Title: Diamond v. State, Board of Land and Natural Resources. S.Ct. Order of Correction, filed 10/25/2006 [pdf].

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘#+¢ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
000:

CAREN DIAMOND and HAROLD BRONSTEIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
‘and CARL STEPHENS, Defendants-Appellees. .

90 OY 42 1905

No. 26997

APPEAL FROM THE PIPTH CIRCUIT. COURT
(CIV. NO. 04-1-0042) .

 

OCTOBER 24, 2006

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DUFFY, J.

Plaintif¢s-Appellants Caren Diamond and Harold
Bronstein [hereinafter, collectively, Plaintiffs]' appeal from
the Circult Court of the Fifth Circuit's January 11, 2005
judgment! affirming the March 5, 2004 Order Denying Appeal of the
Chairperson of the State of Hawai'i Department of Land and

Natural Resources (DLNR) and Defendant-Appellee the State of

Diamond and Bronstein are concerned citizens who have resided in the
area of the subject property for over twenty-two years and eighteen yea)
Fespectively, and are familiar with the property's shoreline.” No party
Eigpotes that Plaineifée have standing to ering the instant action, presunably
porbuane to Hawal't Revised Statutes (HRS) $ Z05A-6 (2001) (*(Alny person

‘nay commence 9 civil action alleging that any agency 3) In
Gxercising any duty required to be performed under this chapter, has not
complied with the provisions of this chapter.”).

 

 

 

 

! the Honorable George H. Masucks presided over this matter,
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTE}

 

Hawai'i Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) [hereinafter,
Order Denying Appeal]. Plaintiffs assert the following points of
error: (1) the conclusion of law in the Order Denying Appeal
rejecting Plaintiffs’ contention that “the certified shoreline
must be located at the annually recurring highest reach of the
highest wash of the waves, and, if that point is mauka of the
stable vegetation line, then the stable vegetation line is not
the appropriate location for the certified shoreline” is in
violation of the statutory definition of “shoreline” contained in
HRS § 205A-1 (2001);? (2) the conclusion of law in the Order
Denying Appeal that the proposed certified shoreline is properly

located at the stable vegetation line is in violation of the

 

statutory definition of “shoreline”; (3) the definition of
“shoreline” contained in Hawai'i Adninistrative Rules (HAR)

§ 13-222-2 conflicts with the statutory definition of “shoreline”
Contained in HRS § 205A-1; and (4) the Order Denying Appeal “is
clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
Substantial evidence on the whole record.”

‘The BLNR responds that: (1) HAR § 13-222-2 is not

inconsistent with HRS § 205A-1; and (2) the DLNR was correct in

 

> URS § 205A-1 defines “shoreline” as:

[Tine upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than
storm and seismic waves, at high tige during the season of
the year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs,
usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growths oF’ the
upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves

 
‘** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

setting the shoreline based on the stable vegetation line.
Defendant~Appellee Carl Stephens’s hereinafter, collectively
with the BLNR, Defendants] answering brief echoes the assertions

of the BINR.

 

Based on the following, we hold that: (1) the issue of
Uhether the HRS and HAR conflict is moot; and (2) the circuit
court erred as 2 matter of law in affirming the Order Denying
Appeal. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed.

T. BACKGROUND

By warranty deed recorded on December 8, 1999, Stephens
purchased the subject property, an ocean-front parcel in the
Wainiha Subdivision on the North shore of Kaua'i [hereinafter,
Lot 2]. At the time of the purchase, Stephens did not obtain a
certified shoreline survey of Lot 2, and the most recent
certified shoreline for Lot 2, dated December 11, 1990, was no
longer valid.

In July 2000, Stephens hired a contractor to cut the
trees on Lot 2, including the large false kamani trees in the
area of the shoreline. After the trees were cut, Stephens hired
a landscaper to plant vegetation in the shoreline area of the
Jot. In or around July and August 2000, spider lilies and
naupaka were planted along the “seaward property line” and the

public right of way bordering Lot 2's western boundary. An
 

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

irrigation line was installed to water the newly planted
vegetation.
A. The First Survey -- July 2001,

On or about July 27, 2001, Ronald J. Wagner, P.E.,
L.S., of Wagner Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of
Stephens, submitted to the DLNR a shoreline survey for Lot 2
based upon a field survey done on July 17, 2001. The following
text appeared on the shoreline survey prepared by Wagner:
“Shoreline Follows along highwater mark. The vegetation/debris
Line July 17, 2001 (10:30 a.m.) {.1"

On October 10, 2001, the state surveyor, Randall
Hashimoto, conducted a site visit of Lot 2. Hashimoto
recommended certification of the shoreline based upon Wagner's
July 17, 2001 field survey. At the time of the site visit,
Hashimoto opined that the vegetation he observed below the
shoreline established by the Wagner field survey was “either
planted or induced” by human activity, so he did not use such
Vegetation in his location of the shoreline. As recommended by
the state surveyor, the shoreline was certified for Lot 2 on
October 25, 2001. The certification was valid for one year

pursuant to HRS § 205A-42 (2001). However, Stephens’s attempt

+ HRS § 205K-42, entitled “Determination of the shoreline” provides in
fn

(2) The board of land and natural resources shall
adopt roles pursuant to chapter 91 prescribing procedures
(cont snuea.
‘+4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAF' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

to begin building within six months of the certification as
required by County of Kaua'i Rules was frustrated by the
inability of his architect to submit final plans in time. AS
such, Stephens was forced to redo the survey.
B. on = 02

on May 15, 2002, Dennis M. Esaki, LPLS, of Bsaki
Surveying and Mapping, Inc., conducted 2 field survey of Lot 2.
Hashimoto accompanied Esaki and advised him in the determination
of the shoreline. In Hashimoto's opinion, according to his
testimony at the contested case hearing, even if the upper wash
of the waves was mauka of the vegetation line, the vegetation
Line would still be where he would place the shoreline:

([plaintists’ Attorney]... {ile
Shore of Kauai,

re talking North

 

 

[asninoter) Yeah

 

*(.,seontinued)
for determining @ shoreline and appeals of shoreline
Geterminations that are consistent with subsection (b);
provided thet go determination of 2 shoreline shall be valig
fora period lender than twelve months, except where the
Shoreline is fined by evtificial structures that have been
approved by appropriate government agencies and for which
cnpineering drawings exist to Locate the interface between
the shoreline and the structure.

