ownership patterns of land beneath hawaii's condominiums and ...

OWNERSHIP PATTERNS OF LAND 

BENEATH HAWAII'S CONDOMINIUMS AND 

COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS 

Colleen C. Sakai 

Researcher 

Report No. 6,1987 

Legislative Reference Bureau 

State Capitol 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

FOREWORD 

Both the Senate and House of Representatives of the Thirteenth State 

Legislature respectively adopted resolutions, Senate Resolution No. 25, S. D. 

1, and House Resolution No. 249, H.D. 1, generally directing the Legislative 

Reference Bureau to study and analyze the ownership patterns of lands 

beneath Hawaii's residential condominiums and cooperative housing projects so 

that a determination can be made as to whether an oligopoly of landowners 

exists. 

This report responds to the Legislature's directive. 

The Legislative Reference Bureau thanks the numerous individuals who 

participated in this study. Special rnahalo goes to the various finance 

directors of the counties of the State, Mr. Hiram Kamaka, Mr. Raymond Higa, 

Mr. Red Morris, Mr. Daniel Aono who generated reams of computer print-outs 

for the condominium portion of this report, Mr. Randy Ching who assisted in 

the cooperative housing portion of this report, Ms. Ann Takahashi who helped 

compile data on leasehold condominiums, and Mr. Thomas Sean Brennan who 

compiled and prepared the combined tables and statistics of leasehold and fee 

simple condominiums appearing in chapter 3. Their cooperation was 

invaluable. 

November 1987 

SAMUEL B. K. CHANG 

Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

... 

FOREWORD ......................................................... III 

INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 

THE LAND REFORM ACT .......................................... 3 

OWNERSHIP PATTERNS OF LANDS BENEATH HAWAII'S 

CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS 7 

.......... 

Condominiums ................................................ 7 

City and County of Honolulu .................................. 18 

County of Maui ................................................ . . 

23 

County of Hawall .............................................. 23 

County of Kauai .............................................. 27 

Cooperative Hol~sing Corporations .............................. 27 

City and County of Honolulu .................................. 29 

County of Maui ............................................... 33 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................... 34 

DISCLOSURE ...................................................... 36 

FOOTNOTES ........................................................ 37 

Tables 

Condominium Units ................................................ 8 


Homeowner Exemptions Filed for Leasehold 


Homeowner Exemptions Filed for Fee Simple 


Homeowner Exemptions Filed for Leasehold and 

Fee Simple Condominium Units ...................................... 12 

Condominiums . Holders of Fee Simple Title to 

Lands Under . 5 Per Cent or More of All Leasehold 

Condominium Units in State (By Rank) .......... 

Condominiums . Holders of Fee Simple Title to 

Lands Under . 5 Per Cent or More of All Leasehold 

Condominium Units in State (Alphabetical Order) .................... 15

Condominiums - Holders of Fee Simple Title to 

Lands Under .5 Per Cent or More of All Leasehold 

Condominium Units in State (Project Holdings) ..................... 


Lands Under 0.5 Per Cent or More of All Leasehold 

Condominium Projects in State (By Rank) ......... 

Condominiums - Holders of Fee Simple Title to Lands 

Under .5 Per Cent or More of All Leasehold Condominium 

Units in State - Holdings to Land Under Both Leasehold 

and Fee Simple Condominium Units (By Rank) ........... 

Condominiums - Holders of Fee Simple Title to Lands 

Under 0.5 Per Cent or More of All Leasehold Condominium 

Units in State - Holdings to Land Under Both Leasehold 

and Fee Simple Condominium Units (Alphabetical Order) 

........... 


Lands Under .25 Per Cent or More of All 

Condominium Units, Both Leasehold and Fee Simple, 

in City & County of Honolulu (By Rank) ........................... 


Lands Under 0.25 Per Cent or More of All 


in County of Maui (By Rank) ..................................... 




in County of Hawaii (By Rank) ................................... 

Page 



Condominium Units, Both Leasehold and Fee Sim~le * . 

in County of Kauai (By Rank) ...................................... 28 

Cooperative Housing Corporations, Projects 

and Apartments - City and County of Honolulu .................... 30 


and Apartments - County of Maui .................................. 30 


and Apartments - Statewide ........................................ 31 

Cooperative Housing Apartments, Owner/Occupants - Statewide .... 31 

Cooperative Housing Apartments, Owner/Occupants - 

City and County of Honolulu ...................................... 32

Cooperative Housing Apartments, Owner/Occupants - 

County of Maui ........................................... 

Appendices 

Senate Resolution No. 25, S.D. 1, Senate, Thirteenth 

Legislature, 1986 Regular Session, State of Hawaii .......... 

House Resolution No. 249, H. D. 1, House of Representatives, 

Thirteenth Legislature, 1986 Regular Session, State of Hawaii .... 

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff .............................. 

Page 

Alwhabetical List of Holders of Fee Simwle Title 

to Lands Beneath Leasehold Condominium Units .................... 66 

1984 Co-ops ........................................................ 87 

Correspondence Between the Legislative Reference Bureau 

and the State Ethics Commission.. .................................. 89 

32 

38 

41 

44

Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION 

During the Regular Session of 1986 of the Thirteenth State Legislature, 

the Senate adopted Senate Resolution No. 25, S.D. 1, and the House of 

Representatives adopted House Resolution No. 249, H.D. 1 (see Appendix A). 

Both resolutions are directly connected to the issue of whether the Land 

Reform Act' should be extended to or a new one created for residential 

condominiums and housing cooperatives so that owners of condominium units 

and shareholders of stock in corporations owning housing cooperatives that 

are situated on leasehold land are given an opportunity to obtain or buy the 

fee simple title to such land; and in connection therewith, generally directed 

the Legislative Reference Bureau to study and analyze the ownership patterns 

of lands beneath Hawaii's residential condominiums and cooperative housing 

corporations so that a determination can be made by the Legislature as to 

whether an oligopoly of landowners exists. Both requested that the Bureau 

study not overlap one being conducted by the Hawaii Housing Authority 

(HHA). 

The HHA study, contracted to SMS Research, Inc., consists of a market 

sample survey of the number of owner-occupants and owner-investors of 

condominium units situated on leasehold land who would be qualified for, able 

to, and interested in, buying the fee simple interest in their properties. 

In keeping with the Legislature's directive, this report deals with areas 

other than those covered by the Hawaii Housing Authority and its consultant. 

This study neither draws conclusions nor was the Bureau asked to make 

any policy recommendations. Accordingly, the focus of the study is the data 

about the ownership of land beneath residential condominiums and 

cooperatives: no policy recommendations are made.

CONDOMlNlUMS AND COOPERATIVES 

These data were collected primarily from tax assessment records of the 

various counties of the State, and from various issues of the Hawaii TMK 

Service, Hawaiian Condominium Guide. 

Other topics the study addresses are as follows: whether the Land 

- 

Reform Act can be extended to condominiums and cooperatives under Hawaii 

Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (19&4) and Hawaii Housing 

Authority v. Lyman, 68 Haw. 55 (1985); a profile of condominium owners and 

of shareholders of stock in corporations owning housing cooperatives; and a 

profile of those who own the fee simple title to land beneath condominiums and 

housing cooperatives.

Chapter 2 

THE LAND REFORM ACT 

Senate Resolution No. 25, S.D. 1, and House Resolution No. 249, H.D. 

1, are both directly connected to the issue of whether the Land Reform Act 

should be extended to or a new one created for residential condominiums and 

housing cooperatives so that owners of condominium units and shareholders of 

stock in corporations owning housing cooperative projects that are situated on 

leasehold land are given an opportunity to obtain or buy the fee simple title 

to such land (see Appendix A). 

The Land Reform Act, as amended, is codified as chapter 516 in the 

Hawaii Revised Statutes.' It allows for the transfer of certain single family 

residential lots from landowners to their lessees under certain conditions 

either by way of condemnation or by negotiati~n.~ The Land Reform Act has 

been challenged as unconstitutional but has thus far been upheld by the 

Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of the State of 

Hawaii, at least with respect to the issue of whether such a transfer of 

private land is an unconstitutional taking by government under the 

constitutions of the United States or the State of Hawaii. The United States 

Supreme Court also found that the Act did not violate the Due Process and 

Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution. Both decisions are 

reproduced in Appendix B. Both the United States and the Hawaii 

Constitutions prohibit the state government of Hawaii from taking or 

condemning private property for uses other than public ones.' Similar 

constitutional challenges may be expected of any legislation extending the 

Land Reform Act to or creating a new one for residential condominiums and 

housing cooperatives. Accordingly, a brief discussion of the opinions of the 

Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of the State of 

Hawaii addressing the Land Reform Act follows. 

In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the Supreme Court of the United 

States addressed the question of whether the public use clause of the Fifth

CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVES 

Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the State of Hawaii 

from taking, with just compensation, title in real property from lessors and 

transferring it to lessees under the Land Reform Act in order to reduce the 

concentration of ownership of fee simple in Hawaii.' The United States 

Supreme Court held that such a transfer of ownership did not violate the 

public use clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

The Court essentially found that: 

(1) Where the exercise of eminent domain power is rationally related to 

a conceivable public purpose, a compensated taking is allowed under 

the Public Use Clause of the United States Constitution; 

(2) Regulating oligopoly and the evils associated with it is a classic 

exercise of a state's police powers which, subject to certain 

constitutional limitations, allows to states certain powers to further 

the public interest; 

(3) The public interest is determined by the legislative branch and that 

its determination is "well-nigh conclusive" unless the legislature's 

approach to correcting a land oligopoly problem is irrational; 

(4) Regardless of whether a law is successful or not, the question is 

whether the legislature "rationally could have believed that the 

[law] would promote its objectives"; and 

(5) "[Wlhen the legislature's purpose is legitimate and its means are not 

irrational, [the United States Supreme Court's] cases make clear 

that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings--no less than 

debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic 

legislation--are not to be carried out in the federal courts. 

Redistribution of fee simple to correct deficiencies in the market 

determined by the state legislature to be attributable to land 

oligopoly is a rational exercise of the eminent domain power."

THE LAND REFORM ACT 

The Court could not condemn as irrational the Land Reform Act's 

approach to correcting the land oligopoly problem and accordingly upheld the 

Land Reform Act. 

The Court noted that exercise of the power of eminent domain was 

justified as the unique way titles were held in Hawaii skewed the land market. 

In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Lyman, the Hawaii Supreme Court found 

that the Land Reform Act does not violate the public use clause of the Hawaii 

Constitution. The Court adopted as appropriate for judicial evaluation of the 

Legislature's public use determinations a minimum rationality standard and 

limited its constitutional review of the Land Reform Act to that standard. 

Essentially following the lead of the United States Supreme Court, the 

Hawaii Supreme Court specifically held the following: 

... once the legislature has spoken on the social issue involved, so long 

as the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to the 

objective sought, the legislative public use declaration should be upheld 

unless it is palpably without reasonable foundation. The crucial inquiry 

is whether the legislature might reasonably consider the use public ... and 

whether it rationally could have believed that application of the 

sovereign's condemnation powers would accomplish the public use goal. 

The Hawaii Supreme Court found that employing the State's eminent 

domain authority to redistribute fees simple to correct socioeconomic problems 

attributed to a land oligopoly is a rational means to accomplish these ends. 

Neither court defined "land oligopoly" or questioned the Legislature's 

determination that one existed under the following facts: 

(1) 

The state and federal governments owned almost 4990 of the State's 

lands and another 47% was owned by only 72 private landowners, 18 

of the private landowners owning more than 40% of this land;


(2) On Oahu 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee titles. 

It appears reasonable to assume that if statistics on condominiums and 

cooperatives are identical to or show more concentrated ownership than those 

in Midkiff and Lyman an oligopoly determination is more likely to be upheld in 

court. If statistics show otherwise it is uncertain how they would rule. 

Following their holdings in Midkiff and Lyman, one would expect the courts to 

defer to legislative determination of whether an oligopoly exists unless clearly 

irrational. 

On the other hand, condominiums and cooperatives inherently differ 

greatly from single family residences for purposes of land reform. 

