Opinion ID: 870353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Condemnation 1 and Condemnation 2

Text: While the facts giving rise to Condemnations 1 and 2 are discussed in Coupe I, a recitation of the facts is necessary to an understanding of the instant appeal. [2] Third-Party Defendant-Appellee 1250 Oceanside Partners in Civ. No. 00-1-0181K and Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant-Appellee in Civ. No. 05-1-015K (Oceanside) is the developer of the Hokuli'a subdivision (Hokuli'a) which extends from the ocean almost to the M&amacr;malahoa Highway and crosses the border between North and South Kona. Id. at 357, 198 P.3d at 620. In exchange for a change in zoning for Hokuli'a, Oceanside agreed to construct a bypass highway (Bypass) between Keauhou and Captain Cook to alleviate unacceptable and unsafe traffic conditions. Id. (brackets omitted). A Development Agreement dated April 20, 1998 between the County and Oceanside provided that the County would use its power of eminent domain to acquire any property along the Bypass route that was refused for private sale to Oceanside. Id. at 358, 198 P.3d at 621. In an effort to construct the Bypass, Oceanside purchased all of the private property needed, except for the property owned by Coupe, who refused to sell. Id. at 359, 198 P.3d at 622. As agreed upon in the Development Agreement, the County Council issued Resolution No. 266-00, which authorized the condemnation of Coupe's property and made reference to the Development Agreement. Id. On the basis of Resolution No. 266-00, the County then filed Condemnation 1, Civ. No. 00-1-0181K, in the court against Coupe [3] to condemn 2.9 acres of Coupe's property. The issue of whether Condemnation 1 was for a public use was initially resolved in favor of the County by partial summary judgment on November 27, 2001. Id. However, the court reversed its ruling and set the matter for trial because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the purpose. Id. at 360, 198 P.3d at 623. During the pendency of the Condemnation 1 trial, on February 5, 2003, the County passed Resolution No. 31-03, [4] authorizing the County to initiate a second condemnation of 3.348 acres of Coupe's property for the Bypass. Resolution 31-03 did not reference the Development Agreement and instead stated that the Bypass would provide `a regional benefit for the public purpose and use which will benefit the [County].' Id. On the basis of Resolution No. 31-03, on January 28, 2005, the County filed Condemnation 2, Civ. No. 05-1-015K, in the court against Coupe. [5] Id. In Condemnation 2, Coupe moved to dismiss the condemnation on the ground of abatement, or in the alternative, to consolidate the cases. The court denied the motion to dismiss, but consolidated Condemnation 1 and Condemnation 2 and tried the cases in a non-jury trial. Id. As to Condemnation 1, the court ruled that the condemnation was invalid because the County unlawfully delegated its sovereign power of condemnation to Oceanside through the Development Agreement. Id. As to Condemnation 2, the court held that (1) the case was not abated by Condemnation 1, and (2) Condemnation 2 was supported by a public purpose. Id. at 361, 198 P.3d at 624. The court issued its Findings of Fact (FOF), Conclusions of Law (COL), and Order on September 25, 2007, and issued a First Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (First Amended FOFCOL) on September 27, 2007. The court entered its First Amended Final Judgment against the County with respect to Condemnation 1, in favor of the County with respect to Condemnation 2, and determined just compensation for the condemned property to be $162,204.83. On October 11, 2007, Coupe filed a motion for statutory damages pursuant to HRS § 101-27 (1993) [6] [hereinafter, October 11, 2007 Motion]. In this motion, Coupe requested from the County, attorneys' fees and costs, plus tax and prejudgment interest for the County's failure to take Coupe's property for public use in Condemnation 1. [7] On November 5, 2007, in its Reply Memorandum in Support of its October 11, 2007 Motion, Coupe included an Errata which amended Coupe's damages to $1,535,375.00 in attorneys' fees, $134,940.17 in costs and expenses, $61,612.03 in general excise taxes, and $276,722.41 in prejudgment interest. At the court's request, Coupe filed a supplemental memorandum in support on December 6, 2007, the County and Oceanside filed their supplemental pleadings on December 14, 2007, and Coupe filed its supplemental Reply on December 19, 2007. The court did not rule on or enter any order on Coupe's October 11, 2007 Motion. Thus, on January 15, 2008, the October 11, 2007 Motion was deemed denied by operation of HRAP Rule 4 (2007). [8]