Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> appealed to this court in order to recover the damages owed. Had <br /> the County not brought the unsuccessful proceedings in <br /> Condemnation 1, Appellant would never have had cause to move for <br /> fees and to subsequently appeal . Therefore, the "damage" <br /> sustained by Appellant in seeking the fees and costs owed and in <br /> appealing the denial of such fees and costs, was part of the <br /> damage resulting from the County having brought the unsuccessful <br /> proceedings in Condemnation 1 . Consequently, under HRS § 101-27 , <br /> the County should be held liable for "such damage . i' <br /> III . <br /> Having determined that HRS § 101-27 provides a proper <br /> basis for fees and costs incurred on appeal in Condemnation 1, <br /> the next question is whether this court is the appropriate venue <br /> in which to request such damages . As Appellant points out, <br /> although the authority for the damages requested is HRS § 101-27 , <br /> HRAP Rule 39 governs the procedure for requesting fees and costs <br /> in the appellate courts . Because HRAP Rule 39 requires that " [a] <br /> request for fees and costs . . . must be filed with the appellate <br /> clerk, " Appellant appears to be correct that "damages incurred by <br /> [Appellant] on appeal may only be awarded by this [clourt <br /> pursuant to [HRAP Rule] 39 . " (Emphases added. ) <br /> HRS § 101-27 does not specify where a request for <br /> damages under that section should be filed. However, it does <br /> 5 The County has not argued to the contrary, nor is there anything <br /> in the legislative history or case law interpreting HRS § 101-27 to indicate <br /> that fees and costs should not be recovered for this appeal . <br /> 8 <br />