 

(©) The chaizperson of the board of land and natural
resources shail cause @ public notice to be published in the
periodic belletin published by the office of environmental
Goality control. All coments to the application for
Shoreline certification shell be submitted in writing to the
State lang surveyor no later than fifteen calenoar days from
the date of the public notice of the application. Notice of
apelicetien for certification shall be identified by tax map
Key nunber, and where applicable, street address and nearest

Usphasis added.)
   

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

[Plaintises’ attorney:] -- and we! re talking about
the surf Teoccurs [sic] annually. In the same spor every
year, the north swells cone in and it goes over the
Vegetation line and sets s debris Line and represents the
Upper wash of the waves, will you aet that as the shoreline?
nd your answer is\no, Correct?

 

 

 

(Hashimoto:) No, I use the sore stable evidence.

[Plaintitte’ Attorney:] Right, you want to use the
vegetation Line.

Iiashimoto:) More stable evidence, yeah.

(Plainestts* Attorney:) Yeah. Even if it’s
Ring the upper wash of the waves

 

Additionally, Hashimoto testified that, in determining the
shoreline, he utilized the naupaka that he had refused to utilize
during the 2001 field survey. It was Hashimoto's opinion ‘that:
(2) even if the naupaka were planted or promoted by human
activity, if they “withstood a complete yearly cycle or the high
surf,” that would establish the stable vegetation line by which
Hashimoto would define the shoreline; and (2) “[t)he vegetation
would have precedence over the debris line” because the
vegetation line is “more stable” and the definition of
“shoreline” in HAR § 13-222-2 means that “where there is a sandy
beach the edge of vegetation growth is the preferred means for
determining a location of a shoreline.”

Based on this survey, Esaki submitted a new application
to the DNR on behalf of Stephens for the shoreline certification
of Lot 2. The survey located the shoreline based upon the

“vegetation line as located on May 15, 2002 (11:30 a.m.) [,]" and
s+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

resulted in the shoreline moving makai by 10.62 feet on the
eastern boundary and makai by 4.72 feet on the western boundary
of Lot 2.

on July 23, 2002, Hashimoto conducted ancther site
visit. Representatives of Stephens, Esaki, Diamond, and others
were also present at this inspection. At the inspection,
Diamond: (1) gave Hashimoto photographs that she represented as
showing the upper wash of the waves of the winter surf; (2)
informed Hashimoto that the owners of Lot 2 planted an
“artificial” vegetation line: and (3) presented her position
regarding the placement of the shoreline. Nevertheless, +
Hashimoto recommended for certification the shoreline submitted
with Esaki’s May 2002 application. on July 26, 2002, as
recommended by Hashimoto, the shoreline was certified for Lot 2.
The certified shoreline was valid for one year and expired on
guly 25, 2003. Public notice of the shoreline was published in
the August @, 2002 Environmental Notice.

on August 28, 2002, Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the
BINR asserting that the certified shoreline did not accurately
reflect the upper wash of the waves as evidenced by the wintei
surf. Retired Judge Boyd Mossman was assigned to hear the
contested case. On January 9, 2003, during the “winter wave
season @ few days after the highest waves of the season at high

tide(,]" Judge Mossman conducted a site inspection of Lot 2.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Also present were Hashimoto and representatives of the parties te
the contested case hearing.

The contested case hearing commenced on March 31, 2003
and was completed on May 14, 2003. Judge Mossman issued a
seventeen-page decision concluding thet the shoreline was
correctly determined. ;

On July 25, 2003, the BLNR entered its “Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order” substantially
adopting Judge Mossman’s findings and conclusions and denying the
appeal (hereinafter, LNR’s Order). In relevant part, the BLNR
entered the following findings of fact:

51. The location determined ss the shoreline on May 35,
2002 was consistent with the adjoining properties and
based on mature vegetation that predates the planting
that occurred in July or August of 2000,

 

53, On January S, 2003, 2 site inspection of Lot 2 was
held in conjunction with this contested
Fresent st the site inspection [were] Me

  

‘and well
Rarking the certifieg
shoreline were largely contained within vegetative

  

5¢. Evidence of plantings of naupaks and spider lilies by
persons hired by Mr. Stephens at Lot 2'in July oF
August 2000 was presentes; however, at the tine of the
survey by Mr. Esaki of Lot 2 the plantings were no
Jonger being watered or cthersise artificially
maintained and had established themselves with a solid
Foot core which had weathered two years of winter surf
without retreating mauka because of ealt water
Snundation fron the Aighest wash of the waves:

 

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

63

66.

er.

ea.

10.

02.

 

Neupaka is an ideal indicator of the upper wash of the
aves because of its salt tolerance and ability to
Withetand occasional salt water inundation, auch as
ay be found in storm or other unusually high wave
Sonditions, while not surviving if constantly
Shundated or subjected to ripping or undermining by
wave action

Ronde) Tenay testifies ae an expert in horticulture
fand shoreline vegetation for (Stephene). Me. Taney
made four site visits between February 3 and May 12,
2003.