Accordingly, identical or similar statistics are no guarantee that any land 

reform law for condominiums and cooperatives would be upheld by the courts. 

Also, land area for condominiums and cooperatives is likely to be less 

important than for single family residences due simply to their different 

natures. The land under a single family residence could conceivably hold a 

condominium project containing 10, 50, 100, or more units or residences. 

Therefore, statistics for condominiums and cooperatives should be reviewed 

with these factors in mind.

Chapter 3 

OWNERSHIP PATTERNS OF LANDS BENEATH HAWAII'S 

CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS 

Data on ownership patterns of lands beneath Hawaii's condominiums and 

cooperative housing projects were obtained from real property tax assessment 

and other records of the various counties, various editions of Hawaiian 

Condominium Guide published by Hawaii TMK Service, and surveys of 

cooperative housing corporations. It was decided to forego an attempt to 

separate commercial units or apartments and condominium or cooperative 

housing projects, or other non-residential ones, from residential units or 

apartments and projects. This decision was based on the following factors: 

(1) the tax files did not provide a method of eliminating non-residential units 

or apartments and projects; and (2) the existence of mixed use projects and 

units which allowed both residential and commercial uses makes data based on 

a separation within those projects nearly meaningless. 

Condominiums 

There are a total of 98,111 condominium units in the Statez (see Table 

1). Seventy-six per cent, or 74,325 units, are located on Oahu, 14,100 or 14 

per cent in the county of Maui, 6 per cent or 5,629, on the island of Hawaii, 

and 4,057 or 4 per cent, in the county of Kauai (see Tables 1 and 2). 

Of the units entered in the computer records as either leasehold or fee 

~imple,~ 63 per cent are situated on leasehold land and 37 per cent on fee 

simple lands (see Table 1). Eighty-four per cent of all leasehold condominium 

units are located on Oahu, 51 per cent of all units, fee simple, leasehold and 

other, in the State (see Table 2). Sixty-six per cent of all fee simple units 

are located on Oahu, 23 per cent of all units in the State (see Table 21. 

Sixty-eight per cent of all leasehold and fee simple units on Oahu are held in 

leasehold, 32 per cent in fee simple; all other counties have more fee units 

than leasehold (see Table 1). The data show that the great majority of

03 

county 

Table 1 

CONDOMINIUM UNITS 

," . . . ," "*..*. 

Lease hits to un7ts to hits to Units to cnits to Units to 

Lease fee & Fee "Other"* Total Lease and ease and A1 I A1 I All Units All Units 

Units Units Units Units Units Fee Units Fee Units Units Units in County in State 

city & county 

Of Honolulu 49,825 22,988 72,813 1,512 74,325 68 32 67 3 1 2 1.5 

County of Maui 6,120 6,462 12,582 1,518 14,100 49 51 4 3 46 11 1.5 

Cntmty of Hawaii 1,803 3,314 5,117 512 5,629 35 65 32 59 9 .5 

County of Kaual 1,647 2,092 3.739 318 4.057 44 56 4 1 52 8 .3 

Teta I 59,395 34,856 94,251 3,860 98,111 63 37 6 1 36 - 3.9"" 

"Under the method information is categorized and input into the real property tax assessment computer records, "'other' urtits" 

includes fee and leasehold condominium units that have other classifications, i.e. sold en agreement of sale. 

**Due to rounding figures. 

County 

City and County 

of Honetulu 

% of state 

Total Condo 

Units 

County of Maui 14 

County of Hawa i i 6 

Cot~nty of Kaua i 4 

Tota I 100 

% of State 

Total Lease 

Condo Units 

Table 2 

CONDOMINIUM UNITS 

*Should be 100: 101 figure is due to rounding of figures to closest whole number 

Leasehold Units Fee Simple Units 

% of state % of State 

% of State Total Lease % of State % of State Tuta l Lease 

Total and Fee Tota I Fee Tota I and Fee 

Condo Units Condo Units Condo Un i t s Condo Units Condo Units


condominium units are located on Oahu, and that both proportionately and 

numerically the great majority of units on Oahu are leasehold rather than in 

fee simple (see Tables 1 and 2). With respect to the State as a whole, 

condominium units on leasehold land are concentrated on Oahu (see Tables 1 

and 2). 

Homeowner exemptions claimed for real property taxes were reviewed in 

order to determine the number of condominium units which were owner- 

occupied. The filing of a homeowner exemption does not guarantee owner 

occupancy, however, any error in the figures presented is expected to show 

more owner-occupied units than actually exist. Accordingly, the immediately 

following figures, if inaccurate, are probably lower than shown. The data 

showed that homeowner exemptions were filed statewide for both leasehold and 

fee simple condominiums at virtually the same rate: 28.18 per cent for 

leasehold, 27.80 per cent for fee simple (see Tables 3 and 4). Homeowner 

exemptions were filed for 28.03 per cent of both leasehold and fee simple 

units in the State (see Table 5). 

The greatest concentration of homeowner exemptions was filed on Oahu. 

Of the units on Oahu, 32.70 per cent of the leasehold, 38.77 per cent of the 

fee simple, and 34.61 per cent for leasehold and fee simple together had 

homeowner exemptions filed (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). The breakdown for 

other counties was considerably less: County of Maui - 4.54 for leasehold 

and 7.35 for fee simple, 5.98 per cent for leasehold and fee simple together; 

County of Hawaii - 6.54 for leasehold and 7.57 for fee simple, 7.21 per cent 

for leasehold and fee simple together; and County of Kauai - 2.85 for 

leasehold and 2.48 for fee simple, 2.65 per cent for leasehold and fee simple 

together (see Tables 3, 4, and 5). Numerically, only 26,424 homeowner 

exemptions were filed for the 94,251 existing fee and lease units in the State 

(see Table 5). Most of them, 25,203, were filed for units located on Oahu 

(see Table 5). 

The data indicate that the great majority of condominium units 

throughout the State are not owner-occupied, especially those in counties 

other than the City and County of Honolulu. The data further indicate that

0 

# of units 

Filing HOY 

City & County 

of HOnOlulU 16,291 

County of 

Ma 11 i 


Hawa i I 118 


Kaua i 47 

TOTAL 16,734 

""HO" means "homeowner exemption". 

% of Lease 

Units in 

County 

'fable 3 

HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS FILED FOR LEASEHOLD CONDOMINIUM UNITS 


& Fee Units 

in county 

% of A1 l 

Lease & Fee 

Units Filing 

HO in County 

64.64 

36.92 

31.98 

47.47 

-- 

% of Af I 

Lease Units 

Filing HO 

in State 

97.35 

1.66 

.71 

.28 

100.00 

% of All 

Lease & Fee 

Units Filing 

HO in State 

% of At l 

Lease Units 

in State 

% or All 

L.ease & Fee 

Uflits in 

State

# of units 

FII ing HO* 

city & county 

of Honolulu 8,912 

county of 

Ma it i 


Hawa i I 251 

-, county of 

Katla i 52 

TOTAL 9,690 

*"HO" means "homeowner exemption". 

**Due to computer rounding. 

% of Fee 

Units in 

county 

Table 4 

HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS FILE0 FOR FEE SIMPLE CONDOMiNIUM UNITS 


& Fee Units 

in County 

% O f All 

Lease & Fee 

Units Filing 

HO in County 

% of All 

Fee Units 

Filing HO 

in State 

% of A1 i 

Lease & Fee 

Units Filing 

HO in State 

% Of All 

Fee Units 

in State 

% of At l 

Lease & Fee 

Units in 

State

county 

City & County 

of Honoiulu 


Mau i 

county Of 

Hawa i i 


Kaua i 

TOTAL 

Table 5 

HOMEOWNER EXEMPTIONS FILE0 FOR LEASEHOLD AND FEE SiMPLE CONDOMlNiUM UNITS 

*"HOW means "homeowner exemption". 

% of Ail Lease & % of Atl Lease 

Fee Units Filing & Fee Units 

# of Units HO* in State In County 

% of All Lease 

& Fee Units 

in state


in the county where the greatest percentage of units are concentrated, the 

City and County of Honolulu, homeowner exemptions are more likely to be 

filed for fee simple units (38.77 per cent) than for leasehold units (32.70 per 

cent) (see Tables 3 and 4). This holds true for all other counties except for 

the County of Kauai where homeowner exemptions were filed for 2.85 per cent 

of leasehold units and 2.48 per cent of fee simple units (see Tables 3 and 4). 

Eight hundred twenty individuals or entities own the fee simple title to 

the lands under the 59,395 leasehold units in the State (see Tables 1, 8 and 

9, and Appendix C). 

Only thirty-nine own individually the fee title to lands beneath more 

than 0.5 per cent of all leasehold condominium units in the State (see Table 6 

and Appendix C). The remaining 781 individuals or entities collectively own 

the fee title to lands beneath roughly 44 per cent of leasehold condominiums 

(see Tables 6 and 7, and Appendix C). 

Thirty-nine individuals and entities hold the fee simple title to lands 

beneath 55.93064 per cent of all leasehold condominium units in the State (see 

Table 6). Of these only thirteen hold individually the fee title to lands 

under more than one per cent of all leasehold units (see Table 6). The 

largest owner, the Bishop Estate, owns fee title to lands under 10,987 units, 

18.49819 per cent of all leasehold units in the State, far surpassing the 

second largest owner, Magoon Estate, Limited which owns fee title to lands 

under 1,520 or 2.55914 per cent of all leasehold condominium units (see Table 

6). 

These top 39 owners represent 4.7561 per cent of all holders of fee 

simple title to lands beneath leasehold condominiums (see Table 6). It follows 

that 4.7561 per cent of all such holders own the fee simple title to lands 

beneath 55.93064 per cent of all leasehold condominium units (see Table 6). 

There are 1,341 condominium projects (leasehold and fee simple) in the 

State.' Of these 727 are situated at least partly' on leasehold land. Those 39 

individuals and entities each holding fee simple title to lands beneath more

Table 6 

CONDOMINIUMS 

HOLDERS OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO LANDS UNDER 

.5 PER CENT OR MORE OF ALL LEASEHOLD 

CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN STATE (By Rank) 

Rank fiame No. of Units Percentage 

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate 

Magoon Estate, Limited 

Honolulu Limited 

First Hawaiian Bank 

Liliuokalani Trust Estate 

Kawaiahao Church 

Hawaiian Trust Company 

City and County of Honolulu 

James Campbell Estate 

James C. Castle Estate 

3900 Corporation 

Turieb, Limited 

Katherine K. Choy, et al. 

Iolani School 

Roman Catholic Church 

Theodore Smyth, Trustee 

C. Robinson Ltd. Partnership 

Lum Yip Kee, Limited 

Queen Emma Foundation 

Maui Land & Pineapple, Inc. 

Samuel M. Damon Estate 

Hawaii Baptist Convention 

Hawaii Housing Authority 

Stark Development, Limited 

Bishop Trust Co., Ltd. 

300 West 23rd Street Co. 

Shell Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

Hawaiian Resorts, Limited 

Harry Weinberg 

Honolulu Sailors' Home Society 

Bankers Life Insurance Co. 

Tung Te Corp. et al. 

Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc. 

Niu Pia Farms, Inc. 

Axel Ornellas Trust 

American Trust Co. of Hawaii 

Hawaii Conference Foundation 

William Weinberg 

Bali Land Corp. 

Totals 33,220 

Total number of separate owners: 820 

Top 39 owners as a percentage of total owners: 4.7561

Table 7 

CONDOMINIUMS 



CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN STATE (Alphabetical Order) 

Name No. of Units Percentage Rank 

















Hawaiian Trust Co. 



Iolani School 










Roman Catholic Church-Hawaii 




Tung Te Corp., et al. 



W i l l i a m Weinberg 


3900 Corporation 736 1.23916 II 

Totals 33,220 55.93064

Table 8 

CONDOMIN I UMS 



CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN STATE (Project Holdings) 

Rank Name Units Percent Projects* Percent 

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate 10.987 18.49819 130 17.88171 













Iolani School 











Bishop Trust Co. , Ltd. 













