Opinion ID: 2550107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Bird and the Smiths

Text: Both the City and the Applicants contend that the circuit court erred in ruling that applicants Bird and the Smiths could not be counted to satisfy the statutory minimum number of applicants required to initiate a condemnation proceeding. The Applicants argue that the circuit court erred when it interpreted ... [ Takabuki, 82 Hawai`i at 183, 921 P.2d at 103] to require that the statutory minimum number of applicants must come only from the group of lessees originally designated, when it prohibited the counting of those fully qualified applicants added by amendment, and when it thereby dismissed the subject condemnation action when it erroneously determined that the number of originally designated applicants fell below 25. (Capitals in original omitted.) Similarly, the City argues that the circuit court erred because ROH chapter 38 does not require that the statutory minimum number of applicants be maintained only from the [applicants] originally designated. (Capitals in original omitted.) Additionally, both the Applicants and the City argue that the circuit court's amendment of the complaint to include Bird and the Smiths relates back to the date of the original complaint. Contrary to Appellants arguments, the circuit court did not hold that the required minimum number of units must be maintained from the group of applicants originally designated. Rather, the court focused on whether the minimum number of qualified units were designated at the time condemnation proceedings were initiated. During the hearing on the Applicants' motion for reconsideration, the court explained: Well, the point that I think we are, is to determine whether, in fact, [the original designation met the numerosity requirement when first designated]. And what I'm saying is, you make that determination without counting [Bird and Smith], who are later added. So you have to look at the first designation, and whether there were 25. And merely because later somebody is added doesn't mean that you can use those who were added to cure any lack of 25 at the original time of designation. That's what I meant for you to understand, and not that I was saying, because I agree it's an open question, say there were 25 in the beginning, and say thereafter [two lessees] are added, and say thereafter, three more are added, so there are 30. Then after that, some other people drop out or pass away or whatever. If you still have 25, I could imagine that that would not require the end of it, because at all times there were 25. But what I'm saying is, you can't use [Bird and the Smiths] to cure any lack of 25 at the time, and the litigation that's challenging whether those 25 were qualified under the law has to be played out. And if [Bird and the Smiths] weren't in yet and weren't coming in until after the full litigation on the 25, then it would fall below. So to the extent that I didn't explain that as well as I hope I have now, that was my rationale. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the record demonstrates that the circuit court clearly did not rule that the statutory minimum number of applicants must be maintained only from those originally designated. In the instant case, the circuit court initially ruled that 22 applicants, including Brennan, were qualified. The court's unchallenged ruling that Brennan was deemed not to have been qualified from the beginning, and our conclusion that the circuit court erred in ruling that Ault and Dixon were not qualified results in a total of 23 applicants deemed qualified at the time condemnation proceedings were initiated. Taking into consideration the circuit court's ruling that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the Dupire-Nelsons, the City initiated condemnation proceedings based on a designation that included, at most, 24 qualified applicants. This court has ruled that the failure to receive a sufficient number of qualified applications prior to initiating ROH chapter 38 proceedings results in an invalid, void, and unenforceable designation because the department exceeded its authority pursuant to ROH § 38-2.2. See Ing, 100 Hawai`i at 193, 58 P.3d at 1240 (citing Coon, 98 Hawai`i at 251, 47 P.3d at 366). The subsequent amendments could not cure proceedings initiated based on a void and invalid designation. Additionally, we note that Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 15(c) (2000) [5] offers no relief because `the rationale of the relation back rule 15(c) is to ameliorate the effect of the statute of limitations.' Here, there is no limitation of action problem. Thus, Rule 15(c) has no applicability. Hanalei, BRC Inc. v. Porter, 7 Haw. App. 304, 309-10, 760 P.2d 676, 680 (1988) (citation, brackets, and footnote omitted); see also Chin Kee v. Kaeleku Sugar Co., 30 Haw. 17, 22 (1927); Farber v. Wards Co., Inc., 825 F.2d 684, 689 (2d Cir.1987) (Rule 15(c) governs the `relation back' of amended pleadings only for the purpose of the statute of limitations, which is simply not implicated in this case.); Doe v. O'Bannon, 91 F.R.D. 442, 447 (E.D.Pa.1981) (`relation back' only exists for the purpose of ameliorating the effect of statutory bars to relief and not for the purpose of artificially assisting plaintiffs to fulfill constitutional prerequisites, such as standing (citation omitted)).