Opinion ID: 2633294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Analysis of ROH ch. 38

Text: This court has stated that [o]ur statutory construction is guided by established rules: When construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists . . . . Coon, 98 Hawai`i at 245, 47 P.3d at 360. Moreover, legislative enactments are presumptively valid and `should be interpreted [in such a manner as] to give them effect.' Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai`i 46, 55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1202 (1994) (quoting State v. Spencer, 68 Haw. 622, 624, 725 P.2d 799, 800 (1986) (citation omitted)). Three articles in ROH ch. 38 are applicable to the present matter: Article 1, entitled General Provisions; Article 2, entitled Condemnation of Condominium Development Leaseholds; and Article 5, entitled Eminent Domain. Article 1, § 38-1.3 provides that [ROH ch.] 38 applies to all lands[] in the City and County of Honolulu on which are situated [] residential condominium property regime projects created under HRS Chapter 514A. . . . Article 2, § 38-2.1 provides that [condominium property regime] condemnation applies to developments that, at the time of acquisition by the City, are developed into [condominium property regimes] or occupied by residential lessees under leases of condominium conveyance documents executed before the effective date of this chapter. . . . Article 5, § 38-5.1 provides that eminent domain applies to developments which are created by condominium property regimes under HRS Chapter 514A. . . . Kau, 104 Hawai`i at 476, 92 P.3d at 485 (footnotes omitted). The Church attempts to extricate itself from the purview of ROH ch. 38 by insisting that the chapter applies only to purely residential condominium property regimes and that the Admiral Thomas is not such a regime. The Church seemingly argues that because its use of Apartment Q is religious in nature, the Admiral Thomas as a whole is exempt from condemnation. Pursuant to the plain language of ROH ch. 38, the Church is mistaken. The Church's entire argument is based on the assumption that the Admiral Thomas is not residential. In furtherance of its argument, the Church would have this court look exclusively to the language of ROH § 38-1.3, which pertains to residential condominium property regime projects, and ignore the language of ROH § 38-2.1, which applies to developments . . . [d]eveloped into condominium property regimes, including developments occupied by residential lessees under leases executed before the effective date of [ROH ch. 38]. The Church appears to consider the fact that the Admiral Thomas has been deemed a mixed use project as sufficient to establish that it is thereby not residential. Pursuant to the Admiral Thomas's declaration, in 1978, the Lessor and Developer . . . submit[ted] their interests in and to the Land and the Project to a Horizontal Property Regime established by [HRS] Chapter 514A. While Act 180, 1961 Session Laws of Hawai`i (Haw.Sess.L.), as amended, originally referred to condominiums as `horizontal property regimes,' in 1988 the legislature changed the language to `condominium property regimes' (CPR). 1988 Haw. Sess. L. Act 65 § 2. Kau, 104 Hawai`i at 471 n. 3, 92 P.3d at 481 n. 3. Condominium means a residential apartment, together with an appurtenant undivided interest in common elements, located on land subject to a declaration of condominium property regime as defined by HRS Chapter 514A, together with an appurtenant undivided interest in common elements, both used or occupied, or developed, devoted, intended, or permitted to be used or occupied as a principal place of residence for a single family. ROH § 38-1.2 (emphases added). The Admiral Thomas declaration designates a Residential Tower consisting of one hundred forty-eight apartments. ROH § 38-1.2 provides that `[c]ondominium property regime' means a condominium property regime project established under HRS Chapter 514A. ROH § 38-2.2 provides in relevant part that, [s]ubject to subsection (b) of this section, the department may designate all or that portion of a development containing residential condominium land for acquisition, and facilitate the acquisition of the applicable leased fee interests in that land by the city through the exercise of the power of eminent domain or by purchase under the threat of eminent domain. . . . . . . . (b) This land designated and acquired by the city may consist of a portion of or the entirety of the land area submitted to the declaration of condominium property. (Emphases added). ROH § 38-2.2's allowance for the condemnation of that portion of a development containing residential condominium land refutes the Church's argument that a project must be purely residential to be condemned under ROH ch. 38. The applicability of ROH ch. 38 to the Admiral Thomas depends primarily on its qualification as a residential project and on the chapter's express disqualification of certain units from conversion. Based on the foregoing, the Admiral Thomas is properly classified as residential, inasmuch as (1) it was established under HRS Chapter 514A, (2) it is a condominium property regime, and (3) condominiums are residential units. The Church's attempt to argue that the Admiral Thomas is not subject to condemnation because it is designated as a mixed use building in the declaration is disingenuous. Although this court has not yet had occasion specifically to address the condemnation of mixed use buildings, we agree with the lessees and the City that the term mixed use is an adjective that has no legal significance as it pertains to the Admiral Thomas's declaration of horizontal property regime. The term mixed use appears to be nothing more than a descriptor that seeks to define the purpose, or multiple purposes, of certain property. See Alford v. City and County of Honolulu, 109 Hawai`i 14, 122 P.3d 809 (2005) (The Waikiki Shoreline is a fifteen-floor, mixed-use, multi-family dwelling structure located on Waikiki Beach. Presently, the top fourteen floors are residential apartments and the bottom floor is commercial space.); Waters v. Cook, 2005 WL 2864806 (Mass.Land Ct. Nov.2, 2005) (86 Spring Street is a mixed use building, with its ground floor rented by Julio's Café . . . and its second and third floors divided into apartments.); L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. 3434 So. Grand Ave., LLC, 2005 WL 2722888 (Cal.Ct. App. Oct.24, 2005) (South Grand's intended use for the building was a `mixed use,' including retailing, apparel manufacturing, and `some sort of' communications.)