In re: The Petition of Association of Unit Owners of 988 Halekauwila for Declaratory Relief and for Hearing

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCOT-XX-XXXXXXX
01-FEB-2022
08:12 AM
Dkt. 66 ODSLJ
SCOT-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE PETITION OF
ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF 988 HALEKAUWILA FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND FOR HEARING
_________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE HAWAI#I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon review of appellant Association of Unit Owners of
988 Halekauwila’s (“AOUO”) appeal from the Hawai‘i Community
Development Authority’s (“HCDA”) July 7, 2021 “Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order Denying Petition for
Declaratory Relief and For Hearing,” and the record, it appears
that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the appeal.
HRS § 206E-5.6 governs appeals of contested cases of
the HCDA regarding the acceptance of a developer’s proposal to
develop lands under the authority’s control. HRS § 206E-5.6(h)
specifically provides for an appeal from a contested case
directly to the supreme court from a HCDA final decision and
order or a preliminary ruling:
Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the
authority regarding the acceptance of a developer’s
proposal to develop lands under the authority’s
control may seek judicial review of the decision
within thirty days. Chapter 91 shall apply to the
judicial review except where chapter 91 conflicts with
this chapter, in which case this chapter shall apply.
Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding,
including chapter 91, any contested case under this
chapter shall be appealed from a final decision and
order or a preliminary ruling that is of the nature
defined by section 91-14(a) upon the record directly
to the supreme court for final decision. Only a
person aggrieved in a contested case proceeding
provided for in this chapter may appeal from the final
decision and order or preliminary ruling. For the
purposes of this section, the term “person aggrieved”
includes an agency that is a party to a contested case
proceeding before that agency or another agency.
(Emphasis added.)
Here, the HCDA’s July 7, 2021 decision and order
denying the AOUO’s petition for declaratory relief was not issued
as a result of a contested case proceeding or in a proceeding in
which a hearing was required. See HRS § 91-1 (a contested case
proceeding is “a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or
privileges of specific parties are required by law to be
determined after an opportunity for agency hearing”); HAR §§ 15-
219-84 and 15-219-85; Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, 76 Hawai#i
128, 134, 870 P.2d 1272, 1278 (1994) (“If the statute or rule
governing the activity in question does not mandate a hearing
prior to the administrative agency’s decision-making, the actions
of the administrative agency are not ‘required by law’ and do not
amount to ‘a final decision or order in a contested case.’”).
Although HRS § 206E-5.6(h) provides authorization for a direct
2
appeal to this court from a final decision and order of a
contested case proceeding or a preliminary ruling that is of the
nature defined by HRS § 91-14(a), neither apply here. Thus, HRS
§ 206E-5.6 does not provide the AOUO with the basis from which to
appeal the HCDA’s July 7, 2021 decision and order directly to
this court. See, e.g., In the Petition of Tawhiri Power LLC, 126
Hawai#i 242, 269 P.3d 777 (App. 2012). This court lacks
appellate jurisdiction over the appeal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellate court case number
SCOT-XX-XXXXXXX is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 1, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
3