- 

William Weinberrr 

39 Bali Land Corp. 297 0.50004 1 0.13755 

Totals 33,220 55.93064 253 34.80055 

Total number of owners: 820 

Top 39 project owners as a percentage of total project owners: 4.75610 

Total number of projects: 727 

*In instances where fee simple title to land under a particular project was 

held by separate entities or individuals the fee simple title to land under a 

particular condominium project was attributed to and counted toward the number 

of holdings where that title was held for land under more than 50 per cent of 

the units in :he project.

Table 9 

CONDOMINIUMS 


0.5 PER CENT OR MORE OF ALL LEASEHOLD 

CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS IN STATE (By Rank) 

Rank Name Units Percent Projects Percent 












Iolani School 




Maui Land h Pineapple, Inc. 

Augustus F. Knudsen et al. 

Trust 

Norman Quigley et al. Trust 

Margaret C. Hind Estate 

Kamehameha Investment Corp. 

Totals 22,680 38.18503 238 32.73728 

Total number of owners: 820 

Top 39 project owners as a percentage of total project owners: 2.43902 

Total number of projects: 727


than 0.5 per cent of all leasehold condominium units own the fee title to lands 

under 253 of the 727 leasehold projects in the State (see Table 8).' The 39 

owners represent 4.7561 per cent of all individuals and entities holding fee 

simple title to lands beneath leasehold condominium projects and hold that title 

to land beneath 34.80055 per cent of all leasehold condominium projects in the 

State (see Table 8). Fourteen of the top 39 unit owners hold fee title to 

lands under only one condominium project (see Table 8). 

There are only twenty entities that hold individually the fee simple title 

to lands under more than .5 per cent of condominium projects (4 or more 

projects) (see Table 9). Fifteen of them also each hold the fee title to more 

than .5 per cent of lands beneath leasehold condominium units (see Tables 7 

and 91. As in the case of fee ownership of land beneath condominium units, 

the holdings of Bishop Estate of fee title to lands under condominium projects 

far surpasses that of any other person or entity (see Table 9). Bishop 

Estate owns the fee title to lands under 130 projects or 17.88171 per cent of 

all leasehold projects (see Table 9). The second largest owner, Queen Emma 

Foundation, holds fee title to the land beneath 13 projects or 1.78817 per cent 

of all leasehold projects (see Table 9). 

Twenty-six thousand one hundred eleven individuals or entities hold fee 

simple interest in the lands beneath all condominiums, leasehold and fee 

simple, in the State6 (see Table 10). The 39 owners listed on Table 6 who 

each hold the fee simple title to lands beneath 0.5 per cent or more of all 

leasehold condominium units represent 0.14936 per cent of the total number of 

those 26,111, and hold fee title to lands under 33,409 condominium units, 

leasehold and fee simple, or 35.44684 per cent of all leasehold and fee simple 

units (see Tables 10 and 11). 


There are a total of 17,882 individuals and entities who hold fee simple 

title to lands beneath ail fee simple and leasehold condominium units in the 

City and County of Honolulu (see Table 12). Sixty or 0.33553 per cent of all 

owners in the City and County each hold fee simple title to land beneath more

Table 10 

CONDOMIN iUMS 



CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN STATE - HOLDINGS TO 

LAND UNDER BOTH LEASEHOLD AND FEE SIMPLE 

CONDOMINIUM UNITS (By Rank) 

Rank Name Units (F + L) Percent (F + L) 

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate 10,993 11.66353 

Magaon Estate, Limited 












Iolani School 






Maui Land h Pineapple, Inc. 















Niu Pia Farms, Inc. , 




. 

39 Bali Land Corp. 298 0.31617 

Totals 33,409 35.44684 

Total number of owners in fee: 25,457 

Total number of owners in lease: 820 

Total number of owners in fee and lease (less 167 owners in both fee 

and lease): 26,111 

Percentage of top 39 owners in lease as a percentage of total number 

of owners in fee and lease: 0.14936

Table 11 

CONDOMINIUMS 


0.5 PER CENT OR MORE OF ALL LEASEHOLD 

CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN STATE - HOLDINGS TO LAND 

UNDER BOTH LEASEHOLD AND FEE SIMPLE 

CONDOMINIUM UNITS (Alphabetical Order) 

Name 





Bishop Trust Co. , Ltd. 















Iolani School 







Axel Omellas Trust 









Units (F + L) 

394 

Percent (F + L) 

0.41803 

Harrv Weinbere - willlam Weinberg 

369 

307 

0.39151 

0.32572 



Totals 

401 

737 

33,409 

0.42545 

0.78195 

35.44664 

Total number of owners in fee: 25,457 

Total number of owners in lease: 820 

Total number of owners in fee and lease (less 167 owners in both 

fee and lease): 26,111 

Percentage of top 39 owners in lease as a percentage of total 

number of owners in fee and lease: 0.14936

Table 12 

CONDOMINIUMS 


.25 PER CENT OR MORE OF ALL CONDOMINIUM UNITS, 

BOTH LEASEHOLD AND FEE SIMPLE, IN CITY & 

COUNTY OF HONOLULU (By Rank) 

Rank Owner Name Units Percent 





Hawaiian Trust Co. , Ltd. 

Kawaiahao Church et al. 



James C. Castle Estate, et al. 



Saje Ventures I1 

Katherine K. Choy Trustees, et al. 

Iolani School 

Honolulu, Limited 

C. Robinson Limited Partnership 

Lum Yip Kee, Ltd. 



Samuel M. Damon Trust Estate 







Theodore H. Smyth, Trustee 




Bankers Life Insurance Co.-Nebraska 

Hawaiian Electric Co., Ltd. 





Agnes S.A.M. Sang 

Anna A. Neiman Trust 

Jack H. Ujimori 

Hanohano Enterprises, et al. 

St. Louis/Chaminade Ed Center 

Clarence 0. Furuya, et al. 

Honolulu Federal Savings & Loan 

Alice H. Castle Trust Estate 

21

Rank &ner Kame Units Percent 

SBS Realty Corp. 

Church of Jesus Christ of LDS 

Floye G. Adams, et al. 

Thrift Guaranty Corp. - Hawaii 

Katherine M. Cooper, Trustee 

300 West 23rd Street Go. 

John H. Magoon, Sr. Trust Estate 

Hawaii National Bank, et al. 

Hirano Enterprises 

Kim Hyang Man/C.S., et al. 

KDI Investments, Inc. 

Indo Pacific Investment, Inc. 

McInerny Foundation, et al. 

Honolulu Myohoji 

Georgia C. Souza Trust Estate 

Yee Akin, Ltd. 

Totals 36,704 50 .LO858 

Total number of owners in lease and fee: 17,882 

Top 60 owners as a percentage of total number of owners in lease 

and fee: 0.33553


than 0.25 per cent of all such units on Oahu (see Table 12). Together they 

hold fee simple title to lands beneath 36,704 condominium units, 50.40858 per 

cent of all condominium units on Oahu fsee Table 12). The entity holding fee 

simple title to lands beneath the most units is Bishop Estate with 10,940 units 

or 15.02478 per cent of all units, both leasehold and fee simple, on Oahu fsee 

Table 12). The next largest owner is the Magoon Estate, Ltd. with 1,520 

units or 2.08753 per cent (see Table 12). All other owners hold the fee title 

to land under less than 2.0 per cent of the units. 

County of Maui 


title to lands beneath all fee simple and leasehold condominium units in the 

County of Maui (see Table 13). Fifty-six or 1.12382 per cent of ail owners in 

Maui County each hold fee simple title to lands beneath more than 0.25 per 

cent of all such units in the County of Maui (see Table 13). Together they 

hold fee simple title to lands beneath 6,174 condominium units, 49.0701 per 

cent of all condominium units in the County of Maui (see Table 13). Persons 

holding fee simple title to lands beneath as few as 32 condominium units are 

among the top 56 owners (see Table 13). 

County of Hawaii 



County of Hawaii (see Table 14). Forty-two or 2.36353 per cent of all owners 

in Hawaii County each hold fee simple title to lands beneath more than 0.25 

per cent of all such units in the County of Hawaii (see Table 14). Together 

they hold fee simple title to lands beneath 3,048 condominium units, 59.56615 

per cent of all condominium units in the County of Hawaii (see Table 14). 

Persons holding fee simple title to lands beneath as few as 13 condominium 

units are among the top 42 owners fsee Table 14).

Table 13 

CONDOMIN I UMS 


0.25 PER CENT OR MORE OF ALL CONDOMINIUM 

UNITS, BOTH LEASEHOLD AND FEE SIMPLE, 

IN COUNTY OF MAUl (By Rank) 

Rank her Name Units Percent 

Honolulu, Limited 

Maui Land & Pineapple 

Kamaole Sands 


Royal Kaanapali Joint Venture 


Theodore H. Smyth, Trustee 

Ralph L. Hoyle, Jr., et al. 

August Reimann, Jr. Trust 

Hyades B. Kiesel, et al. 

Sugar Way, Ltd. et al. 

Kaanapali Properties, et al. 

Alice C. Avery Trust, et al. 

Hill Enterprises, Ltd. 

Fred Y.W. Chang, et al. 

Mike Resnick et al., Inc. 

Kuuleialoha B. Lay 

Walter G. Luckau, et al. 

HRT, Ltd. 

Hogan, Hogan, Hogan/Hogan, Inc. 

Gertrude F. Berger, et al. 

Harvard Properties, Inc. 

David Donald Lonie, Jr. 

Robert P. Bruce 

Hawaii Omori Corporation 

Kaanapali Royal Associates 

Charles Nakoa, et al. 

Norman/Joyce Quigley Trust 

Winnifred K. Sanborn 


Kahana Sunset Land Purchase 

James K. Schuler & Associates, 

William K. Buchanan Estate 

Puuone Development 

Polynesian Shores, Inc. 

Eugenia U. Smith Trust 

Trustees of B.P. Bishop Estate 

Elizabeth C. Robinson, et al. 

Isaac Feig, et al. 

Samuel W. Lee, et al. 


Elizabeth P. Byington Trust 

M.S. Land, Inc. 

681 

444 

354 

307 

263 

257 

199 

196 

192 

188 

187 

184 

181 

122 

116 

105 

101 

89 

85 

84 

83 

78 

7 3 

69 

69 

69 

68 

62 

62 

60 

60 

Inc. 5 8 

5 7 

5 7 

54 

5 3 

5 3 

49 

48 

48 

46 

43 

43

Rank Owner Kame Units Percent 

44 Robert G.B. Bjornson Trust, et al. 42 0.33381 

45 Kazuo R. Kishi Trust 42 0.33381 

46 David P. Ting h Sons, Inc. 40 0.31791 

47 Wilbert Y. K. Yee, et al. 40 0.31791 

48 Molokai Beach, Ltd. 38 0.30201 

49 Kamaole Vacations, Inc. 37 0.29407 

50 Arthur H. Randle, et al. 3 7 0.29407 

51 Louis G. Van der Linden, et al. 35 0.27817 

52 Wendell F./Myrtle L. Crockett 34 0.27022 

53 NM-KL Associates 34 0.27022 

54 Terry L./Doris L. Phillips 34 0.27022 

55 Hawaii Carpenters Pension Trust 32 0.25433 

56 Steven Y.M. Yee, et al. 32 0.25433 

Totals 6,174 49.0701 


Top 56 owners as a percentage of total number of owners in 

lease and fee: 1.12382

Owner Name 

Table 14 

CONDOMINIUMS 




IN COUNTY OF HAWAII (By Rank) 

Kamehameha Investment Gorp. 

City Bank 

Hilo-Pacific Associates 

Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan 

Icthus Land Company 

Joseph Gomes 

John Noyes, et al. 

Margaret C. Hind Trust Estate 

State Savings & Loan Association 

Di Tullio-Hawaiian Venture I 

Alascan Kahala Investments 

Harold C./Lois E. Hill, et al. 

August/Kona, Ltd. 



Coolidge/Mary T. Carter 

Hasegawa Komuten Co., Ltd. 

Kalamakumu, Inc. 