Tt wag tir. Temay’s opinion that the certified
shoreline{] for’ (Lot 2 was a} conservative
Gemarcatson{) of the shoreline and that the prior
Fenoval by (Stephens) of false kanani trees hed
Sllowed for resprouting of netive plants.

 

 

[Plaineifts’) expert witness, Dr. Charles H. Fletcher
IIT, in bis 1994 report to the Office of State
Planning, Coastal Zone Management Program, stated as
follows

sin this report, we recommend that the shoreline
definition be modified to place an increases.
emphasis en the use of the vegetation line as a
Ratural monunent, and a decreased emphasis, cn
The ‘upper reach’ of the wash of the waves./"

ere was no convincing evidence of a debris line at Lot 2
though several witnesses testifies that they had over ehe
years seen wave action going up to the fence post st the
Public right of way and even down the pathway to the public
Foaa.

The practice of the State Surveyor is to use the Line of
vegetation where present, and not the line of debris, as
eridence of the upper wash of the waves, due to the (sic!
Sts greater stability,

he site visit was conducted during the winter wave
Season a feu daye after the highest waves of the
Season at high tide and evidence of waves breaching
the vegetation line wes minimal if at all and act
Convincing.

 

 

(Citations omitted.) The BLNR also entered the following

pertinent conclusions of law:
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

a.

Fra

1s.

vn

1

‘The edge of vegetation growth is the best evidence of
the shoreline in this case, ag it shows the result of
the natural dynenics and interplay between the wave:
and the Line of vegetation over a period of time for
Stability, as against a debris Line which may change
fron week’ to week or from day to day.

 

 

The use of the edge of vegetation growth is
advantageous over the debris line Sn that it is
Practical, easily identifiable and stable.

 

 

The shoretine() advocated by (Plaintiffs is) not
Supported by the evidence.

Applyinig the law to the facts, as a matter of lex, the
field survey conducted on May’ 15, 2002 by Me. Esaki

correctly determines the location of the shoreline on

Lot 2 pursuant to the definition of “shoreline” in HRS

§ 205a-1 and the definition of “shoreline” and .
“vegetation growth” in HAR § 13-229-2.

 

 

The May 15, 2002 field survey was correct because,
among Other things: (1) the age of the vegetation
around the stakes indicated that it was naturally
Footed and growing; (2) there was no evidence that the
vegetation was being artificially maintasnea; (3) the
Vegetation line was consistent with the vegetation
along the coastline; (4) the vegetation line rensined
Stable through severe winter conditions over an
extended period of tine; and (8) the stability of the
vegetation was chserved first hand at the site
Inspection on vanuary 3, 2003 and reconfizmed on that
gate.

 

 

On August,25, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal

in the circuit court. That appeal, Civil No. 03-1-0122, was

dismissed by the circuit court on February 12, 2004 because

Plaintiffs failed to file an opening brief as required by Civil

Administrative Order 10.5.

¢. The Third survey -- august 2003

The previous certification having expired, on

Septenber 16, 2003, Esaki, on behalf of Stephens, submitted

10
   

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

another shoreline certification application for Lot 2 based upon
a shoreline survey which occurred on August 15, 2003. This
survey located the shoreline for Lot 2 as the “shoreline as
certified on July 26, 2002 and resurveyed on August 15, 2003."
Hashimoto agreed with that location. A notice of the proposed
shoreline certification for Lot 2 was published in the Office of
Environmental Quality Control (0&QC) Bulletin on Noverber. 8,
2003.

on November 26, 2003, Plaintiffs, along with Beau
Blair, filed an administrative appeal of the proposed
certification of Lot 2 with the BLNR. On March 5, 2004, the
Order Denying Appeal was filed, stating that the certified
shoreline was properly located at the stable vegetation line. In
relevant part, the Order Denying Appeal stated:

Initially, it should be clarified that the “vegetation
Line” used here is not the aaksi edge of vegetation growh.
In some areas, the proposed certified shoreline is located
within the vegetated ares, The State Surveyor used the
Setaple vegetation line" to locate the shoreline. Stable
vegetation are plants that, without continued human
Intervention, are well-estaslished and would not be
uprooted, broken off, of unable to survive occasional wt
oF run-up of waves.

 

 

 

The fact that at one time the vegetation here was
planted by hunan hands does not nullify the use of the
Stable vegetation line to determine the location of the
shoreline for certification purposes. Vegetation that, even
though originally induced, 1s able to survive through the
Seasons over several years without human intervention
provides a good indication of the location of the shoreline,

 

 

‘The shoreline certification history of this property
Aulustrates the factors considered in Locating the shoreline
Sihen there is induced vegetation. in acting upon an
application for shoreline certification in duly, 2001, the
State surveyor, upon site inspection, noted that there was
indveed vegetation, Because the State Surveyor did not know

 

u
121+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

hhow long the vegetation had been there, and consequently,
could not determine whether the vegetation growth wos
Stable, ‘the vegetation line was not used to locate the
Gertified shoreline at that time. Instead, in 2001 the
shoreline was certifies at the top of the bank.

in late 2003, the sane State Surveyor, noting that the
sone vegetation growth had survived through at least two,
years, could now make e determination that the vegetation
Growth was stable, Thus, on this application it is
appropriate to use the stable vegetation line to locate the
shoreline.

Tine ‘then the stable veaatart

‘Aocation tor the certitied shoreline, Anpeliansa-
‘Gontention te net consistent withthe derinitiee ot
Sehoreline."ang, is therefore

“Shoreline” for certification purposes is defined ae:

the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other then
Storm and seismic waves, at high tide during the
Season of the year in which the highest wash of the
Waves occurs, Usually evidenced by the edge of
vegetation gfowth, or the upper limit of ebris left
by the wash of the waves

 

lies] § 2058-1.

