Laserfiche WebLink
Regarding the abatement claims,the trial court concluded: <br /> Abatement <br /> 6. Abatement may be invoked where: (1)the party is the same in a pending <br /> suit, (2)the cause is the same, and(3)the relief is the same. Shelton <br /> Eng'g Contractors v. Hawaii Pac. Indus., 51 Haw. 242,249 (1969). If <br /> abatement is invoked, the second action is generally the one that is <br /> dismissed. Bertelmann v. Lucas, et al., 31 Haw. 71, 72 (Hawai'i Terr. <br /> 1929). <br /> 7. Abatement generally refers to a procedural or jurisdictional issue that can <br /> be cured. Shelton Eng'g Contractors, 51 Haw. at 249. <br /> 8. Abatement may still be raised as grounds for a motion to dismiss. <br /> Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, Inc., 6 Haw. App. 439,445 (1986). <br /> 9. The parties in Civil No. 00-1-181 K and Civil No. 05-1-15K are the same. <br /> 10. Civil No. 00-1-181 K is an eminent domain action based on County <br /> Resolution 266-00. Civil No. 05-1-15K is an eminent domain action based <br /> on County Resolution 31-03. As the basis for these two County <br /> Resolutions are substantially different from each other, and have been <br /> voted on by two "different" County Councils over four years apart,the <br /> Court concludes that Civil No. 00-1-181K and Civil No. 05-1-15K are <br /> separate claims for the purposes of abatement. <br /> 11. Civil No. 00-1-181K prays for the condemnation of 2.90 acres of the <br /> Defendants' land. Civil No. 05-1-15K prays for the condemnation of 3.348 <br /> acres of the Defendants' land. As there is nearly a half acre difference <br /> (0.448 acres)in the prayer for relief in the two eminent domain cases, the <br /> Court concludes that Civil No. 00-1-181K and Civil No. 05-1-15K request <br /> different relief for the purposes of abatement. <br /> The Motion to Dismiss based on abatement made by the Coupe's during trial is <br /> denied. <br /> See 1stAmd.COL 6-11. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K,V.41/00507 and 05-1-15K, V.27/01031.) On <br /> September 27, 2007,the trial court also entered its First Amended Final Judgment("First <br /> from the Development Agreement,the trial court determined there was proper public purpose. (R.O.A.,00-1-181K, <br /> V.41/00507,COL 1193,99, 101, 102,and 05-1-15K,V.27/01031,COL 1193,99, 101, 102.) <br /> 5 <br />