Honolulu Construction & Draying Co. v. State, Department of Land & Natural Resources
310 P.3d 301
Haw.2013Background
- Scenic Hawai #i intervened in a Land Court petition to expunge deed restrictions on Irwin Park; court rejected petition but Scenic Hawai #i sought attorneys’ fees under private attorney general doctrine.
- The deed restricted Irwin Park to be preserved as a public park; Executive Order and later statutes affirm park status and preservation obligations.
- ATDC sought to expunge park restrictions; State, DLNR, and City intervened or opposed, while Scenic Hawai #i pressed preservation aims.
- The trial court awarded Scenic Hawai #i some fees; ICA reversed that award on appeal, vacating the fee award.
- This Court held three-prong private attorney general test was satisfied and reversed ICA, affirming fee award against ATDC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scenic Hawai #i satisfied the three-prong test | Scenic Hawai #i vindicated public policy; sole advocate | ICA found not vindicated and not sole representative | Yes; three prongs satisfied |
| Whether the private attorney general award requires exclusive private enforcement | Scenic Hawai #i alone advanced the public interest | Private enforcement not exclusive; other parties participated | No; cooperation among parties permissible; Scenic Hawai #i can recover |
| Appropriate standard of review for fee award under private attorney general doctrine | De novo review for legal questions, abuse for amount | Abuse of discretion governs fee amounts | Abuse of discretion standard applied to amounts; de novo for the three-prong satisfaction |
| Whether the third prong (number of beneficiaries) was met | People and public interest benefited from preservation and precedent | Benefit limited to park; no broader impact shown | Yes; broad public and precedential benefit established |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Transp. of State of Hawai‘i, 120 Hawai‘i 181, 202 P.3d 1226 (2009), 120 Hawai‘i 181, 202 P.3d 1226 (Haw. 2009) (formulates private attorney general doctrine and three-prong test; abuse of discretion in fees)
- Waiahole II, 96 Hawai‘i 29, 25 P.3d 804 (2001) (Haw. 2001) (defines public-policy vindication and third-prong purpose)
- Maui Tomorrow v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., 110 Hawai‘i 234, 131 P.3d 517 (2006), 110 Hawai‘i 234, 131 P.3d 517 (Haw. 2006) (discusses necessity of private enforcement and magnitude of burden)
- Sierra Club I, 115 Hawai‘i 299, 167 P.3d 292 (2007) (Haw. 2007) (context for third-prong public-benefit analysis)