2008-06-13_County_of_Hawaii_v._Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_-_Application_for_Transfer_to_the_Supreme_Court

Home

On December 12,2007,the Court requested supplemental briefs on when evidence of damages sought under HRS § 101-27 needed to be submitted to the Court. (S.R.O.A., 00-1- 181K,V.43/T0033, and 05-1-15K,V.30/T0033.) On December 14,2007, the County filed its Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Statutory Damages wherein the County argued that the Coupes failed to take steps to have that claim timely tried under HRS § 101-27. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K,V.42/00530, and 05-1-15K,V.29/01051.) On December 19,2007,the Coupes filed their Supplemental Reply Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Statutory Damages wherein they argued that their Motion for Statutory Damages was timely filed because the Coupes' right to damages under HRS § 101-27 did not accrue until 30-days after final judgment where there is no appeal.6 (R.O.A., 00-1-181K, V.42/00531, and 05-1-15K,V.29/01052.) On December 31, 2007,the Coupes filed a Motion to Vacate, or in the Alternative to Stay Order Putting Plaintiffs in Possession("Motion to Vacate Possession Order")wherein they argued that the Possession Order did not conform with HRS § 101-32 because it did not require a deposit for further damages that may be sustained if the property is not finally taken for public use. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K,V.42/00532, and 05-1-15K,V.29/01053.) They also argued that they were entitled to a stay of the Possession Order on the grounds that the appellate courts may find that Civil No. 05-1-15K was abated by Civil No. 00-1-181 K. On January 18, 2008, the County filed its Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Vacate Possession Order where it argued: (1)HRS § 101-32 does not require deposits for further 6 If this argument is correct,the Coupes filed the Motion for Statutory Damages too early— 14 days after the First Amended Final Judgment. 8