Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> " [t] he working attorneys roughly apportioned the time between the <br /> two matters and the matters were billed separately. " Hence, on <br /> the face of the Request, Appellant does not petition for any <br /> damages associated with the appeal of Condemnation 2 . 1 This <br /> court, then, must consider whether HRS § 101-27 provides an <br /> appropriate basis for awarding to Appellant fees and costs on <br /> appeal associated with Condemnation 1 . <br /> B. <br /> By its plain language, HRS § 101-27 appears to provide <br /> a sufficient basis for the award of damages in the form of costs <br /> and attorney' s fees sustained as a result of Appellant' s appeal <br /> of the automatic denial of fees in Condemnation I . ' The <br /> statutory language "all such damage . . . sustained . . . by <br /> reason of the bringing of the proceedings [ , ] " on its face would <br /> appear to encompass what Appellant seeks herein. Due to the <br /> court' s failure to timely rule on the issue, Appellant was denied <br /> the HRS § 101-27 reimbursements it was owed by the County by <br /> virtue of Appellant' s success in Condemnation 1, and thereby <br /> 3 Appellant apparently has not requested costs under Hawaii Rules <br /> of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 39 for the appeal of Condemnation 2. As <br /> for attorneys' fees, Appellant has properly recognized that, at least at this <br /> point, there is no basis for recovery of fees in Condemnation 2. HRS § 101-27 <br /> allows recovery only where the land is "not finally taken. " Considering that <br /> Condemnation 2 has been remanded for a determination of whether the land was <br /> condemned pursuant to a proper public purpose, it is yet to be determined <br /> whether the land in that case will be "finally taken. " HRAP Rule 39 only <br /> provides for recovery of costs' on appeal and, therefore, offers no authority <br /> in and of itself for the recovery of attorney' s fees, although it governs the <br /> procedure by which to move for those fees in this court where they can be <br /> claimed on a separate basis. <br /> 4 The damage issue was the only issue on appeal to this court that <br /> was associated with Condemnation 1 . Appellant' s other claims, regarding <br /> abatement and public purpose, were both associated solely with Condemnation 2. <br /> 7 <br />