In adépting this definition of “shoreline,” the
jislature adopred the Hawai("li. (Sluprene (Clourt’s
delineation of the boundary dividing private land from
public beaches in Application of Asafore, 50 Haw. 314, 440
P.2a 76 (1966). “it Ls reasonable and appropriste,
therefore, £0 look to Ashford and its progeny for guidance
fon questions on how the shoreline should be located for
Sereification purposes

 

The use of the upper reaches of the wash of the waver
as the boundary between private land and public beacnes 23
Based on ancient Hawaiian tradition, custom, practice and
sege. Historically, "(i]t was the custom cf the ancient
Hawaiians to name each division of lang and the Soundaries
of each division were kiown to the people Living thereon or

 

The Ashford Court stated, in relevant part, “We are of the opinion
that ‘ma ke kai” is along the upper reaches of ‘the wash of waves, usually
evidenced by the eage of vegetation or by the line of debris left by the wash
Of waves(.]* “50 Wax. at 31s, 440 F.2d at 7s

a2
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

in the neighbornood.” Ashford, 50 Haw. at 316, 440 P.26 at
73.."Syn ancient Havaid, the Line of growth of 2 certain
kind of tree, herb or grass sonetines made up a boundary.”
Ashford, 80 hau. et 316-17, 440 Py2d at 78.

If the boundaries are to be “known to the people
Living thereon or in the neighborhood,” reason dictates that
the boundaries could not be so evanescent as being a point
Where someone happens to observe the run up of a waver TO
the contrary, "[t]he Ashford decision was 8 judicial
recognition of longestanding public use of Hawaii’

to en easily recoanizable boundary thet has ripene:
custonary right.” Couney of Hawaii v. Sotomura, $5 Naw.
iit, Tei-182, 517 p.2d 57, 61 (1973) [emphasis oddes)
Clearly identifiable markers are necessary for » boundary to
bbe easily recognizable” and "known to the people 1iving
thereon oF in the neighborhood. stable vegetation growth
is'auen a clearly identifiable marker. Indeed, use of the
Stable vegetation line to locate the shoreline boundary is
Supported by the following statenent mage by the Naval {')i
{Sluprene (Clourt in the Sctomura case.

 

 

  

       

 

Thus while the debris line may change from day to day
or from season to season, the vegetation Line is a
more permanent monument, its growth limited by the ,
year's highest wash of the wares.

Sotomura, 55 Haw. at 182, 517 P.2d at 62 (footnote omitted).

In this case, the proposed certified shoreline is

 

properly located at the stable vegetation Line.
(Footnote omitted.) (First emphasis added and second in
original.) (Sone brackets added and some in original.)

On April 5, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their “Notice of
Appeal” and “Statemént of the Case” in the circuit court.
Stephens filed his "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or for
Summary Judgment” on May 18, 2004, arguing, inter alia, that
there is no conflict between the HAR and the HRS definitions of
“shoreline.” On July 23, 2004, the court filed its “order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Appellee Carl Stephens’
Notion for Partial Sunmary Judgment.” In relevant part, the

court “affirmed that portion of the (BLNR’s] decision” in which

13
 

1+ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWA' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

the “[BLNR] found that there is no conflict between the
definition of ‘shoreline’ contained in (HAR § 13-222-2 and HRS §
205A-1].” Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider on August 16,
2004, which the court denied on Novenber 10, 2004.

on Novenber 10, 2004, the circuit court filed its

“Decision and Order Affirming Appeal,” which stated, in relevant

 

part

2. The Court finds that the SLNR's findings contained
in the Order Denying Appeal made after reviewing the history
of this shoreline, inciuding the prior decision in OLNR File
No. KA+O3-01, which was appealed fo this Court in Civil Ko.
0371-0122, were not clearly erroneous in view of ‘the
reliable, ‘probative, and substantial evidence on the whole
Fecord, ana therefore the Court incorporates by reference
the findings of DLR contained and referenced therein,

2. "the Court concludes that BLN’ s decision was not
in violation of any stetutory provisions contained in HRS §
208A-1 gt seae; was not made upon roles and regulations in
excess Of ite authority; was not affected by any other
errors of law; was not clearly erroneous in view of the
Eeliable, protative, and substantive evidence on the wnole
Fecord; was not arbitrary or capricious or characterized by
am abuse of discretion of clearly unwarranted exercise of

 

 

   

Plaintiffs filed their “Notice of Appeal” on
December 9, 2004, The circuit court’s “Judgment on Appeal” was
filed on January 11, 2005.¢
Ti, STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Mootness
‘The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) provided a

thorough restatement of our views on the mootness doctrine in

 

* Although premature, Plaintiffs’ notice is considered as filed
Anmediately after the time the judgment becomes final for the purpose of
appeal. Havails Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(a)(2)

 

14
+++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

McCabe Hamilton § Renny Co., Ltd. v. Chung, 98 Hawai'i 107, 43
P.3d 244 (App. 2002). There, the ICA noted:

“this court may not decide moot questions or abstract
propositions of law.” “Life of the land v, Burns, 59 Ha

Bhar 250, 580 £.24 405, 409 [1978] (citation, internal

‘tion marks and brackets omitted) «

of sea, 62 Ha
24201, 204 (1980) ("Courts will not consume’ tine
abstract propositions of law or moct cases, and ha
Sarisdiction to do so.” (Citation cmitted.)). The
Application of the sootness doctrine is weil

 

     

 

 

 

Tt is well-settled that the mootness’ doctrine
encompasses the circumstances that destroy the
Sustsciability of a cose previously suitable for
Geternination: A case 1s moot where the question to
be determines is abstract and does not rest on
existing facts or Fights, Thus, the mootness doctrine
ibiproperly invoked wnere “events... have so
affected the reletions between the parties that the
tho conditions for Justiclabiiity relevant on appeal
SM yoveree interest and effective renedy -- have been
compromised.”

