Opinion ID: 2550107
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: exceptions to the owner-occupant requirements

Text: Both ROH § 38-1.2 and DCS Rules § 1-2 define owner-occupant for purposes of qualifying to participate in condemnation proceedings under ROH chapter 38. The definition contained in the administrative rule allows the Department of Housing and Community Development [hereinafter, the department], see ROH § 38-1.2; DCS Rules § 1-2 (2000), to consider exceptions to the occupancy requirements for participation in condemnation proceedings. The Trustees argued that the definition of owner-occupant in DCS Rules § 1-2 conflicted with ROH § 38-1.2. The circuit court orally ruled: Again, the Court is compelled wherever possible to reconcile the rule with the ordinance, and I believe that this part of the rule which deals with exceptions modifies the principal place of residence language of the ordinance. And, as Mr. Smith has argued, I[d]o not believe, for an example, if you're in the hospital, surgery, or in a bad accident, or you're in the hospital and then you're transferred to Rehab Hospital of the Pacific, or something like that, that that would deprive you of claiming that your leasehold condominium is your principal place of residence. Nor do I believe, as Mr. Smith has argued, that if you're assigned to Iraq that that means your principal place of business [sic] is in Iraq, or wherever else the military sends you. .... I do not think that those aforesaid exceptions contained in the rule modify the owner-part of the owner-occupant definition and do not in any way create an exception for or controvert the ordinance which makes it clear that you have to have complete possessory control and that you do not have complete possessory control of the premises if the individual rents, leases, or assigns the premises for any period of time to any other person in whose name legal title is not held. And that is how I reconcile the rule with the statute. Therefore, a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of ad hoc exceptions is denied in part, and to the extent that it was argued that the exceptions could be used to invalidate the ordinance and the rule's own language that you have to have complete possessory control and you do not if you rent, lease, or assign, it is granted. The court's written order was filed on December 5, 2003 and stated in pertinent part: 1. The Department of Community Services may grant exceptions to Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (1990)(ROH) Section 38-1.2's occupancy requirement for serious illness, employment requirements, military obligations, and educational sabbatical, as provided under Rule 1-2 of the Rules for Residential Condominium, Cooperative and Planned Development Leasehold Conversion, as amended (Rules). The definitions of owner-occupant contained in Rule 1-2 and ROH § 38-1.2 can be reconciled. Rule 1-2's exception modifies the principal place of residence language of ROH § 38-1.2. 2. Applicants granted an exception to the occupancy requirement under Rule 1-2 of the Rules must still comply with the other qualification requirements of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu [] § 38-1.2, and may not rent, lease or assign their unit for any period of time to any other person in whose name legal title is not held.