Recreational Time Share-Hawaii 

Ellen Chong Chee, et al. 

Lands of Kukuau 

Kona Properties, Inc. 

Richard Smart Trust 

Oscar L./Ernestine H. Armstrong 

James P. Wohl, Trustee 

Kalikookalani B. Chun 

K. Ebisuzaki, Ltd. 

Shigenobu Kojima 

Avda Inc. , Tex Inc., and Nakamura 


Territorial Savings & Loan Association 


Honolulu Federal Savings and Loan Association 

Raymond M. Kohayashi Jr.1G.R. 

Vacation Internationale, Ltd. 

James K. Schuler & Associates 

Henry De Aguiar 

Hawaii Carpenters Pension Fund 

MRD, Inc. 

Great State Corporation 

Units 

42 Richard W./Patricia Clark 13 0.25405 

Totals 3,048 59.56615 

338 

210 

182 

149 

134 

126 

115 

112 

102 

9 8 

95 

93 

89 

89 

84 

76 

7 6 

66 

65 

64 

62 

62 

61 

57 

45 

3 7 

36 

34 

30 

27 

27 

26 

25 

23 

20 

20 

18 

17 

16 

15 

14 




County of Kauai 




County of Kauai (see Table 15). Twenty-nine or 1.97413 per cent of all 

owners in Kauai County each hold fee simple title to lands beneath more than 

0.25 per cent of all such units in the County of Kauai (see Table 15). 

Together they hold fee simple title to lands beneath 2,046 condominium units, 

54.72051 per cent of all condominium units in the County of Kauai (see Table 

15). An entity holding fee simple title to lands beneath as few as 11 

condominium units is among the top 29 owners (see Table 15). 

Cooperative Housing Corporations 

There are 69' cooperative housing corporations in the State of Hawaii, 67 

on Oahu and 2 in the County of Maui.' All cooperatives appearing in 

Appendix D were included in this count even where records of the State of 

Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs showed them to be 

involuntarily dissolved. Projects in the process of converting to 

condominiums were also included. None exist in the counties of Hawaii and 

Kauai. Both cooperatives in Maui county, the Mauian and Napili Village, are 

run generally as hotels or transient vacation rentals.' 

There are 2,832 cooperative apartments in the State of Hawaii, 2,738 on 

Oahu and 94 in the County of Maui." 

Thirty-five individuals or entities own the fee simple title to lands 

beneath all cooperative housing projects in the State, 34 on Oahu and 1 on 

Maui." Twenty-six of those 35 or 74.29 per cent own the fee simple title to 

lands beneath a single cooperative project; 9 or 25.71 per cent own the fee 

simple title to lands beneath more than one cooperative project." A list 

provided by the City and County of Honolulu of cooperative housing projects 

located on Oahu and the number of apartments each contains is found in 

Appendix D.

Table 15 

CONDOMIN IUMS 




IN COUNTY OF KAUAl (By Rank) 

Rank Owner Name Units Percent 

Niu Pia Farms, Ltd. 

Augustus F. Knudsen Estate 

300 West 23rd Street Corp. 

PT-V Trust, et al. 

G.N. Wilcox Memorial Hospital 

Worldwide Condominium Development, Inc. 

Zalopany Child/Grandchild Trust 

Debra Investment Corp. 

S. Otsuka Estate, Inc. 

Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities, Inc 

Jeanne A./David G. Anderson 

State Savings & Loan Association 

American Savings & Loan Association 

Eric M. Moir, Trustee 

Martha K. Jewett , Trustee 

Princeville Development Corp. 

Leonard H./Alma K. Zalopany 

Hasegawa Komuten Co., Ltd. 

Sailboat Square Investments 

Hong Min Hee Trust, et al. 

Hawaii E & R Co. 

Realty Income Trust 

Graham Beach Partners 

Consolidated Oil & Gas, Inc. 


Poipu Sands Ltd. Partnership 

Security Pacific Mortgage Corp. 

The Housing Group-Hawaii, Inc. 

Cap Development Corp. 

Totals 2,046 





A written survey was conducted of the cooperatives located on Oahu. 

Of the 30 responding to the question, 27 projects were located on leasehold 

land; 3 on fee simple (see Table 16) . I3 A telephone survey was conducted of 

the 2 cooperatives on Maui. Both projects are situated on leasehold land (see 

Table 17). 

The combined results of both surveys showed that 90.6 per cent of all 

responding cooperative projects (29 projects) and 94.69 per cent of all 

cooperative apartments (1,409 apartments) were located on leasehold land; 9.4 

per cent of all responding projects (3) and 5.31 per cent of the apartments 

(79) were situated on fee simple property (see Table 18). Of those 

responding 465 or 31.6 per cent of the apartments were owner-occupied; 

1,007 or 68.4 per cent were not owner-occupied (see Table 19). In the City 

and County of Honolulu, 465 or 33.4 per cent of the apartments were owner- 

occupied and 69.1 per cent were not (see Table 20). In the County of Maui 

all 94 apartments were not owner-occupied (see Table 21). 

The survey results showed a vast difference in the ratio of owner- 

occupants living in fee simple cooperative apartments as opposed to leasehold 

apartments: 74.7 per cent for fee simple apartments; 29.1 per cent for 

leasehold apartments. These figures as with all figures obtained from the 

written survey of cooperatives on Oahu, however, are misleading since they 

represent only 3 cooperative housing projects (79 apartments) situated on fee 

simple land, an insignificant number of projects and apartments. 


Twenty-seven or 90 per cent of the cooperative housing projects 

responding to the question are situated on leasehold property; 3 or 10 per 

cent on fee simple land (see Table 16). one thousand three hundred fifteen 

or 94 per cent of cooperative apartments were situated on leasehold land; 79 

or 6 per cent on fee simple property (see Table 16).

Table 16 

COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS 

PROJECTS AND APARTMENTS 


Number Per cent Number Per cent 

Land Title Projects* Projects Apartments** Apartments 

Lease 27 90 1,315 

Fee Simple 3 10 79 

Lease and 

Fee Simple 30* 

"There were 31 responses to the survey. One respondent did not answer this 

question. Accordingly the total shown on the chart is 30 instead of 31. 

*Includes all 31 respondents. 

Number 

Land Title Projects 

Lease 2 

Fee Simple 0 


Fee Simple 2 

Table 17 




Per cent Number 

Projects Apartments 

Per cent 

Apartments



Statewide 

Number Per cent Number 

Land Title Projects Projects Apartments 

Lease 29 

Fee Simple 3 


Fee Simple 32 

Table 19 

COOPERATIVE HOUSING APARTMENTS 

OWNER/OCCUPANTS 

Statewide 

Number Number Per cent 

Land Title 0/0 Non-0/0 0/0 

Lease 406 

Fee Simple 59 


Fee Simple 465 

Per cent 

Apartments 

Per cent 

Non-0/0

Land Title 

Lease 

Fee Simple 


Fee Simple 

Land Title 

Lease 

Fee Simple 


Fee Simple 

Table 20 




Number Number Per cent Per cent 

O/O Non-O/0 0/0 Non-0/0 

Table 21 




Number Number Per cent Per cent 

0/0 Non-0/0 O/O Non-0/0



Both cooperative housing projects located on Maui, a total of 94 

apartments, are located on leasehold land (see Table 17). Both are run 

generally as transient vacation rentals and neither is occupied by any owners 

(see Table 21).

Chapter 4 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

There are 1,341 condominium projects (727 leasehold) and 69 cooperative 

housing projects in the State of Hawaii consisting of 98,111 condominium units 

and 2,832 cooperative apartments. 59,395 condominium units are situated on 

leasehold land, 34,856 on fee simple property.' The owner-occupancy rate 

for both condominiums and cooperatives is low: a little over 28 per cent for 

condominiums; under 32 per cent for cooperatives. The owner-occupancy rate 

for condominiums and cooperatives situated on leasehold land is just over 28 

per cent for condominiums and just over 29 per cent for cooperatives. The 

data indicate that the great majority of condominium unit owners do not live 

in them. 820 individuals or entities hold the fee simple title to lands beneath 

leasehold condominium projects; 35 individuals or entities hold the fee simple 

title to all lands beneath cooperative housing projects. Only one fee simple 

landholder, the Bishop Estate, held fee title to lands under more than three 

per cent of all leasehold condominium units. The Bishop Estate held fee title 

to lands beneath approximately 18.5 per cent of all leasehold condominium 

units. The next largest fee title holder was Magoon Estate, Limited with 

about 2.5 per cent. With respect to all lands under all condominium units, 

both leasehold and fee simple, the Bishop Estate was once again the largest 

holder of fee simple title with a little over 15 per cent. The next largest 

holder of fee title of land beneath all condominium units was Magoon Estate, 

Limited with a little over 2 per cent. With respect to the holders of fee title 

to lands beneath leasehold condominium projects, Bishop Estate again was the 

largest fee holder holding fee title to lands under almost 18 per cent of all 

leasehold condominium projects. 

Thirty-nine individuals and entities or just under 5 per cent of all 

holders of fee simple title to lands beneath leasehold condominium units and 

projects own that title to lands beneath just over 56 per cent of all 

condominium units in the State. These same individuals and entities own the

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

fee title to lands under 253 or about 35 per cent of the 727 leasehold 

condominium projects in the State. 

26,111 individuals or entities hold the fee simple interest in the lands 

beneath all condominiums, leasehold and fee simple, in the State. The top 39 

holders of fee title to lands under leasehold condominium units represent 

0.14936 per cent of these 26,111, and hold fee title to lands under 33,409 

condominium units, leasehold and fee simple, or about 35 per cent of all 

leasehold and fee simple units in the State. 

A final note of caution follows. The concept of redistribution of land, 

the goal of the Land Reform Act, is not automatically transferable to land 

under condominiums and housing cooperatives. The Land Reform Act applies 

to single-family residential lots which are inherently different from 

condominiums and housing cooperatives. Land area for condominiums and 

cooperatives is likely to be less important than for single-family residences 

due simply to their different natures. The land under a single-family 

residential lot could conceivably hold a condominium or cooperative housing 

project containing 10, 50, 100, or more units or residences. The concern of 

the Land Reform Act was home ownership or ownership of the land upon 

which individuals lived. While land area is easily correlated to single-family 

residential lots, it does not necessarily correlate for condominiums and 

cooperatives. 

The policy issue which the legislature must ultimately address in 

deciding whether to adopt laws allowing conversion of lease to fee title to 

lands under leasehold condominiums and cooperatives is whether and under 

what circumstances should individuals be able to own the fee title to lands 

upon which they live. Regardless of the answer to these questions, the data 

indicate that the great majority of those who live in leasehold condominiums 

and cooperatives do not own them.

DISCLOSURE 

The Legislative Reference Bureau sought and received an advisory 

opinion from the State Ethics Commission as to whether it was permissible for 

the researcher assigned to do this study to work on it. The researcher 

raised a conflict of interest question because the researcher owns a 

condominium unit located on leasehold land, and because her parents, friends, 

and acquaintances hold or she believed it highly likely that they hold 

leasehold interests in various residential properties. On the facts presented 

them, the State Ethics Commission issued an opinion stating that the 

researcher's "participation in the study will not violate the conflicts-of- 

interests section of the ethics code." 

A copy of the correspondence between the Legislative Reference Bureau 

and the State Ethics Commission is appended to this report as Appendix E.

A 

Footnotes 

Chapter 1 6. Tax Assessment Records. Where the computer data 

showed a fae simple interest in land mder 

Chapter 516, Hawaii Revised Statutes. particular condosini*m project was heid by multiple 

owners, each ocmr or groups of mers 

listed separately was counted as a singla owner 

for purposes of calculation. 

Chapter 2 

7. A particular project could consist of more than 

one cooperative and hence be counted twice or 

more. See for example Kalia, Inc. on Appendix 

D. 

For information on the history of land ownership 

in Hawaii and the Land Reform Act see the follw~ng 

sources: Robert H. Horvltr and orhers, 

Ppbllc Land Polrcy ir Hewail: An irisror~cel 

Analys>e, Ln~verslty of He~arl, Legls:e:lve 

Reference Bureau. Reoort Yo. 5 (Hoco!,~lu: 

. . 

