Opinion ID: 870353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the County has Waived its Objections to Coupe's Request for Prejudgment Interest

Text: Coupe first argues that the denial of prejudgment interest damages cannot be reconciled with FOF 37 [29] and 38 [30] and COL 7 [31] in the court's Supplemental FOFCOL on Statutory Damages, which, according to Coupe, reveal [that the] County waived [the] objection to Coupe's request for prejudgment interest. Coupe urges this court to conclude that the first sentence in Supplemental FOF 38, which states that the County has [] never argued in this [c]ourt that such interest is not properly awardable as damages under [HRS §] 101-27[,] shows that the County has waived its objection. However, Supplemental FOF 38, when read in its entirety, indicates that while the County did not argue that [prejudgment] interest [was] not properly awardable as damages under [HRS §] 101-27[,] the County did instead argue that ` any award under HRS § 101-27 should be limited to amounts paid for the improper delegation of condemnation power defense in the first case.' (Emphasis added.) (Citation omitted.) Thus, the County challenged Coupe's prejudgment interest claim inasmuch as the prejudgment interest was not an amount[] paid for the improper delegation of condemnation power defense in the first case. Consequently, the County's argument that it did object to Coupe's prejudgment interest claim is correct.