 

Ince Thomas, 73 How. 223, 225-26, 632 F.2d 253, 254 (1992)
Tellipers in the original) (citing Mong, 62 Haw. at 394, 616
Pr2d st 203-4). The policy underlying the mootness doctrine
fb else well recognizes:

 

‘mis court will not proceed to a determination when
Ets judgment wouls be wholly ineffectual for want of &
subject matter on which it could operate. An
Riflimance woold ostensibly require senething to be
Gone which had already taken place. A reversal would
Getensibly avoid an event whieh had already passed
beyond recall. One would be as vain as the other. To
Sajudicate a cause which no longer exists is 0
Proceeding which this court uniformly nas declined to
Gntereain:

Aromplow vs Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 217-18 (1923) (citations
Snitted!; ee aise fons, 62 liaw. ac 394-95, 616 P.2d at 204
("ihe duty of this court, as of every other judicial
tribunal, 12 to decide actual controversies by a judgment
Which can be carries inte effect, ana not to give opinions
Spon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles ‘or roles of law which cannot affect the matter in
Gseue in the case before it.” (Citations omitted.)).

McCabe, 98 Hawai'i at 116-17, 43 P.3d at 253-54. See also Inze
Doe Children, 105 Hawai"i 38, 56, 93 P.3d 1145, 1163 (2004)

 

 

 

as
  

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

 

(reaffirming that the two conditions for justiciability on appeal
are adverse interest and effective remedy).

Nevertheless, we have “repeatedly recognized an
exception to the mootness doctrine in cases involving questions
that affect the public interest and are ‘capable of repetition

yet evading review.’ Qkada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water
Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 196, 53 P.34 799, 804 (2002) (citations
omitted). In Okada, we stated:

Among the criteria considered in determining the existence
Of the requisite degree of public interest sre the public OF
private nature of the question presentes, the desirability,
‘Of an authoritative determination for tne future guidance of
public officers, and the 1ikelinood of future rectrrence of
the question. the phrase, “cepable of repetition, yet *
evading reviow,” means thst a court will not dismiss a case
fon the grounds of moctness where a challenged governmental
action would evade full review because the passage of time
Would prevent any single plaintiff fron rensinin:

tthe restriction complained of for the period nect
complete the lawsuit,

 

   

 

 

   

Id. at 196-97, 53 P.3d at 804-05 (citations, quotation signals,
and block quotation format omitted) .

B.

   

condazy apes
3 one in which thts court must
determine wnether the circsst court was Tight or wrong. in
ies ‘decision, epplying the standards set forth in HkS'§ 31-
14g) ((1993)) £0 the agency's decision

Korean Buddhist Dac Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 87
Hawai'i 217, 229, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327 (1998) (alteration in

original) (quoting Bragg v, State Farm Mut, Auto, Ins., 61
Hawai'i 302, 304, 916 P.2d 1203, 1205 (1996)). HRS § 91-14,

 

 

16
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAW,

 

"I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entitled “Judicial review of contested cases,” provides in
relevant part:

{g)__ Upon review of the record the court may affirm
‘the decision of the agency or renand the case with
Instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse of
ocify the decision and order if the substantial rights of
the petitioners may have been prejudices the

   

 

 

 

 

 

Soninistrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders

(2) In violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; oF

(2) Tnvexcess of the statutory authority or
jassediction of the agency; oF

(3) lade open unlaweal procedures or

(i) Afgectes by other error of law; or

(5) Clearly erfoneoss in view of the reliable,
probative, snd substantial evidence on the whole
Eecord; of

(6) Arbitrary, of capricious, or characterized by

 

Qbuse of discretion of clearly snwarranted
Ghereise of discretion.

“[U]nder HRS § 91-14(g), conclusions of law are reviewable’ under
subsections (1), (2), and (4): questions regarding procedural
defects under subsection (3); findings of fact under subsection
(5) and an agency's exercise of discretion under subsection
(6)." Inne Hawaiian Elec, Co, inc., 61 Hawai'i 459, 465, 918
P.2d 561, 567 (1996) (citing Outdoor Circle v. Harold KL, Castle
Trust Estate, 4 Haw. App. 633, 638, 675 P.2d 784, 789 (1983)).
Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewable de novo.
State v, Levi, 102 Hawai'i 282, 285, 75 P.3d 1173, 1176 (2003)
(quoting State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10, 928 P.2d 843, 652
(1996).

vv
 

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

TIT. — piscussron

A 2 a IAR § 13-222-2 Contra

HRS § 205A-1 defines “shoreline” as:

[The upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than
storm and seismic vaves, at high tide during the season of
the year in waich the highest wash of the waves oocursy
Usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, oF the
Upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves.

 

‘The old HAR § 13-222-2 (1988) defined “shoreline” as:

[t)he upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than
storm of tidal waves, at high tide during the season of the
year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs, usually
Seidenced by the eage of vegetation growh, of where there

nin Susiniey, the upper timtt
Of debris left by the wash of the waves

 

(Emphasis added.) On May 12, 2006, HAR § 13-222-2 was amended,
effective June 3, 2006, and now defines “shoreline” as:

[t]he upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other then
storm of seismic waves, at high tide during the season of
the year in which the highest wash of the waves occurs,
usually evidenced by the eoge of vegetation growh, oF the
upper Linit of debris left by the wash of the waves

 

The language of HAR § 13-222-2 1s now virtually identical to HRS
§ 205A-1 and no longer states a preference for the vegetation
ine.’ thus, there is no longer a justiciable controversy with
respect to Plaintiffs’ assertion that the HAR and HRS conflict.
As set forth above, this court will not hear an appeal absent (1)
adverse interests, and (2) the availability of an effective

remedy. Here, the second element is lacking because even

 

Although the BLNR claims that the deleted language never asserted a
preference for the vegetation line, Hashimoto testified thet, based on this
language, “[t}he vegetation line would have precedence over the debris line,”
land he considered the debris line eniy if there was no vegetation Line.