1969); Robert H. Horvitz and Judith B. Finn, 

Public Land Policy in Hawaii: Uaior Landowners. 

University of Hawaii, Legislative Reference 

Bureau, Report No. 3 (Honolulu: 1967); 

Landholdinns in Hawaii, University of Hawaii, 

Lenislative - Reference Bureau. . Reauest . No. 7969 

(Honolulu: 1961); Hawaii Housing Authority v. 

Uidkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321 (1984); 

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Lyman, 68 Haw. 55 

(1985). 

See 55516-22 and 516-51. Hawaii Revised 

8. See Appendix D. Letters Joseph W. Andraws, 

Director of Finance, County of Hawaii, 8/4/86; 

Roy Fujioka, Chief Appraiser, Department of 

Finance, County of Kauai, 7/16/86; Denise 

Cming, Real Property Tax Division, County of 

Haui, 8/5/86, to Samuel 8. X. Chang, Director, 

Legislative Reference Bureau. 

9. Telephone survey of cooperative housing projects 

located on Maui. 

10. See Appendix D. Telephone survey of cooperative 

housing projects located on Uaui. 

Statutes. 11. Hawaii TMR Service, Hawaiian Condominium Guide 

1982, Oahu Supplement, Condos, Co-ops, Clusters 

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Hidkiff, 467 U.S. & P.U.D.5 (Honolulu: 1981); telephone survey of 

229, 104 S.Ct. 2321 (1984); Hawaii Housing cooperative housing projects located on Uaui. 

Authority v. Lyman, 68 Haw. 55 (1985). 

12. Ibid. 

Ihid. 

13. One respondent did not answer this question. 

The Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, made applicable to the states 

through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United 

States Constitution, provides in pertinent part Chapter 4 

that "private property [shall not] be taken for 

public use, without just compensation." 1. Discrepancy due to the method by which in- 

formation is input in the real property tax as- 

sessment records. See footnote 2 in chapter 3. 

Chapter 3 

All statistics on condominium units include all 

types of condominiums, i.8. residential and 

coolmercial. The computer records did not 

provide a method of eliminating non-residential 

units. 

Under the method information is categorized and 

input into the real property tax assessment com- 

puter records, approximately 3.9 per cent or 

3,860 units are classified under categories 

other than fee simple or leasehold. This 

"other" classification occurs where a unit is 

held under an agreement of sale, under a life 

tenancy (remainderman), or by a government 

entity. Since the percentage of units entered 

as "other" than leasehold or fee simple is small 

and seemed likely to reflect the same or similar 

ratio of lease to fee units as those input as 

such, it was decided to accept the tax records 

as is without attempting to manually trace the 

exact ownership of land under units classified 

as "other" than leasehold or fee simple. 

Tax Assessment Records 

Qualification is mede because the tax assessment 

records show that various condominium projects 

contain both fee simple and leasehold units. 

An individual ax entity was deemed to own the 

lands under a project where it did so for over 

50 per cent of the leasehold units in a project.

(To be made one and seven copies) 

THE SESATE 

..TfixR.TmS.TM LEGISLATURE, 19 .@.'.6 

STATE OF HAWAII 

Appendix A 

REQUESTING THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU TO STUDY THE LAKT 

O~ERSHIP PATTEFW OF HAWAII'S RESIDENTIAL CG~OMINIUNS WD 

COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS. 

WHEREAS, the Hawaii Land Reform Act provided the opportunity 

for single-family residence leaseholders to obtain the fee simple 

rights thereto; and 

WHEREAS, a key factor in establishing the constitutionality 

and public purpose of the Land Reform Act was the determination, 

based upon exhaustive research, study, and analysis, that a land 

oligopoly existed and that its prevailing practice was to lease 

rather than sell lands in fee simple; and 

WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced that would in 

effect create a Land Reform Act for residential condominium and 

cooperative housing owners, similarly allowing them an 

opportunity to purchase the land beneath their units in fee 

simple; and 

WEREAS, before such legislation is adopted, the Legislature 

wishes to first determine whether a land oligopoly exists with 

respect to lands beneath residential condominiums and housing 

cooperatives, whether there is a prevailing practlce of leaslng 

rather than selling lands in fee simple, and whether it is in the 

public interest to allow owners of condominiums and coopezative 

housing units situated on leasehold land to obtain fee sinple 

rights thereto; and 

WFIEREAS, this body would like the Legislative Reference 

Bcreau to conduct a study upon which such a determination may be 

made, the Bureau having earlier studied land-holding patterr's in 

this State; and 

WHEREAS, the Hawaii Housing Authority is currently 

undertaking a study to determine, among other things, the number 

of leasehold condominiums in the State, the number of condor.inium 

units that are owner-occupied versus rented out, and the level of 

desire and ability of condominum owners to participate in the 

conversion of leasehold condominiums; and

Page 

L 

25 

, S.D. I 

WHEREAS. the methodology and results, and information 

gathered during the course of the study being conducted by the 

Hawaii Housing Authority should be made readily available and 

expediently provided to tbe Legislative Reference Bureau and 

their study expanded if requested by the Bureau in order to avold 

overlap and duplication of effort; now, therefore, 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirteenth Legislature 

of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1986, that the 

Legislative Reference Bureau is requested to study and analyze 

the ownership patterns of the land beneath Hawaii's residential 

condominiums and cooperative housing corporations and to 

determine the land ownership patterns that exist; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the study shall not overlap the 

results of and information from the above mentioned study by the 

Hawaii Housing Authority and shall determine who owns the land 

beneath Hawaii's residential condominiums, and shall also 

determine (1) who owns the land beneath Hawaii's cooperative 

housing corporations; (2) whether or not ownership of lands 

beneath such condominiums and cooperatives is patterned in the 

manner of an oligopoly; and (3) the leasing policies of such 

landowners; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the study shall complement the 

one being conducted by the Hawaii Housing Authority regarding the 

number of condominium units that are owner-occupied versus rented 

out, and provide information on the number of condominium and 

cooperative owners who reside in their units versus those who do 

not, to the extent possible; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the study shall include to the 

extent possible other factors needed to authenticate the 

existence or nonexistence of a land oligopoly of the land under 

Hawaii's residential condominiums and cooperative housing 

corporations, and illustrate as fully as possible the patterns of 

such ownership in the State; and 

BE IT FJRTHER RESOLVED that all state agencies and the 

judiciary cooperate fully with the Legislative Reference Bureau 

in its study, that the results and information gathered during 

the course of the study being conducted by the Hawaii Housing 

Authority shall be made readily available and expediently 

provided to the Bureau by the Authority and that the Authority 

shall fully apprise the Bureau of all aspects of the Authority's 

study, including methodology, and accommodate reqilests by the 

Bureau to expand the Authority's study, in order to avoid overlap 

and duplication of effort; and

Page 

3 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Reference Bureau 

shall submit a report of its findings to the Legislature no later 

than twenty days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 

1987, or as soon as is reasonably possible after receiving the 

results of the study being conducted by the Hawaii Housing 

Authority; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this 

Resolution be transmitted to the Director of the Office of the 

Legislative Reference Bureau, the Governor, the Director of 

Social Services, the Executive Director of the Hawaii Housing 

Authority, the Director of Taxation, the chairperson of the Board 

of Land and Natural Resources, the Registrar of Conveyances, the 

Director of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Chief Justice of 

the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, and judges of the Land 

Court,

HOUSE OF REPRESEhTATIVES 

THIRTEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1986 

STATE OF HA& Ail 

REQUESTING A STUDY OF THE LAND OWNERSHIP PATTERNS OF HAWAII'S 

RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPZRATIVE HOUSING 

CORPORATIONS. 

WHEREAS, Chapter 516, Hawaii Revised Statutes, commonly 

referred to as the Land Reform Act, provides a means whereby 

lessees of single-family residential lots are able to purchase 

the fee simple interests in their lots; and 

WHEREAS, the Land Reform Act which uses the State's eminent 

domain powers to condemn private property for public purpose has 

been found to be constitutional by both the United States Supreme 

Court and the Hawaii Supreme Court; and 

WHEREAS, a key factor in establishing the constitutionality 

and public purpose of the Land Reform Act was the legislative 

determination, based upon exhaustive research, study, and 

analysis, that an oligopoly of large land owners existed whose 

prevailing practice to lease their lanes rather than sell them in 

fee simple resulted in skewing the state's residential fee simple 

market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public welfare; 

and 

WHEREAS, a similar fee conversion program for leasehold 

condominiums and cooperatives has been proposed to also provide 

an opportunity for owner-occupants in a leasehold multi-unit 

structure to purchase the fee simple interest in the land; and 

&%EREAS, before such a program can be implemented, the 

legislature must first decide whether a public purpose exists by 

determining whether an oligopoly of landowners exists whose 

prevailing practice is to lease their lands to residential 

condominium and cooperative housing corporations, and whether it 

is in the public interest to allow such condominium and 

cooperative housing owners to have their property condemned in 

order to obtain the fee simple rights; and

Page 2 

WHEREAS, such legislation must also be based upon 

comprehensive information relating to lessees and how they 

utilize their units; and 

WHEREAS, although the Hawaii Fousing Authority will be 

conducting a xarket survey to determine who owns the land 

underneath Hawaii's residential condomini~ums and cooperative 

housing corporations and the owner-occ~pe&y rate of these 

multi-unit structures, many other legal and social issues still 

need to be thoroughly investigated before the legislature can 

determine whether a fee conversion progran for leasehold 

condominiums and cooperatives meets the public purpose and 

interest requirements so as to withstand judicial scrutiny and 

prevent unnecessary future expenditures of taxpsyer noney; now, 

therefore, 

BE IT RESOLVED by t.he House of Representatives of the 

Thirteenth Legislature of the State of Havaii, Regular Session of 

1986, that the Legislative Reference Bureau is reqaested to study 

and analyze the ownership patterns of the land beneath Hawaii's 

residential condominiums and cooperative housing corporations to 

determine whether, in fact, an oligopoly of such lzndowners does 

exist; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the study shall determine 

whether the economics of lane ownership for condominiums and 

cooperative housing cor.9orationa are similar to those surrounding 

single-family residences by iooking at such factors as: 


(1) Who owns the land underneath Hawaii's residential 

condominiums and cooperative corporations. 

(2) Whether this land ownership is patterned in the manner 

of an oligopoly. 

(3) The leasing policies of the landowners. 

(4) The portion of the acreage which is in use by the 

owners, or leased to others, for residential, 

commercial, industrial, and other purposes. 

(5) An analysis of the conditions and terms under which the 

condominium and cooperative projects were originally 

developed;

Page 3 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the study shall also provide 

pertinent information relating to lessees such as: 


(1) The number of condominium or cooperative owners who 

actually reside in their units. 

(2) How many units serve as second or vacation homes or are 

used for investment or speculative purposes. 

(3) The number of owner-occupants who would be qualified 

for, able to, and interested in, purchasing the fee 

simple interest in their properties; 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the study shall include all 

other factors which are necessary to authenticate the existence 

or non-existence of an oligopoly which owns most of the land 

under Hawaii's residential condominiums and cooperative housing 

corporations, and illustrate as fully as possible the patterns of 

such ownership in the State; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to avoid m y 

duplication of effort, the Legislative Reference Bureau consult 

with the Hawaii Housing Authority; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hawaii Housing Authority 

assist and cooperate with the Legislative Keference Bureau in its 

study, including providing the Bureau with the results of their 

market survey; and 

RE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Reference Bureau 

submit a report of its findings to the Legislature no later than 

October 1, 1986; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this 

Resolution be transmitted to the Legislative Reference Bureau, 

the Hawaii Housing Authority, and the Hawaii Council of 

Associations of Apartment Owners.

Appendix B 

mWAI1 HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MIDKIFF Pg 

Syllabus 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL. V. 

MIDKIFF ET AL. 

