Laserfiche WebLink
Burial Decision,p. 28, COL No. 70, R at 52: 16555. The error was brought to the <br /> attention of the Circuit Court via the DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF HAWAII, CHRISTOPHER <br /> YUEN,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE <br /> COUNTY OF HAWAII,DENNIS LEE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF <br /> ENGINEER, COUNTY OF HAWAII'S MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS,FOR NEW <br /> TRIAL, OR FOR RELIEF FROM SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT (TO BE FILED) filed <br /> July 23, 2004 ("County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment"). See, Memorandum in <br /> support of the motion, at p. 17, R at 86:27798, 27821. The foregoing was incorporated by <br /> reference in the DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF HAWAII, CHRISTOPHER YUEN,IN HIS <br /> OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, <br /> DENNIS LEE,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COUNTY OF <br /> HAWAII'S MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS,FOR NEW TRIAL, OR FOR RELIEF FROM <br /> THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT FILED AUGUST 27,2004, filed August 27, 2004 <br /> ("County's Motion to Amend 3rd Amended Judgment"),R at 86:28037 <br /> Point of Error No. 3: The Circuit Court erred in holding that Plaintiff-Appellees/claims <br /> were not barred by applicable legal and equitable limitations,particularly laches: <br /> 25. ...Any delay in bringing Plaintiffs' claims was caused by County of <br /> Hawai`i's failure to enforce HRS Chapter 205,which failure to act this Court <br /> concludes is the result of the Development Agreement.... <br /> 26. ...Oceanside has failed to meet its burden to prove its affirmative <br /> defenses under the doctrine of laches. <br /> ORDER <br /> 2. As a matter of law, Oceanside is barred from asserting an equitable <br /> estoppel or laches defense to Count IV of the Fifth Amended Complaint because <br /> it cannot prove it relied in good faith on its county approvals for various land use <br /> permits and subdivisions for Hokuli'a; . . . <br /> Count IV Order, COL 25—26, Order, R at 66: 21413A256-257, 266. The error was brought to <br /> the attention of the Circuit Court via the County's Motion to Amend 2d Amended Judgment. <br /> The Memorandum in support of the motion, at pp. 17-18, pointed out that the Circuit Court had <br /> erred in various ways leading to its rejection of laches, estoppel and vested rights defenses <br /> (These foundational errors are noted as Points of Error Nos. 4 to 9 below). R at 86:27798, <br /> 27821-822. <br /> 11 <br />