|
Dominic Yagong, Chair
<br />Hawai`i County Council
<br />October 17, 2011
<br />Page 5 of 9
<br />also, State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i 8, 18, 904 P.2d 893, 903 (1995) (adopting the same rule of
<br />statutory interpretation in Hawai`i). Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the
<br />plain and obvious meaning should be given effect. AIG Hawai`i Ins. Co. v. Estate of Caraang,
<br />74 Hawai`i 620, 633, 851 P.2d 321, 328 (1993). Moreover, ordinary meanings should be given
<br />to terms not otherwise statutorily defined. State v. Chen, 77 Hawai`i 329, 337, 884 P.2d 392,
<br />400 (1994). The plain language of HRS § 107 -28 states that, "The governing body of each
<br />county shall amend the state building code as it applies within its respective jurisdiction" and
<br />that, "Each county shall use the model codes and standards listed in section 107 -25, as the
<br />referenced model building codes and standards for its respective county building code
<br />ordinance ". Here, there is no ambiguity that the counties are required by State law to amend the
<br />State Building Code in fashioning their building code ordinances. Additionally, there is no
<br />ambiguity that the counties are required by State law to use the International Building Code
<br />( "IBC ") as part of their building code ordinances, as the IBC is part of the State Building Code.2
<br />If the language of a statute is clear, the courts look no further than that language in
<br />determining the statute's meaning. State v. Kalama, 94 Hawai`i 60, 64, 8 P.3d 1224, 1228
<br />(2000). However, assuming for purposes of a complete analysis, that there is some ambiguity in
<br />the language of HRS § 107 -25, i.e., doubt, doubleness of meaning, indistinctiveness, or
<br />uncertainty of an expression, the Hawai`i Supreme Court has held that in construing an
<br />ambiguous statute, the meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought by "examining the
<br />context, with which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to
<br />ascertain their true meaning." Awakuni v. Awana, 115 Hawai`i 126, 133, 165 P.3d 1027, 1034
<br />(2007).
<br />As a starting point, the argument has been put forward that the State intended the State
<br />Building Code to be merely a guideline for the counties to use, and that the counties are
<br />ultimately free to create and implement their own standards into their respective building code
<br />ordinances. It appears that the first sentence of HRS § 107 -28 is being used to bolster this
<br />argument ( "The governing body of each county shall amend the state building code as it applies
<br />within its respective jurisdiction... "). The Hawai`i Supreme Court has held that laws addressing
<br />2 HRS § 107 -25, which is expressly referenced in HRS § 107 -28, established the State Building Code and reads as
<br />follows:
<br />§107 -25 State building code; requirements. There is established a state
<br />building code applicable to all construction in the State of Hawaii. The state
<br />building code shall include:
<br />(3) The latest edition of the International Building Code, as published by the
<br />International Code Council;
<br />HAW. REV. STAT. § 107 -25 (2007). Thus, the State adopted the IBC as part of the State Building
<br />Code.
<br />
|