A~PEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFOR 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 83-141. Argued March 26, 1984-Decided May 30, 1984' 

To reduce the perceived social and economic evils of a land oligopoly trace- 

able to the early high chiefs of the Hawaiian Islands, the Hawaii Legisla- 

ture enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967 (Act), which created a land 

condemnation scheme whereby title in real property is taken from les- 

sors and transferred to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of 

land ownership. Under the Act, lessees living on single-fandy residen- 

tial lots within tracts at least five acres in size are entitled to ask ap 

pellant Hawaii Housing Authority (HHA) to condemn the property on 

which they live. When appropriate applications by lessees are fled, the 

Act authorizes HHA to hoid a public hearing to determine whether the 

State's acquisition of the tract will "effectuate the public purposes" of the 

Act. If HHA determines that these public purposes will be served, it is 

authorized to designate some or all of the lots in the tract for acquisition. 

It then acquires, at prices set by a condemnation trial or by negotiation 

between lessors and lessees, the former fee owners' "right, title, and in- 

terest" in the land, and may then sell the land titles to the applicant lea- 

sees. After HHA had held a public hearing on the proposed acquisition 

of appellees' lands and had found that sitch acquisition would effectuate 

the Act's public purposes, it directed appellees to negotiate with certain 

lessees concerning the sale of the designated properties. When these 

negotiations failed, HHA ordered appellees to submit to compulsory a?- 

bitration as provided by the Act. Rather than comply with this order, 

appellees filed suit in Federal District Court, asking that the Act be de- 

clared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined. The eourt 

temporarily restrained the State from proceeding against appellees' e5 

tates, hut subsequently, while holding the compulsory arbitration and 

compensation formulae provisions of the Act unconstitutional, refused to 

issue a preliminary injunction and ultimately granted partial summary 

judgment to HHA and private appellants who had intervened, holding 

Together with No. 83-236, Portlock Community Association (Maumtm 

Beach) et al. v. Midkgf et ul.; and No. 83-283, Kahala Community 

Association, Inc., et al. v. Midkqf ef dl., also on appeal from the same 

court.

ma OCmBER TERM. 1981 HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY o MIDKIFF Zll 

Syllabus 461 U. S. 

the rcmai~l~r of the Act mnstitutional under the Public Use Clause of 

the Wth Amendment, made applieabk to the States under the Pour. 

tenth Amcndmenl. After deciding that the District Court had pmp 

erly not ahstained fmm eienisine ita juridiction, the Chrt of Aplxeda 

reversed, hoicime that the Act viobtes Lhe "public use" requirement of 

the Pifth Amendment. 

Held: 

1. The District Court was not required to abstain h m exerrising its 

jurindictinn. Yp. 216-219. 

la) Ahtention under Kaifmad Cmnm'n r I'uflmon no., 312 U. S. 

4%. is unnecessary. Pulfmnn abstention is limited to uncertain gueslions 

of state law, and hew there is no uncprtain question of *talc law. 

sine the Act unambipously pmvides that the pwcr to rnDclemn is "fw 

I public use and purpose." Tho*. the qucstioo, uncomplicated by 

mbipuour language, is whether the Ad an ita fare is unconstitutional. 

4. W6-237. 

lb) Nor is abstention required undcr Younger v. Hawk, 401 U. S. 

37. Ymtnger ahstmliun k requvred only when state-murt pmreedings 

PW initiated bfim any pracwdinp orruhht~nre on the merits have oeeumd 

in iedcral court. tirre, state jutiicial prwtwiings had not been 

initiated at the tlme pmeelinm of substance lcak plm in the District 

Court, the Ililriet Court having issued a preliminary injunrtion Mare 

HHA filed its fimt state eminent domain nuit in state court. And the 

fact that HHA's adminivtnlive pmee4ings wurred before the federal 

nuit was filed did nut quire ahtentian. since the Act clearly states that 

those pmccdinm nre net part of, or are not themselves, . n . judidd om 

dinl(. Pp. 23-239. 

2. The Art docs not violate the "public use" requirement or the Fifth 

Amendment. Pp. 219.244. 

(a) That wuinement is mterminous with the mp of a sovereip's 

police pwcm. This Court will not substitute its juclment for a iryialatune's 

judment a. to what constitutes "public use" unless the uae L% patpbly 

without nearonable foundation. Where the exercise of the eminent 

domain poww is rationally related to a conceivable publie purpoae, a 

mwoenaated takinv is not ~mhihiled bv the Yublie Use Chum Hem. 

npiatin~oiigolaiy and the evils aamiated with it is a classic exerrise of 

State's piice powem, and miistribution of fcea rimple to reduce ~ueh 

wile is a rational exerrise of the eminent domain power. Pp. 239-243. 

1b)The mere M that pmprty taken outright by eminent domain is 

transferred in the Rmt instance ta private beneficiaries h a not mn- 

&mn that lakmg ul hsvmg only a prwnle purpw 1:uvrrnmenl dtaq 

n* lWlf hwv La w pmprty to Ieplllm.IP the taklw. 11 la only the 

t.lung a purw. and nor 818 merhmwa. lhnt mull pua armuny und~r 

Us Opinion of the Cwrt 

TW F. Zd 'lR8, reversed and remanded. 

O'CONN~R, J.. delivered the opinion of the Gmrt, in vhiih dl other 

joined, except Mmsnnu, J.. who tmk ta part in the mnsider- 

Memhe~ 

ation or decision of the cases. 

Laumce H. Tribe. . Swcial . Denutv . " Attomev General of 

Hawaii, argued the cause for appellanh. wit; him on the 

briefs for amellanh in Nos. KT-141 and K7-!&3 were Knthleen 

M. ~uil;van and David Rosenberg, Special Deputy Attorneys 

General, Tany S. Horq, Attorney General, Michael 

A. Lilly, First Deputy Attorney General, Dennis E. W. 

Wonnor, James H. Case, and A. Bernard Bays. Richard 

J. Archer and Cmey Y. S. Park filed briefs for appellants in 

No. B-Z

Za OCmRER TERM, lW 

Opinion of the Cavt 467 U. 9. 

lessom and transferring it to lessees in order to reduee the 

concentration of ownership of fees simple in the State. We 

conclude that it do- not. 

I 

A 

The Hawaiian Islands were originally settled by Polynesian 

immigrants f~om the western Pacific. These settlers 

developed an economy around a feudal land tenure system in 

which one island hieh chief. the ali'i nui, controlled the land 

and a~kmd 11 for ~ I~wlnpt~nt lo wrtalo ~ul*.hid~. The 

aut~ch~~ln WIIIII~ thm russinl thr land toc,thvr h,ww rankmy 

chiefs, who would admini& the land and govern the la&ers 

and other tenants working it. All land was held at the 

will of the ali'i nui and eventually had to he returned to his 

trust. There was no private ownership of land. See generally 

Brief for Offce of Wawaiian Afhirs as Amicus Curiae 

3-5. 

Be~nning in the early 1800's, Hawaiian leaders and American 

settlers repeatedly attempted to divide the lands of the 

kingdom amonx the crown, the chiefs, and the common peo. 

ple, These efforts proved largely unsuccessful, however, 

and the land remained in the hands of a few. In the mid- 

19M)'s, after extensive hearinp,, the Hawaii Legislature discovered 

that, while the State and Federal Governments 

owned almost 4910 of the State's land, another 47% was in the 

hands of only 72 private landowners. See Brief for the Hou 

Hawaiians and Maui Loa, Chief of the Hou Hawaiians, as 

Amici Curiae 32. The legislature further found that 18 

landholders, with tracts 0121,000 acres or more, owned more 

than 40% of this land and that on Oahu, the most urbanized of 

the islands, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple 

titles. Id., at 3243. The legislature concluded that concentrated 

\and ownership was responsible for skewing the 

State's residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, 

and injuring the publi tranquility and welfare. 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY u MlDKlFF %I3 

223 Opinion of the Cau( 

To redress these problems, the legislature decided to comml 

the laree landowners to break uv their estates. The lee- .- 

islature c&dered requtring large'landowners to sell lands 

which they were leasine to homeowners. However, the 

landowners strongly resisted this scheme, pointing out the 

significant federal tax liabilities they would incur. Indeed, 

the landowners claimed that the federal tiur laws were the 

primary reason they previously had chosen to lease, and not 

sell, their lands. Therefore, to accommndate the needs of 

both lessors and lessees, the Hawart Le~slature enacted the 

Land Reform Act of 1'967 (Act), Haw. Rev. Stat.. ch. 516. 

whtch created a mechanism for condemning reu~dential tract8 

and for transferring ownership of the condemned fees simple 

to existiny lessees. By condemning the land in question, the 

Hawaii Legislature intended to make the land sales involuntary, 

thereby making the federal tax consequences leas severe 

while still facilitating the redistribution of fees simple. 

See Brief for Appellants in Nos. B-141 and R1-283, pp. 3-4, 

and nn. 6-8. 

Under the Act's condemnation scheme, tenants living on 

single-family residential lots within developmental tracts at 

least five acres in size are entitled to ask the Hawaii Housing 

Authority (HHA) to condemn the property on which they 

live. Haw. Rev. Stat. 58516-IW, (ll), 516-22(1977). When 

26 elifible tenants,' or tenant8 on half the lots in the tract, 

whichever is less, file appropriate applications, the Act authorizes 

HHA to hold a public hearing to determine whether 

acquisition by the State of all or part ofthe tract will "effectuate 

the public purposes" of the Act. 9616-22. lf HHA 

finds that these public purposes will be served, it is author- 

' Aneligible lpnsnt is an. who, among other thinun, o m r hnuse on Ule 

lot, has n bnn Me intent lo live on the bt or be a rpaident of the State, 

~hows pmor of ability to pay for a fpe interent in it, and doen ml om midentisl 

land eieewhere nearby. Haw. Rev. Slat. N6163U3). (4). (7l 

(Irn).

ZY OCTOBER TERM. 1% 

Opinion of the Court 167 U. S. 

ized to designate some or all of the lot8 in the tract for Requi- 

sition. It then acquires, at prices set either by condemna- 

tion trial or by negotiation between lessors and lessees,' the 

former fee owners' full "right, title, and interest" in the land. 

Q 616-25. 

After compensation has been set, HHA may sell the band 

titles to tenants who have applied for fee simple owership. 

HHA is authorized to lend these tenants up to 90% of 

the purchase price, and it may condition final transfer on a 

right of first refusal for the first 10 yeam following sale. 

95516-30, 516-34, 516-35. If HHA does not sell the lot to 

the tenant residing there, it may lease the lot or sell it to 

someone else, pmvided that public notice has been given. 

9516-28. flowever. ltHA may not sell to any one pur- 

chaser, or lease to any one tenant, more than one lot, and it 

may not operate for profit. (19516-28,516-32. In practice, 

funds to satisfy the condemnation awards have been supplied 

entirely by lessees. See App. 164. While the Act author- 

izes HHA to issue bonds and appmpriate funds fat acqui- 

sition, no bonds have issued and HHA has not supplied any 

funds for condemned lots. See ibid. 

B 

In April 1977, HHA held a public hearing concerning the 

proposed acquisition of some of appellees' lands. HHA made 

the statutorilv rewired findine that acouisition of avpellees' 

lands would e2fect"ate the pudiic purpos& of the A&: Then, 

in October 1978, it directed anpellees to ne~otiate with cer- 

tain lessees concerning the saleof the designated properties. 

Those negotiations failed, and HHA subsequently ordered 

appellees to submit to compulsory arbitration. 

Rather than comply with the compulsory arbitration order, 

appellees filed suit, in February 1979, in United States Dis- 

'See 0616-f& (Supp. 19RJ). lo either cane, cempensstion muat wad 

the fair mrrket "due of the owner's leased ice interest. 8 6161(14). The 

&quscy d rompensstion b not befm us. 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY a MIDKIFF 236 

ZB Opinion of the Cburt 

trict Court, asking that the Act be declared unwnstitutional 

and that its enforcement be enjoined. The District Court 

temporarily restrained the State from proceeding against 

appellees' estates. Three months later, while declarine the 

compulsory arbitration and compensation formulae provi- 

sim of the A& unconstitutiona>.' the District Court refused 

ureliminarilv to enioin anpellants from wncluctine the statu- 

~ .. 

ky desimation and con&mnation proceedings. inal all^, in 

December 1978, it manted partial sammsw iudment to 

appellants, holding the remai&ng portion of t);e~&eonstitutional 

under the Public Use Clause. See 483 F. Supp. 62 

(Haw. 1979). The Ihtrict Court found that the Act's goals 

were within the bounds of the State's police powers and that 

the means the leeislature had chosen to serve those mals 

"~~~~ 

were not arbitrary, capricious, or selected in bad faith. 

