2008-06-13_County_of_Hawaii_v._Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_-_Application_for_Transfer_to_the_Supreme_Court

Home

After the Court entered an order on December 11, 2002, in Civil No. 00-1-181K staying the order of possession until final judgment,Exh. D-126. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K, V.5/00079), on January 23, 2003,the County Council adopted Resolution No. 31-03, authorizing the County to initiate a second eminent domain proceeding for condemnation of the Coupes' property for the Bypass. Exh. J-241. Unlike Resolution 266-00,this resolution did not reference the Development Agreement and instead the County Council determined that the Bypass will provide"a regional benefit for the public purpose and use which will benefit the County." Id. Also, the trial court found that by 2003, the"County realized that the Bypass required more land than Civil No. 00-1-181K and County Resolution 266-00 was attempting to condemn." 1stAmd.FOF T86. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K,V.41/00507 and 05-1-15K,V.27/01031.) Therefore, Resolution 31-03 sought a 3.348-acre parcel as compared to the 2.9-acre parcel sought in Resolution 266-00. IV. STATEMENT OF POINT OF ERRORS Coupes have raised the following points of error on appeal: 1. The circuit court's judgment is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2. The circuit court erred when it denied Coupes' motion to dismiss because an eminent domain action is abated and lacks subject matter jurisdiction when the same court is already entertaining an eminent domain case filed by the same plaintiff, against the same defendants,to take the same property for the same purpose; 3. The circuit court erred when it concluded under both federal and state law that the taking of Coupes' property was for public use and was not pretextual; 4. The circuit court erred when it determined that Coupes were precluded from asserting a claim in inverse condemnation under federal and state law; 13