 

ae
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

assuming this court were to agree with Plaintiffs that HRS §
205A-1 and HAR § 13-222-2 were in conflict, there is no effective
remedy available because this court will not declare an
administrative rule invalid for being in conflict with a statute
when that rule has:already been amended so that the conflict no
longer exists. Accordingly, this point of error is moot
B Certifics
‘the Interpretation of HRS € 205A-] Involves Questions That
Affect the Public Interest and Are Capable of Repetition Yet
Evading Review.

Inasmuch as the shoreline certification at issue, which
is valid only for one year pursuant to HRS § 205A~42, has
expired, there is also no effective remedy with respect to
Plaintiffs’ assertion that the BLNR incorrectly certified the
shoreline of Lot 2. We cannot vacate a shoreline certification
that has already expired. As such, this issue would appear to be
moot. However, as set forth above, we have recognized an
exception to the moctness doctrine in cases involving questions

that affect the public interest and are “capable of repetition

 

yet evading review.” This is such a case because: (1) the
definition of “shoreline” is certainly a matter of vast public
importance; and (2) it is virtually certain that, given that the
appeals process generally takes more than one year, any future
shoreline certification of this or any other property will expire
before the appellate process is complete, effectively frustrating

appellate review. As such, both prongs of Okada are satisfied.

1s
 

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

99 Hawai'i at 196-97, 59 P.3d at 604-05. Therefore, we addrens
Plaintiffs’ point of error asserting that the Order Denying
Appeal reflects a misinterpretation of HRS § 205A-1 and Hawai‘i
case law.
€. Defining “shoreline”
Plaintiffs assert that HRS § 205K-1 and Hewai"i case
law provide that “felvidence of the ‘upper reaches of the wash of
the waves’ is gither the debris Line or the vegetation line,
whichever is further mauka.” (Exphases in original.) The BLNR
counters that “[t]here is no stated requirenent, either in the
statute or the rules, that both lines must be considered in
locating the shoreline. It is within the discretion and
expertise of the DINR to decide what is the best evidence
available that accurately reflects the location of the
shoreline.” Both the BLNR’s and Plaintiffs’ contentions have
nerit.

“upper Reaches of the Wash of the Waves”

 

Statutory interpretation is “a question of law

reviewable de nove.” State v. Levi, 102 Hawai'i 262, 285, 75

P.3d 1173, 1176 (2003) (quoting State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai'i 1, 10,
928 P.2d 843, €52 (1996)). ‘This court’s statutory construction

is guided by established rules

 

First, the fundamental starting point for statutory
interpretation is the language of the statute itself.
Second, where the statutory language ss plain and
unambiguous, our sole duty is te give effect te its plain
fand obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of

      

 

20
 

++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

statutory construction {8 our foremost ebligstion to
ascertain and aive effect to the intention of the

Fourth, wo
There is doubt, doublenesd of weaning, or indistince:veneas
or uncertainty’ of an expression used in a statute, an
anbiguity exists. “And fifth, in construing an anbiguous
Statute, the meaning of the ambiguous words aay be sought by
exsnining the context, with which the ambiguous words,

phrases, and sentences say be compared, in order to
Sscertain their true meaning. Moreover, the courts aay
Fesort to extrinsic aide in determining the legislative
intent. One avenue is the use of legislative nistory as an
interpretive tool.

Peterson v, Hawaii Elec, Light Cow, inc, 85 Hawai'i 322, 327-28,
944 P.2d 1265, 1270-71 (1997) (block quotation format, brackets,

 

 

 

citations, and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added),

superseded on other arounds by HRS § 269-15.5 (Supp. 1999).
Plaintiffs’ interpretation of HRS § 205A-1 is correct

insofar as the plain and obvious meaning of the statute is that

the shoreline is determined by the highest

 

duos, the furthest

mauka -- reach of the waves, As the BLNR admits in its answering

 

brief, “(t]he main thrust of this definition is that the
shoreline is the highest point to which the waves reach on
shore.” (Emphasis added.) Indeed, the statute utilizes such
Language as “the upper reaches of the wash of the waves” and “at
high tide during the season of the year in which the highest wash
of the waves occurs.” Despite this statutory mandate, however,
the state surveyor, Hashimoto, testified that he uses the
vegetation line to determine the shoreline even if the debris
Line representing the upper wash of the waves occurs mauka of the

vegetation line. See supra Section I.B. The Order Denying

a
 

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

Appeal also disregarded the plain language of HRS § 205A-1, and
rejected the contention that the shoreline must be located at the

“highest reach of the highest wash of waves":

In this case there is evidence thet waves sonetines,,

y Rppeliants srgue that such
Evidence t= conclusive in showing that the proposes
Certified shoreline is erroneous, “In essence,

‘Aopelianta
Sontend that the certisies shoreline must be iocsred at the

PIERRE esis of th east

 

 

(Emphases added.) Both this paragraph and Hashimoto's testimony
are troubling insofar as they assert that the certified shoreline
could be located further makai than the actual upper reaches of
the wash of the waves. ‘This clearly is contrary to the
definition of “shoreline.” Of course, it is possible for the
certitied shoreline to be further makai than the upper reaches of
the wash of the waves if such waves were the result of storm or
tidal waves. However, to the extent that the Order Denying
Appeal suggests that, as a matter of law, the shoreline is not
demarcated by the highest point that the waves reach on shore in
non-storn or tidal conditions, the Order is erroneous.

