of coordinate jurisdiction until the court renders a final
judament in the case or until the action is terminated by the
parties” (emphasis added)).

In the present matter, as discussed supra in section
I.E, the parties appealed the 28A’s October 24, 1994 findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order to the circuit
court, such that the circuit court was a court of primary appeal,
with appellate jurisdiction prescribed by HRS § 91-14(g) and HRCP
Rule 72. Cf, Korean Buddhist Temple II, 87 Hawai'i at 229, 953
P.2d at 1327 (citation omitted). On March 5, 1996, pursuant to

HRCP Rule 72(k), the circuit court entered its decision, order

 

 

‘continved}
‘Although this court filed ite judgeent on appeal in the underlying
case prior to [the events underlying the cause of action before us], we
{Ske Jurisdiction of this case through await Revised statutes (ERS)
5602-4 (1999), which states that this court “shail have the general
Superintendeace of sll courts of inferior jurisdiction to prevent and
Correct errors and abuses therein where no other renedy is expressly
sa° Sinilarly, as we declared earlier: “ie is ur solemn
the practice of Taw in this state... .*
2 Boigu, 79 Hawas'l 201," 207, 500 P.24 777,785
{i995}. Because there Tas been no previous discussion with respect to
the [issue at bar], we take this opportunity to instruct the trial
Sourte and the bar’on this 4ssue-

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

95 Hawai'i at 30, 18 P.3d at 692. Hareigon 1s distinguishable because, as
further explained infra: (1) in the present matter, the circuit court lacked
jurisdiction and could not avail itself of HRS § 602-4, which applies only to

f'and (2) the present matter does not involve circumstances “where
no other Fenedy 1s expressly provided by law,” HRS § 602-4, insofar as the
Appellants may sesk enforcement of the Director’ s Decesber 1, 1993 findings of
fect, conclusions of law, and decision and order by proper motion before the
BBA, which wae the “trial court.” See infra.

 

22
‘#4 FOR PUBLICATION ***
and {inal iudament affirming the decision of the ZBA. See supra
section I.£. The circuit court's decision “ruled that . . - the
‘contested case hearing’ prescribed by HRS ch. 91 transpired

during the proceeding in the ZBA[,]" thereby confirming that the
2BA was the “trial court” and the circuit court was the court of
primary appeal. Korean Buddhist Temple Ii, 87 Hawai'i at 228,

983 P.2d at 132

 

see also supra section I.E. On secondary
appeal to this court, we entered final judgment on May 14, 1998,
affirming the March 5, 1996 decision, order, and final judgment
of the circuit court. Ses supra section 1.F.

‘That being the case, Korean Buddhist Temple Ii neither
renanded the present matter to the circuit court nor instructed
it to take any further action.’ Indeed, as we said in Harrison,
both in the court of primary appeal
1 (Lies, this court)
-- “terminate{d) upon the appellate court (s’) filing (of) its

 

“appellate jurisdiction”

 

(ice., the circuit court) and secondary app.

+ By contrast,
(1m state ws Lincoln, 72 Haw. 480, 925 P.2d 66 (1952),
Ee SREP RTE ake: (1092), “enis court observed (1)

 

Sher “Lilt ie the duty of the cxial court, on remand, to
Sosply ateletly with the mandate of theapballabe court
‘Sccording te ite true sntent and meaning, as_determined by
fhe dizections aiven by the Cexiawina court,” end (2) th

= Ate aws at 405-06; 025 P.2a at 68
Peceeeh eitations and quotation signals omitted)

yi S 7 uu,
aie aie ais, ioe F.5d 939, 362 (2005) (emphases added). As discussed
duos In section Tf, Korean Buddiist Temple It remanded nothing to the
Eireuit court, ‘The mandate of wae merely that the
cease Courts March 2, 1996 decision, order, and judgment was affirmed, such
thet jurisdiction reverted to the ZBA." See intra.

23

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION **+
judgment [s] on appeal.” 95 Hawai'i at 30, 18 P.3d at 892
(citations omitted); see also Kepo'o, 106 Hawai'i at 280, 103 P.34
at 949; HRCP Rule 72(k). Further to the foregoing, once this
court “file{d] its judgment on appeal, the trial court
Feacquire(d) jurisdiction.” Harrison, 95 Hawai'i at 30, 18 P.3d
at 892 (citations omitted). As noted supra, the 2BA was the
“trial court” in the present matter, inasmuch as the ZBA
Proceeding constituted the requisite contested case hearing. See
Korean Buddhist Temple II, 87 Hawai'i at 228, 953 P.2d at 13267
see also supra section I.£. Moreover, HRCP 72(k) expressly
Limits the circuit court's jurisdiction following Korean Buddhist
Temple Ii to “[p]romptly . . . notifyling) the [2BA] of the
disposition of the appeal.” Finally, the present matter
“concerns [neither an HRAP Rule 53) request[] for attorneys’ fees
and expenses for services rendered specifically before this
court, [nor an] HRAP Rule 39 [request] for . . . costs,” such
that the “sole exception” to the rule set forth in Harrison is
not implicated here. Harrison, 95 Hawai'i at 30, 18 P.3d at

