2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

regarding the enforcement of Chapter 205,HRS." Count IV Order, COL No, 18,pp. 18-19, R at 66:21413A254-255. The legislature must be assumed to have known that counties would be both parties to Development Agreements under HRS §46-123 and enforcers of HRS Chapter 205 under § 205- 12. The legislature expressly authorized that public benefits"may be negotiated for in return for the vesting of development rights for a specific period." HRS § 46-121. The plain intent of the statute is to ensure development securi ty; developer reliance upon an unchallenged Development Agreement is the epitome of good faith,by statute. Unaccountably,the Circuit Court inferred the opposite, inferring bad faith and invalidating development rights. By express statutory policy, there is no conflict generated by such Development Agreements, and the Circuit Court was in error to so conclude. The Circuit Court abused its equitable discretion and was legally erroneous in denying laches. d. The Circuit Court Erred to the Extent That It Denied Laches Due to Defendant- Appellants' Differences With the Court's Ultimate Chapter 205 Analysis. The Circuit Court may have imputed some unclean hands or bad faith to Defendant- Appellant Oceanside based on its failure to seek Land Use Commission approvals,based upon the Court's faulty conclusions about HRS Chapter 205 requirements. (Argument Section"C') To the extent that the Circuit Court may have done so, it based its laches analysis on legally faulty grounds. Moreover, the Circuit Court should not have focused on the alleged faultiness of the developer's Chapter 205 legal analysis, for this is irrelevant to the equitable laches analysis. And even if developer's legal position on Chapter 205 were somehow relevant to laches, it is clear that this was a matter of first impression. Even Plaintiffs-Appellees PKO, in their request for attorneys fees, stated that there was no precedent for their claims: "The lawyers literally had no precedent upon which to base their claim with only uncertain prospects of succeeding. Id. The work involved in this case was procedurally complex,with novel issues relating to the merits of the case requiring substantial lawyer time and a thorough knowledge of Native Hawaiian legal issues,real property law, legal history,HRS Chapters 6E and 205 and state court proceedings." Memorandum in Support of Protect Keopuka Ohana's Motion for Order Setting Rates and Enhancement for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, filed November 2, 2003, R at 67: 21676(Bold Italics added). The Circuit Court should not have drawn any inferences of bad faith or unclean 35