Our decision in County of Hawaii v, Sotomura, $5 Haw.
176, 517 P.2d 57 (1973), supports the interpretation that the
shoreline should be certified at the highest reach of the highest
wash of the waves. In Sotomura, we stated’ that “[plublic policy,

as interpreted by this court, favors extending to public use and

2
‘++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

ownership as much of Hawaii's shoreline as is reasonably
possible.” 55 Haw. at 182, 517 P.2d at 61-62. We held that

‘where the wash of the waves is marked by both a debris line and
a vegetation line lying further naukal,) the presumption is that

the upper reaches of the wash of the waves over the course of a

 

year lies along the line marking the edge of vegetation growth,
Id, at 182, 517 P.2d at 62.

The legislative history of HRS § 205A-1 also supports
the interpretation that the shoreline should be certified at the
highest reach of the highest wash of the waves. In 1986, the
legislature amended the definition of shoreline," adding the
following emphasized language that is currently in the statute:
“the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than storm or
tidal waves, at high tide during the season of the vear in which
the highest wash of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the
edge of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by
the wash of the waves.” 1986 Haw. Sess. L. Act 258, § 2 at 469
(added language emphasized). Regarding this added language,
House Standing Committee Report No. 550-86 states:

(Your Committe
fo this Bill by

have incorporated the suggested anendnents

 

" i2} amending the definition of shoreline, to further
slasify the moner in which she shoreline is determined to

retest = aly
+ shoreline” was originelly defined as “the upper reaches of the wash
of the waves, ether than storm and tidal waves, Usually evicenced by the edge

Of vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the
Wevess" 1999 Haw, Sees. L. Act 200, § 1 at 416,

23
'** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

1986 Hse. Stand. Com. Rep. No. $$0-86, in House Journal, at 1244
(emphasis added). This clarification, which requires the
shoreline to be determined at the time when the upper reaches of
the wash of the waves would be at their highest, evinces the
legislature's intent to reserve as much of the shore as possible
to the public. Accordingly, the “upper reaches of the wash of
the waves” is the highest reach of the highest wash of the waves
in non-storm or tidal conditions. Insofar as the Order Denying
Appeal states otherwise, the circuit court erred as a matter of
law in affirming it.

‘The Vegetation Line Versus the Debris Line

 

The next question, then, is how to determine the upper
reaches of the wash of the waves. HRS § 205A-1 provides that the
upper wash of the waves is “usually evidenced by the edge of
vegetation growth, or the upper limit of debris left by the wash
of the waves.” Defendants defend the certified shoreline
location in the instant case by asserting that the stable
vegetation line should control because it is more permanent and
easily recognizable, stating that “reason dictates that the
boundaries could not be so evanescent as to be merely a point
where someone happens to observe the run up of a wave.” To the
extent that Defendants are contending that the vegetation line

should always be preferred over the debris line, we disagree.

24
   

‘OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

First, the plain language of the statute does not
indicate a preference for the vegetation line or the debris line.
Rather, the statute merely states that both lines are usually
evidence of the shoreline. Thus, it is not within the province
of this court to hold that the vegetation line should trump the
debris line as a matter of law. State v. Mever, 61 Haw. 74, 77,
595 P.2d 288, 291 (1979) (noting that “{e]ven where the Court is
convinced in its own mind that the Legislature really meant and
intended something not expressed by the phraseology of the Act,
it has no authority to depart fron the plain meaning of the
language used”) (quoting Queen v, Sen Tana, 9 Haw. 106, 108
(1893)).

Second, the legislative history of HRS § 205-1
supports the contention that there should not be 2 preference for
the vegetation line. The initial statutory definition of
“shoreline,” as enacted in 1975, read as follows:

“shoreline” means the Line at the seashore along the upper
Teaches of the wash of the waves, Usually evidenced by the
Yepetation line ot, $f there iz no vegetation line, then by

Gebris left by the wash Of the waves.

 

1975 Haw. Sess. L. Act 176, § 1 at 386 (emphasis added). The
plain meaning of the statute, as it then read, was that if there
was evidence of both 2 vegetation line and a debris line, the

vegetation line controlled, and the debris line needed to be

25
     

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

considered only if there was no vegetation line.’ This

 

preferential language, however, was deleted in 1979. 1979 Haw.

 

Sess. L. Act 200, $1 at 416. Had the legislature intended the
vegetation growth to prevail over other evidence of the highest
wash of the waves, it could have kept the language expressing
Preference for the vegetation. It did not, however, and we
decline Defendants’ invitation to so interpret the current
statute.

Third, contrary to Defendants’ assertions, Sotomura
does not stand for the proposition that the shoreline should be
certified along the stable vegetation line in all cases. Ia

Sotomura, we stated:

The Ashford decision was 2 judicial recognition of
long-standing public use of Hawaii's beaches te an easily
recognizable beundary that hae ripened inte a custceary
Hight. chy 254 OF. 564, 462
P.dd én." (ises). public policy, aa interpreted ey emis
court, favors extending to public se and ownership #3
much Of Nawaii's shoreline as ie reasonably possible

 

The trial court correctly determined that the seaward
boundary lies along "the Upper reaches of the mash of
waves.” liowever the court erred in locating the boundary
long the debris line, rather than along the vesetstion
Line:

Ye hold as @ matter of law that where the wash of the
waves 1s marked by both a debris line and a vegetation Line
Lving further naukal,| ‘the presumption ie that the upper
Teaches of the wash Of the waves over the course of «year
ies olong the Line marking the edge of vegetation growth
The upper reaches of the wash of the waves st high fide
during one season of the Year may be further mauve than the
upper reaches of the wash of the waves at high tide during
the other seasons. Thus while the debris line may change

 

+ Indeed, this is the preferential language that was used in the old
WAR § 13-222-2, which Hashimoto testified he interpreted as neaning that
Twhere there is a sandy beach the edge of vegetation growth is the preferred
means for determining the location of the shoreline.”

