2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

laches defense to Count IV of the Fifth Amended Complaint because it cannot prove that it relied in good faith on its county approvals for various land use permits and subdivisions for Hokuli'a." R at 66: 21413A266. a. Laches Does Not Require"Good Faith Reliance"On County Approvals. The Count IV Order appears to confuse the elements of zoning estoppel or vested rights with laches. Good faith reliance upon governmental approval or assurance is an element of zoning estoppel or vested rights. County of Kauai v. Pacific Standard Life Insurance Company, et.al., 65 Haw. 318, 327-330; 653 P.2d 766 (1982). However reliance on governmental approvals is not an element of laches. As the Circuit Court itself correctly noted, all that is required for laches is: (1) A delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances; and(2) That delay must have resulted in prejudice to defendant. Count IV Order, COL No. 12, citing Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 320; 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982). R at 66:21413A253-254. As stated above, those elements are amply satisfied here. b. The County's Alleged Failure to Enforce HRS Chapter 205 Is Irrelevant to Laches. The Circuit Court's Count IV Order does not clearly articulate any rationale for denying laches except the alleged lack of good faith reliance on County approvals. However, Conclusion of Law No. 25 seems to imply that the Plaintiffs' delay was reasonable because it was"caused by the County of Hawai`i's failure to enforce HRS Chapter 205,which failure this Court concludes is the result of the Development Agreement. Any financial prejudice to Defendant Oceanside was caused by the County of Hawai`i's failure to enforce HRS Chapter 205, and Oceanside continuously and consciously did not comply with the spirit and intent of Chap. 205." R at 66: 21413A256. Such an analysis erroneously focuses on the defendants' allegedly wrong acts or omissions,rather than on the plaintiffs' delay. The question in laches is not whether defendants allegedly committed some wrongful act or omission. Laches is an affirmative defense,which only arises assuming that there is an alleged wrongful act or omission by defendants. Thus, laches can even apply in cases of alleged fraud or breach of trust relationship. See,Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 640 P.2d 294(1982);Brown v. Bishop Trust Company,44 Haw. 385, 355 P.2d 179(1960). If the focus was on whether defendants had"caused" some prejudice to 33