403 P.3d 214
Haw.2017Background
- The Seawall on Oʻahu’s Waikiki Gold Coast was built by private parties ~1930 and for ~65+ years has been used openly by the public as a walkway to access shoreline and ocean.
- The State repeatedly repaired and appropriated funds for the Seawall (notably in 1982, 1984, 1993, and a 2006 legislative appropriation), and state documents and officials described the Seawall as a public right‑of‑way.
- Gold Coast Neighborhood Association sued the State (2007) seeking a declaration that the State must maintain the Seawall; the State later filed its own declaratory action and cases were consolidated.
- Trial court found (1) the State obtained an easement over the Seawall by common‑law implied dedication and (2) the State owned the Seawall and underlying land by statutory surrender (HRS § 264‑1); the court denied attorneys’ fees and costs citing sovereign immunity.
- ICA affirmed both holdings; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirmed implied‑dedication easement, vacated the surrender/ownership ruling (because no preexisting express easement except on one parcel in land court), held sovereign immunity bars attorneys’ fees but waived for costs under HRS § 607‑24, and remanded for assessment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State acquired an easement over the Seawall by common‑law implied dedication | Long, open, non‑exclusive public use plus State repairs/statements show owners offered dedication and State accepted | Statutes (HRS §§ 171‑30, 26‑7, 107‑10, 520‑7) require State formal acceptance; implied dedication cannot transfer property to State | Yes. Court affirmed implied dedication; public use + State statements/maintenance created a rebuttable presumption of dedication and no effective rebuttal was offered |
| Whether the Seawall and underlying land were surrendered to the State under HRS § 264‑1(c)(2) | Seawall built by private parties; owners did not exercise ownership for 5+ years; surrender statute applies | State: surrender requires State’s formal acceptance / preexisting express easement for seawalls | No. Court vacated surrender judgment — under Levy and Banning, surrender under §264‑1(c)(2) requires a preexisting express easement in favor of the State (absent that, fee did not transfer) |
| Whether statutes cited by State abrogate common‑law implied dedication | N/A (Gold Coast relied on common law and facts) | HRS §§ 171‑30, 26‑7, 107‑10, 520‑7 implicitly require formal State acceptance, so common law is displaced | No. Court held statutes do not expressly abrogate common law; abrogation of common law must be express and is disfavored; statutes were read to coexist with implied dedication |
| Entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs against the State | Gold Coast: state’s filing of its own complaint waived sovereign immunity; alternatively private attorney‑general or inherent authority | State: sovereign immunity bars fees; costs only under statute | Fees: denied — sovereign immunity not waived by State filing here. Costs: allowed — HRS § 607‑24 waives immunity for costs when final judgment obtained against the State |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Banning, 73 Haw. 297, 832 P.2d 724 (Haw. 1992) (explains elements and limits of common‑law implied dedication and distinguishes surrender/prescriptive doctrines)
- Levy v. Kimball, 50 Haw. 497, 443 P.2d 142 (Haw. 1968) (seawall used as public thoroughfare can fall within surrender/statutory framework where State held a preexisting express easement)
- Wemple ex rel. Dang v. Dahman, 103 Haw. 385, 83 P.3d 100 (Haw. 2004) (Hawai‘i Supreme Court confirmed implied‑dedication doctrine remains viable and that statutory acceptance requirements affect whether a private road becomes a county highway)
- Ass’n of Apt. Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., [citation="100 Hawai'i 97, 58 P.3d 608"] (Haw. 2002) (addresses allocation of repair/maintenance costs where easement is jointly used)
- State ex rel. Anzai v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, [citation="99 Hawai'i 508, 57 P.3d 433"] (Haw. 2002) (clarifies that the State’s initiation of a suit does not automatically waive sovereign immunity and distinguishes tax‑immunity issues)