The Court of Aooeak for the Ninth Cireuit reversed. 702 

F. 2d 7R4 (19831.--First, the Court of Appeals decided that 

the District Court had permissibly chosen not to abstain from 

fers co&mplated by the Act were unlrke those of takings 

previously held to constitute "vublic uses" bv this Court. 

i'he couk further determined that the publicpurposes of- 

fered by the Hawaii Lemslature were not deserving of iudi- 

cia1 deference. The court concluded that the Act was simply 

"a naked attempt on the part of the state of ffawaii to take 

the private property of A and transfer it to B solely for R's 

private use and benefit." Id., at 798. One judge dissented. 

'As originally enscted, lessor and lessee had to mmmenrP mmputsory 

arbitration ifthey eodd MI, sgme on s prim for the fee eimyle title. Slat. 

"tory fonnutne were pmvided for tthe determination ofnmf~nnntian. The 

District Court declared both the mmpulwry arbitration pmvinion anri the 

eompnsation formulae unronstitutiannl. No nppsl wes taken fmm thew 

nt)ink, a& the Hswaii Lr#rlnture suha~quenlly amended the statute w 

pmvide only far mandatory nenttiatinn and fur sdviaory mtnpemation 

fomulse. These issum are nol bcforr us.

P36 OLlUBER TERM, 1983 

Opinion of the Court 467 U. 5. 

On applications of HHA and certain private appellants who 

had intervened below, this Court noted probable jurisdiction. 

461 U. S. 932 (1983). We now reverse. 

I1 

We begin with the queation whether the District Court 

abused its discretion in not abstaining from the exercise of its 

jurisdiction. The appellants have su~gested as one altemative 

that perhaps abstention was required under the standards 

announced in Railroad Cam'n v. Pullman Co., 312 

U. S. 496 11941), and Younger v. Hank, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). 

We do not believe that abstention was required. 

A 

In Railmad Cam'n v. Pullman Co., supra, this Court 

held that federal courts should abstain fmm decision when 

difficult and unsettled questions of state law must be re- 

solved before asubstantial federal constitutional question can 

be decided. By abstaining in such cases, federal courts will 

avoid both unnecessary adjudication of federal questions and 

"needless friction with state policies . . . ." Id., at 500. 

However, federal courts need not abstain on Pullman 

grounds when a state statute is not "fairly subject to an inter- 

pretation which will render unnecessary" adjudication of the 

federal constitutional question. See IIannan v. Forssenius, 

380 U. S. 528, 535 (1Xi). Pullman abstention is limited to 

uncertain questions of state law because "Lalbstention from 

the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception, not the 

rule!' Colmndo River Watrr Consnwtirm Diqt. v. United 

Stales, 424 U. S. ROO, 813 (1976). 

In these cases, there is no uncertain question of state law. 

The Act unambiguously provides that "[tlhe use of the power 

. . . to condemn . . . is for a public use and purpose." Haw. 

Rev. Stat. 8516-83(a)(12) (19'7'7); see also 99616-83(a)(lO), 

1 1 3 There is no other provision of the Act-or, for 

that matter, of Hawaii law-which would suggest that 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY u. MIDKIPF 23 

Pg Opinkm of the Caut 

9516-&7(a1(12) does not mean exactly what it mys. Since 

"the naked question, uncomplicated by [ambiguous Ian- 

guagel, is whether the Act on its face is unconstitutional," 

Wisconsin v. Constontineflu, 400 U. S. 4%7, 439 (1971), ab- 

stention fmm federal jurisdiction is not required. 

The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals suggested 

that, perhaps, the state courts could make resolution of the 

federal constitutional questions unnecessary by their con- 

struction of the Act. See 702 F. ed, at 811-812. In the 

abstract, of course, such possibilities always exist. But the 

relevant inquiry is not whether there is a hare, though un- 

likely, possibility that state courts mighl render adjudication 

of the federal question unnecessary. Rather, "[wle have 

frequently emphasized that abstention in not to be ordered 

unless the statute is of an uncertain nature, and is obviously 

susceptible of a limiting construction." Zaoicklm v. Kwto, 

289 U. S. 241,251, and n. 14 11967). These statutes are not 

of an uncertain nature and have no reasonable limiting con- 

struction. Therefore, Pullnlan abstention is unnecessary.' 

R 

The dissenting judge also suggested that abstention was 

required under the standards articulated in Younoer v. Har- 

pis, wpm. Under Younge7-abstentiondwtrine, interests of 

eomity and federalism counsel federal courts to abqtain fmm 

jurisdiction whenever federal claims have been or could be 

presented in ongoing state judicial proceedings that concem 

'The dismnting judge'* suggestion that Palinon abstention wns re 

wired beesuse interprelstion oftheStlte Constitution may hsveobviated 

resdutbn of the federal mnatitutionai qwstion is equdly faulty. Hawdi's 

Censlitutian he* only parsllel requirement that a Uking b. for a public 

uae. Sw Haw. Const.. Art. I, $20. The Cwrt he* pnviousty deter- 

mind that htention is not required for interpretation of pvnllal etlte 

mnstitutionai pmvisions. See Eramining Rmml v. Flma de O h. 426 

U. S. 672.6% 0916); see dso Wiamnrin v. Caalodinmu, 400 U. S. 

i19111.

238 MXVBER TERM, 1W 

Opinion of the Court 467 U. S 

important state interests. See Middlesex Elhies Committee 

v. Gaden Stale Bar Assn., 461 ti. S. 423, 432-437 (1982). 

Ym~nger abstention is required, however, only when state 

wurt pmeeedinys are initiated "before any proceedings of 

substance on the merits have taken place in the federal 

court." Hicks v. Mirunda, 422 U. S. &?2, 349 (1975). In 

other cases, federal courts must normally fulfill their duty to 

adjudicate federal questions properly brought before them. 

In these caseli, state judicial proceedings had not been 

initiated at the time procealings of substance took place in 

federal court. Appellees filed their federal court complaint 

in February 19'79, asking for temporary and permanent relief. 

The District Court temporarily restrained HHA from 

proceeding against appellees' estates. At that time, no state 

iudicial oruceedinw were in orocess. Indeed. in June 1979. 

;hen tie Districi~ourt grakd, in part, ap&lees' motion 

for a preliminary injunction, state court proceedings still had 

not been initiated. Rather, 1fHA filed its first eminent domain 

lawsuit after the ~arties had bemn filing motions for 

summary judbent in'the District &xu%--& September 

1979. Whether issuance of the February temporary restraining 

order was a substantial federal court action or not, 

issuance of the June preliminary injunction c~rtainly was. 

See Domn v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 9"-VdI(1975). 

A federal court action in which a preliminary injunction ia 

eranted has oruceeded well bevond the "embrvonic staee." 

%., at 929, and considerations breeonamy, equity, and feder. 

alism counsel against Younger abstention at that point. 

Thp only extant pnwedings at the slat^ lrvrl prwr to the 

Sel,tember 1979 em~nent domain lawsuit in slatp court were 

HHA'S administrative hearines. ~, Rut the Act elearlv states 

that these administrative proceedings are not part of, and are 

not themselves. a iudicial orawedine, for "mandatorv arbitration 

shall de in advan4 of and sThall not constitute any 

part of any action in condemnation or eminent domain." 

Haw. Rev. Stat. $616-61(b) (1976). Since Younger is not a 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY u MIDKIFF 239 

ZB Opinion of the Court 

bar to federal court action when state judicial pnxeedinga 

have not themselves commenced, see Middlesex County 

Ethics Committee v. Gatden Stale Bar Assn., supm, at 433; 

Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., In*. v. McNary, 454 

U. S. 100, 112-113 (1981), abstention for HHA's adminis- 

trative proeeedinga was not required. 

Thr majority of the rwrt of Appeals nvxt dt4ermined that 

the Act vulatcs the "l~uthc us#." wquiremrnt nithe Fifth and 

Fourteenth ~mendmmts. On this argument, however, we 

find ourselves in agreement with the dissenting Suds in the 

... ... 

Court of Appeals. 

A 

The starting point for our analysis of the Act's wnrititution- 

ality is the Court's decision in Bermnn v. Parker, 348 U. S. 

26 (19.54). In Rennan, the Court held constitutional the Dis- 

trict of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945. That Act pro- 

vided both for the comprehensive use of the eminent dommin 

power to redevelop slum areas and for the possible sale or 

lease of the condemned lands to private interests. In dis- 

cussing whether the takine authoriml by that Act were for 

a "public use," id., at 31, the Court stated: 

"We deal, in other words, with what traditionally has 

been known as the police power. An attempt to define 

its reach or trace its outer limits is fruitless, for each 

ease must turn on its own facts. The definition is essen- 

tially the product of legislative determinations addressd 

to the purposes of government, purposes neither ab 

stractlv nor historicallv " eanable . of wmnlete definition. 

Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the 

legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared 

in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the 

legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the 

public needs to be served by soeial legislation, whether it

NO OFM)HER TERM. 1981 HAWAII HOUSINO AUTHORITY u MlDKIFF 241 

Opinion of tho Court 467 U. S. 

rn Opinion of the car^ 

be Congress legislating concerning the District of Cn- 

lumbia . . . or the States legislating concerning local af- 

fairs. . . . This principle admits of no exreption merely 

because the power of eminent domain is involved. . . ." 

Id., at 32 (citations omitted). 

The Court explicitly recognized the breadth ofthe principle it 

was announcing, noting: 

"Once the object is within the authority of Conflss, 

the right to realize it thmugh the exercise of eminent do- 

main is clear. For the power of eminent domain is 

mcrclv the means to the end. . . . Once the object is 

one of the means chosen is theuse of private enterprise 

fm redevelopment of the area. Appellants argue that 

this makes the project a taking from one businessman for 

the benefit of another businessman. But the means of 

executing the project are for Congress and Cong+ess 

alone to deternine, once the public purpose has been 

established." Id., at 33. 

The "public use" requirement is thus coterminous with the 

mope of a s~verei~m's police powen. 

There is, of course, a role for courts to play in reviewing a 

legislature's judpment of what constitutes a public use, even 

when the eminent domain power is equated with the police 

power. But the Court in Berman made clear that it is "an 

extremelv ....... ~"~ narrow" one. Id.. at 32. The Court in Herman 

~ 

eited with approval the Court's decision in Old Dcnninion Co. 

u. United Slates, '269 U. S. 55,s (1YZ5), which held that deference 

to the legislature's "public use" determination is renuired 

"until it is shown to involve an impossibility." The 

berman Court also cited to Uniled slat& ez re/: TVA V. 

Welch. 3! U. S. 546. &52 (1946), which emphasiued that 

"(alny departure from thin )udinnl restraint wnuld wsul( In 

murk+ deriding on what is and i nut a gov~rnnwntal function 

and in their invalidating legislaliun on the bwis of their view 

on that question at the moment of decision, e praetlce which 

has proved impracticable in other fields." In short, the 

Court has made clear that it will not substitute its judgment 

for a legislature's judgment as to what constitutes a public 

use "unless the use be palpably without reasonable found* 

tion." United Stales v. Cellyshurg Electric R. Co., 160 

U. S. 668, 680 (1896). 

To be sure, the Court's cases have repeatedly stated that 

"one person's pmperty may not be taken for the benefit of 

another private person without a justifying public purpose, 

even though compensation be paid." Tkonrpson v. Cunsoli- 

Qted GRS Corp., 3W U. S. 55,80 (1937). See, E. g., Cincinnali 

v. Veslcr, 2R1 U. S. 439. 447 11930); Madisonville Tmlion 

Co. v. St. Rmnl Mining Co., 1% U. S. 239, 251-252 

(1%); Fallbrnok Irrigation Distriet v. Bmdley, 164 U. S. 