 

& As we have noted, the Appellants pray in their opening brief “that
this (clourt'. |. direct (or order directly) that the TEMPLE be required to
Pay (the Appellants’] attorney's fess and costs for this Order £0 show cause
Tdue."the eizcuit court proceedings)) and appeal.” The Appellants cite no
authority in support of their request for attorney's fees and costs, andy for
the following reasons, their request cannot be construed as made pursuant to
HEAP Rule 53 or 38: (1) whereas the Appellants have requested attorney's fees
and costs prior to our disposition of the present matter, HRAP Rule 53 and 39
motions must be filed after the entry of judgment in the present matter, see
gupta notes 6 and 7; (2) the Appellants’ request violates HRAP Rule 39(d)
Because the Appellants have faried to file, inter alia, va itemized and
verified bill of costs, together with a statement of authority for each
category of item,” age supa note 7; and (3) unless the partios otherwise
agree of we later order otherwise, ARAP Rule 39(3) requires that costs be
taxed againat the Appellants, gee supra note 7, Deca! cvplained intza, |

(continues

     

 

      

 

 

 

 

24
‘### FOR PUBLICATION ***

We therefore hold that, insofar as jurisdiction
following Korean Buddhist Temple II lay with the 2BA and pot the
circuit court, the cireuit court “ha{d] no authority to
consider,” Bohannon, 102 Hawai‘ at 232, 74 P.3d at 984 (internal
citations and quotation signals omitted), (1) the Appellants’
guly 18, 2000 motion for issuance of order to show cause and for
contempt judgment, (2) the Temple’s March 16, 2001 motion for
reconsideration, and (3) all other related motions. See
also Kepo'o, 106 Hawai'i at 280, 103 P.3d at 949; HRCP Rule 72(k)
‘Thus, we hold that the circuit court’s (1) July 6, 2001 decision
and order granting the Temple's motion for reconsideration, (2)
guly 30, 2001 order regarding the Appellants’ July 18, 2000
motion for the issuance of an order to show cause and for a
contenpt judgment, and (3) all other related orders, which were
vrendered by [the] circuit court without . . . jurisdiction(,
are} void.” Lingle, No. 24237, slip op. at 3 (citation omitted).
Moreover, we hold that, insofar as we “retain{] jurisdiction, not
on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the [circuit
court's) error in [assuming] jurisdiction,” id. (citation
omitted), any future disposition of the issued raised by the
parties falls within the jurisdiction of the 2BA. Finally, we
hold that the Appellante’ unsupported prayer for attorney’s fees
and costs is denied. See supra note 10.

(continued)

we are reminding the pret
Taek of Jurisdiction.

wnt matter to the circuit court for dismissal for

 

25
+ FOR PUBLICATION ***
IV. concLusToN

In light of the foregoing analysis, we (1) vacate the
circuit court’s (a) duly 6, 2001 decision and order granting the
Temple's March 16, 2001 motion for reconsideration, (b) July 30,
2001 order regarding the Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion for the
issuance of an order to show cause and for a contempt judgment,
and (c) all other related orders and (2) remand this matter to
the circuit court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (a) the
Appellants’ July 18, 2000 motion, (b) the Temple’s March 16, 2001

motion for reconsideration, and (c) all other related motions.

on the brief:

 

Fred Paul Benco,
for appellees-appellants, Dba Phot
Concerned Citizens of
PAlolo, a Hawai'i non~
profit’ corporation; an
Life of the Land, Inc., Pasete CNet Oe
a Hawai'i non-profit

Corporation Wom Dui. re

David K. Tenoue, deputy
Corporation counsel, Me-
forapse! Leetappel ice
Honing’ Boars of Rppesds
ofthe city ana Cooney ot

Roger 8. Moseley,
Of Case, Bigelow & Lombardi
for appellant-appellee
Korean Buddhist. Dae Won Sa
‘Temple of Hawai'i

Stuart M. Cowan,
counsel of record
for appellant-appellee
Korean Buddhist, Dae Won Sa
Temple of Hawal's

26