Opinion ID: 870353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Coupe Preserved the Valuation Issue by Challenging the Pretextual Nature of Condemnation 2

Text: Coupe argues that it preserved the valuation issue when it raised the pretext defense in Coupe I. However, a pretext defense is distinct from a just compensation challenge. A challenge to just compensation assumes a valid taking but challenges the valuation amount for the property. [21] On the other hand, the pretext defense asserts that a private person's constitutional right was violated because his or her property was not taken for a public purpose, but as pretext for a primarily private benefit. Coupe I, 119 Hawai'i at 384, 198 P.3d at 647 (recognizing that a [c]ity would no doubt be forbidden... to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit (citing Kelo, 545 U.S. at 477-78, 125 S.Ct. 2655)) (citations omitted). A taking for a private benefit violates the public use requirement under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 20 of the Hawai'i Constitution, irrespective of whether just compensation was paid for the property. See Kelo, 545 U.S. at 477, 125 S.Ct. 2655 ([I]t has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation.). Hence, a determination that an alleged public purpose was a pretext will constitute an unlawful taking, even though the landowner is justly compensated for the property. Inasmuch as the issue of just compensation is not relevant to the determination of a pretext defense, Coupe's pretext defense did not preserve[] Coupe's just compensation challenge of the property in Condemnation 2.