 

26
 

+#** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

from day to day of from season to season, the vegetation
Line ie a nore permanent monument, its growth limites by the
year's highest wash of the waves.

 

55 Haw. at 181-82, $17 P.2d at 61-62 (footnote omitted) (emphasis
added). The language of Sotomura would, at first glance, appear
problematic inasmuch as it supports both Plaintiffs’ and
Defendants’ positions. Indeed, the Sotomura decision located the
shoreline along the vegetation line because it was more mauka and
more stable. However, a careful reading of Sotomura makes clear
that the vegetation line was not intended always to trump the
debris line. The Sotomura decision clearly favored the public
policy of extending “as much of Hawaii's shoreline as is
reasonably possible” to public ownership and use. Although the
decision acknowledged that the vegetation line is 2 “more
permanent monument,” based on the legislative intent and public
policy favoring shoreline access, that statement is best read as
merely supporting the court’s decision to use the most mauka
line. Indeed, as evidenced by the facts of the present case,
vegetation is not always permanent, and there is no indication
that the decision in Sotomura contemplated owners planting and
promoting salt-tolerant vegetation. See infra Section T11.c.3.
‘Thus, to the extent that Defendants rely on Sotomura as setting
forth a per ge rule establishing the primacy of the vegetation
line, such reliance is misplaced. Accordingly, insofar as the
BLNR’s Order and Order Denying Appeal condone such a per se rule,
they are erroneous.

2
 

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

3. "Vegetation Growth”
The final issue raised by Plaintiffs is the definition
of the “vegetation growth” that can be evidence of the shoreline.
Although HRS chapter 205A does not define “vegetation growth,”
HAR § 13-222-2 defines it as “any plant, tree, shrub, grass or
groups, clusters, or patches of the same, naturally rooted and
arowing.” (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs argue that the planting
and irrigation of salt-tolerant plants by Stephens in July or
August 2000 was an “attempt to establish a false vegetation
line.” As such, Plaintiffs contend, “the artificial vegetation
Line relied upon by the Esaki survey and certified by the state
can not [sic] and does not represent the highest wash of the
waves, and therefore does not represent the correct shoreline
pursuant to HRS [§) 205A-1, gt, seq.” (Emphases in original.)
In reply, Defendants assert that, notwithstanding the fact that
the vegetation was originally planted and irrigated by human
activity, such vegetation was “naturally rooted and growing”
because it had survived more than one year without human
intervention, and it could therefore be utilized in determining
the location of the shoreline. We agree with Plaintiffs.
Generally, an administrative agency's interpretation of
@ rule that it is responsible for implenenting is accorded great

weight. Camara v, Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 216, 685 P.2d 794, 797

(1964). However, “[t]o be granted deference, . . . the agency's

28
{++ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWATT REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

decision must be consistent with the legislative purpose.” Idi
see also in re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai'i 97, 145,
9 P.3d 409, 457 (2000) ("[W]e have not hesitated to reject an

incorrect or unreasonable statutory construction advanced by the
agency entrusted with the statute's implementation.”). one of

the objectives of HRS chapter 205A is to “[p]rotect beaches for
public use and recreation(,]” HRS § 205A-2(b) (9) (2001), and two

of its policies are to:

(A) tocate new structures inland from the shoreline
minimize inte:

 

beck to conserve open spa

with natural shoreline proce:
Sxprovenents due to erosion:

(s) Prohibit construction of private erosion-protection
Structures seaward of the shoreline, except when they
Fesuit in smproved aesthetic and engineering solutions
ES’erosion at the sites and do not interfere with
existing recreational and vaterline activities(.J

   

 

 

HRS § 205A-2(c) (9) (2001). Additionally, as mentioned above, we
have recognized that “[p]ublic policy . . . favors extending to
public use and ownership as much of Hawaii's shoreline as is

reasonably possibl

 

” Sotomura, 55 Haw. at 182, 517, P.2d at 61-

 

62. The utilization of artificially planted vegetation in
‘determining the certified shoreline encourages private land
owners to plant and promote salt-tolerant vegetation to extend
their land further makai, which is contrary to the objectives and
policies of HRS chapter 205A as well as the public policy we set
forth in Sotomura. Merely because artificially planted
vegetation survives more than one year does not deem it

“naturally rooted and growing” such that it can be utilized to

29
 

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

determine the shoreline. We therefore reconfirm the public
policy set forth in Sotomura and HRS chapter 205A and reject
attempts by landowners to evade this policy by artificial
extensions of the vegetation lines on their properties.
wv. cu:
HRS § 20SA~1 defines “shoreline” as:

(ane upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than
s80Em and seisnic waves, at high tide during the seascr of
the year in which the highest wath of the naves ose”
usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation growth, ce’ the
upper Limit of debris left by the wash of the waves,

 

 

In this ca

 

despite the above statutory mandate for
determining the shoreline, the Order Denying Appeal explicitly
rejected the placement of the shoreline at the highest wash of
the waves during high season. See supra Section i11.C.1.. the
Order Denying Appeal was therefore erroneous as a matter of lav,
and the circuit court erred in affirming it. We therefore

Feverse the circuit court’s January 11, 2005 final judgment.
on the bries:

Harold Bronstein,
for plaintiffs-appellants
Caren Diamond and Harold

Bronstein

 

Sonia Faust and Linds Let.
Chow Copsey netsenees

General, for defencase-appellee Sanat Oraetayor
State of fowal'is Somes

and and Natasa! eemet of

A. Bernard Bays and Michael c.

Carroll (of Bays, Deaver, Lung, Yenc
Rose & Baba) for’ defendant- Rallis th

appellee Carl stephens

30