Opinion ID: 2521501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ICA Remand to Circuit Court

Text: The ICA concluded that the present record was insufficient to support a summary declaratory judgment that condemnation of the [Fee Owners'] leased fee interests in the Property fulfills the public purpose of ROH Chapter 38. Kau I, at , at 498, 92 P.3d at 1008, 2001 WL 1205618. The Fee Owners argue that the ICA gravely erred when it remanded the case to the circuit court for the determination of this issue because whether condemnation of the Fee Owners' interest fulfills the requisite public purpose of ROH chapter 38 is a question of law. We agree with the Fee Owners on this point; this issue presents a question of law. As such, this issue should be decided by this court inasmuch as there are no factual questions. See Gregg Kendall & Associates, Inc. v. Kauhi, 53 Haw. 88, 94, 488 P.2d 136, 141 (1971) (stating that in the furtherance of justice the court should determine issues of law without remand if there are no factual issues that must be resolved). For the reasons discussed in the preceding section, we hold that the public purpose requirement underlying ROH chapter 38 condemnation has been satisfied as a matter of law. We consequently hold that the ICA gravely erred when it found that the record was insufficient to support a summary declaratory judgment that condemnation of the Fee Owners' leased fee interest fulfills the public purpose of ROH chapter 38 and remanded the case to the circuit court for determination of that issue.