2008-05-16_County_of_Hawaii_Answering_Brief_re_Robert_Nigel_Richards

Home

�., ANN 11 is different because we don't have the resolutions being 12 the same in both cases. (S.R.O.A., 00-1-181K, VANT0032, and 05-1-15K, V.30/T0032.) On August 2, 2007, during the closing argument, counsel for the Coupes again took the position that the 2.9-acre parcel prayed for in Civil No. 00-1-181K is substantially different from 3.348-acre parcel prayed for in Civil No. 05-1-15K: Page 78 7 THE COURT: So, you would agree that 8 although the first complaint only mentioned 2 point 9 something acres and the second mentioned 3 point, that 10 the 2 point-- the three plus acres is covered in the 11 first complaint? 12 MR. KUPCHAK: No,we do not admit that. 13 THE COURT: You don't admit that. 14 MR. KUPCHAK: No. I think--the first 15 complaint has a map and metes and bounds attached to it. 16 And what--the second complaint also has a map of metes 17 -- 18 THE COURT: Yes. 19 MR. KUPCHAK: -- and bounds. It's a 20 different configuration, but when you put the more or 21 less in your deeds, what have you, when you have that 22 situation, they're saying someone goes out and surveys 23 what we're calling for here and it comes out a few feet 24 off,that's it. This is a 20 percent change in the 25 thing that's a different configuration. So they Page 79 1 admitted that they cut back the sides and changed the 2 drainage. It's --to the extent, the half acre 3 difference. 4 THE COURT: So you seem to be arguing that 5 abatement should not lie. 6 MR. KUPCHAK: I'm saying that the County 7 believed it was the same thing. They held off the suit 8 because they thought Kelly would be coming down for two 9 years and they put a cloud over our property. But I'm 10 saying that they're essentially seeking the same remedy 1 l against the same smaller property on it. 12 THE COURT: But different property. 13 MR. KUPCHAK: Um -- 7