Court Opinion

ID: 9550749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:41:44.086141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:18.450242
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
HAWKINS, CIRCUIT JUDGE
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the action of the trial court in directing a verdict of 186,373.61 for damages to DHS Corporation. This amount was awarded to the lessee for its expenditures that were incurred in developing the property for condominium use.
In 1968 article 1, section 18 of the Hawaii Constitution was amended to add the words “or damaged.” The amended section now reads:
Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.
The Standing Committee in recommending the amendment submitted the following examples:
In a case involving a landlord-tenant situation, there is no compensation to the tenant even in cases where termination of his occupancy will greatly damage his property. When land and buildings are condemned, the owner receives compensation but the tenant is often not compensated even if the tenant will then be deprived of that use and be forced to move at considerable cost. This most often affects small businesses that are forced to move all their equipment.
There is no compensation for plans and drawings that are made for the future use of any property. Architectural designs, drillings, etc. are often made, only to have the owner find that they are worthless after his property has been condemned.
Standing Committee Report No. 55, 1 PROCEEDINGS OF the Constitutional Convention of Hawaii of 1968, at 235 (1973).
The Committee of the Whole in recommending the adoption of the amendment made the following report:
Your Committee’s reference to and consideration of *250the law developed in other jurisdictions was to satisfy your Committee that the phrase “damaged for public use” within the instant context is not so vague and indefinite as to escape practicable applicability. The established body of law will be helpful and will provide guidance to our courts; however, it is not your Committee’s intent that our courts be bound by each precedent in every case. It should also be noted that it is not the intent of your Committee that our courts be guided or controlled in any way by the several specific examples mentioned on page 8 of Standing Committee Report No. 55 and in the debates of your Committee of the Whole.
Committee of the Whole Report No. 15, id. at 357.
It seems clear from the above that the delegates in adopting the amendment to article 1, section 18 of the State Constitution intended that the citizens of Hawaii who suffer losses which are caused by eminent domain should be compensated.
I would affirm the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of DHS Corporation.