112, 159 (18%). Thus, in Misaouvi Pacifi R. Co. v. Nehka. 

164 U. S. 403 (lX%f, where the "order in question 

way not, and ms no1 claimed to be. . . . a taking .. of urivate , 

prulwrty for a publw usv under the right of rminr111 dumain." 

~d . at 1IF8 (rmph;iqi~ a4drrl), lliih Cuun invnl1#lat~4 :I zomwnsated 

taking of property for lack of a justifying public 'purpose. 

But where the exercise of the eminent domain power 

is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the 

Court has never held a compensated taking to be pmscribed 

by the Public Use Clause. See Bernron v. Parker, supm; 

Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U. S. 700 (1YB); Rl&k v. 

Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135 (1921); cf. Thompson v. Cottsolidat~d 

Gas Carp., aupm (invalidating an unrompetsated taking), 

On this basis, we have no tmuble concluding that the 

Hawaii Act is constitutional. The people of Hawaii have 

attempted, much as the settlers of the original 13 Colonies 

did: to reduce the perceived social and economic evils of a 

'Afler the American Revolution, the mtonirla in aevenl SLatps tmk

242 OCMBER TERM. 1983 

Opinion af the Court 467 U. 8. 

land oligopoly traceable to their monarchs. The land oligopoly 

has, according to the Hawaii Legislature, created 

artificial deterrents to the normal functioning of the State's 

residential land market and forced thousands of individual 

homeowners to lease, rather than buy, the land underneath 

their homes. Regulating oligopoly and the evils associated 

with it is a classic exercise of a State's police powers. See 

Erzon Corp. v. Goventor ofMaryland, 437 U. S. 117 (1978); 

Rlock v. Hirsh, supra; see also People of Puerlo Rico v. 

Eaatm Sugar Associates. 156 F. 2d 316 (CAI), cert. denied, 

329 U. S. 772 (1946). We cannot disapprove of Hawaii's 

exercise of this vower. 

Nor can we condemn as irrational the Act's approach to 

comctina the land oii~o~ly ~roblem. The Act nresumes 

market is malfunctioning. when such a malhction is sig- 

nalled, the Act authorizes HHA to condemn lots in the rele- 

vant tract. The Act limits the number of lots any one tenant 

can purchase and authorizes HHA to use public funds to en- 

sure that the rtarket dilution goals will be achieved. This 

is a comprehensive and rational approach to identifying and 

correcting market failure. 

Of course, this Act, like any other, may not be successful in 

achieving its intended goals. But "whether in fact the provi- 

sion will accomplish its objectives is not the question: the 

leonstitutional requirement] is satisfied if. . . the. . . [state] 

Legislature mliomlly could have believed that the [Act] 

would promote its objeetive." Western & Smctkern Life Ins. 

Co. v. State Ed. of Equalization, 451 U. S. 648, 671-672 

(1981); see also Minnesota v. Clauer Leaf Creamery Co., 449 

U. S. 456, 466 (1981); Vame v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 112 

(1979). When the ledslature's purpose is legitimate and its 

17m, 1176-1'781 Pa. Aele 258. eh. 139 (17W (PennaylvMia statute). 

Courts kve never doubted that such atntutea served a public purpaae. 

.&, c. g., Wilson v. lamivn, 186 U. 8. 65, 60-61 (1W); Stnuad v. 

C&, 70 Md. 242. 244-246, I6 A. 644,646 11889). 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY n. MlDKlFF 243 

229 Opinion of the Cwrt 

means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical 

debates over the wisdom of takinw-no less than debates 

over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation- 

are not to be carried out in the federal courts. Redistribu- 

tion of fees simple to correct deficiencies in the market deter- 

mined by the state leaislature to be attributable to land oli- 

gopoly is a rational exercise of the eminent domain power. 

Therefore, the Hawaii statute must pass the scrutiny of the 

Public Use Clause.' 

R 

The Court of Appeals read our cases to stand for a much 

narrower proposition. First, it read our "public use" cases, 

especially Bennan,, as requiring that government possess 

and use property at some point during a taking. Since &a- 

waiian lessees retain wssession of the nrowrtv for nrivate 

. . . 

use throughout the condemnation prmss, the om& found 

that the Act exacted takings for private use. 702 F. Zd, at 

796-797. Second, it determined that these cases involved 

only "the review of. . . congressional detrrmination[sl that 

there was a nublic use. no! the review of. . . state lerislative 

determinati&sl." id., at 798 (emphasis in origin&. Because 

state le~islative determinations are involved in the instant 

cases, thb Court of Appeals decided that more rigorous 

judicial scrutiny of the public use determinations was appropriate. 

The court concluded that the Wdwaii l&slature'a 

professed purposes were mere "statutory rationalizations." 

Ibid. We disame with the Court of Anwals' . . analvsis. 

The mere fact that property taken outright by eminent domain 

is transferred in the first instance to nrivate beneficiaries 

does not condemn that taking as having only a private 

*We eirnilarly Rnd no merit in sppllwa' Due Pmpss and Contrset 

Clause arguments The argumenl that due pmas pmhibihibitn ~iluwinp ksspps 

lo initiate the takinp pmcw war es~entially rejected hy this Court in 

Neru Mnlm Vehicle Road v. For Co.. 433 ti. S. %, tIK-1Bl1978). Simi. 

lady, the Conlrar( Clause has never been lhnught to prutect agaimt the 

exercise of the power of eminent domain. See United Sfnus Trual Co. v. 

Nnu Jnacy. 431 11. S. 1. 19, and n. 16(1917).

ZA4 WTUBER TERM. 1983 

Opinion of the Court 467 U. S. 

purpose. The Court long ago rejected arty literal requirement 

that condemned property be put into use for the general 

public. "It is not essential that the entire comniunity, 

nor even any considerable portion, . . . directly enjoy or participate 

in any improvement in order [for it1 to constitute a 

public use." Rind@ Co. v. IAS Angeles, Zf2 U. S., at 707. 

"IWJhat in its immedhte aspect [is) only a private transaction 

may . . . be raised by its class or character to a public ~ffair." 

Block v. Hirsh, 2% U. S.. at 155. As the unique way titles 

were held in Hawaii skewed the land market, exercise of the 

pwer of eminent domain was justified. The Act advances 

its purplses without the State's taking actual possession of 

the land. In such cases, government does not itself have to 

use property to legitimate the taking; it is only the taking's 

purpose, and not its mechanics, that must pass scrutiny 

under the Public Use Clause. 

Similarlv, the fact that a state lerrislature, and not the Congress, 

mahe the public use determination does not mean that 

judicial deference is less appropriate.' Judicial deference is 

. ~ 

required because, in our system of government, legislatures 

are better able to assess what public purposes should be ad- 

vanced by an exercise of the taking power. State legisla- 

tures are as capable as Congress of making such detemina- 

tions within their respective spheres of authority. See 

Bemuln v. Parker, 348 U. S., at 32. Thus, if a legislature, 

state or federal, determines there are substantial reasons for 

an exercise of the taking power, courts must defer to its 

determination that the taking will sewe a public use. 

,It is worth noting that the Fourteenth Amendment does not itself wn 

tpin m independent '"public use" requixment. Rather, that requirement 

is mde binding on the Ststes only by inmrporation of the Fifth Amendment's 

Eminent Domain Clruae thmugh the Fourteenth Amendment's Due 

Pmxm Cbune. See Chicqo, 8. & 9. R. Co. v. Chimp, 1% U. S. 2% 

IIRJr). It wwM he imnir to find that date kg(sbtion is~ubjfft to water 

-tiny under th. i-kd 'publie use" requirement then is conweaiond 

ie@slntin under the erprpaa mandate of the Fifth Amendment. 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY u MlDKlFF 246 

Pg Opinion of the Care 

IV 

The State of Hawaii ha9 never denied that the Constitution 

forbids even a comoensated takine of Dmucrtv when executed 

for no reason other than to confer a privat; benefit on a 

particular private party. A purely private taking could not 

withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it 

would sewe no legitimate purpose of government and would 

thus he void. Rut no purely private taking is involved in 

these cases. The Hawaii Legislature enacted its Land Reform 

Act not to henetit a oarticular class of identifiable individuals 

but to attack certain perceived evils of concentrated 

pmmtiv . . ownershia in Hawaii-a leritimate ~ublic uurwse. 

Use of (he condemnation power to achieve this purpose is not 

irrational. Since we assume for purposes of these appeals 

that the weighty demand of just compensation has ken met, 

the requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 

have been satisfied. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment 

of the Court of Appeals, and remand these cases for tutiher 

pmeeedinga in conformity with this opinion 

~USTlcp. ~~U~HAI.L tWk no pat in the conaideration or 

decision of these cases.

OCT28 - H WAI HOUSING AUTHORITY V. LYMAN 5s 

HAWAII HOVSIVG AUTHORITY. a publlc hod) and s body carp 

raw and pol#rle, fla,ntlff-Appellcr, v RICtl4RD ILYMAV. JR. 

MATSIIOTAK %RCKI. \tYWO% H 1 HO44PSOV. WILLIAMS 

RICHARDSON and HENRY H. PETERS. Tru~tmrof the Ramhameha 

Schoolr;Birhnp Estate, and KAISER HAWAII-KAI 

DEVELOPMENT CO.. a Nevada cormration. KAISER AETNA. 

a Caltfarnm corooratmn and KACOR REAI TY INC afahfor- 

~~ ~. ~ . . ~~ 

nu wrporalwn. I)rfcnd~tltr-4ppcllanlr. and SALE l:M AHUEU. 

CAROl Y AHMEU. DOV(il.AS E A4DFKSOV. A%XF E. 

A\DFHSO\. HHY4.i L AUZAI. JV\F H AYZAI. THOUAS 

T. ARAGAKI. IR .CAROI.Y4\F. K ARAGAKI. HAKOI.L)Z 

ARAKAKI. WALTER K. ASHITOMI, ETHELN. ASHITOMI. 

ADRIAN 0. I*. AU. ANDREA R. AU.GAlL K. F. AU.GRACE 

BARBARA E. BRITOS, RUSSELL S. BROWN. EVELYN L. 

BROWN. WARD B. BROWN. MOSES H. BURROWS. BEA- 

TRICE I: H RI'RKOWS. CYRIIS T P CHI. FAYE A CHI. 

ROAI K I I CHltlAVA. ROSEUAE N CHIBAVA.STEVE\ H 

K CHAVG.TAUUIE C J CIIAVG.WUOY CHIV.1.AI KCFN 

CHIN.CLAREVCE K H CIlIVG.SC\4IKOCI~I%G.UCI WIN 

P. K. CHING. ERIC Y. L. CHING. LAURA L. K. N. CHING. 

ARTHUR L. CHONG, SYLVIA S. I. CHOY. GODWIN C.CHU. 

JULIA C. CHU. STEPHEN M. S. CHUN, GAIL C. CHUN, 

MELVIN H. COCKETT, MICHELLE ANN CDCKEIT. 

DEWEY L. CONNER. PATRICIA CONNER, DAVID 8. 

CRAIG. ALBERT L. DALTON. EDITH C. DALTON. RESUR- 

RECCION 8. DARVAL. WILLIAM C. DECKER, NANCY G. 

DECKER, ROBERTA R. DIAS, RAY G. DIX. DONNA M. DIX, 

SAMUEL N. EISYEN, MARIANNE EISMEN. RICHARD M. 

ELLIS. IR.. SHIZUKO M. ELLIS. RICHARD H. EMERSON. 

CAROL K. EMERSON, MICHAEL M. ESTERBROOK. 

YUMIKO ESTERBROOK. TA KUNG FINE.SHlRLEY H. L. L. 

FINE. SAMUEL S. FOSTER. JR.. CAROLINE T. FOSTER, 

KENNETH K. FUJII, ICHIRO FUKUMOTO, JEAN T. FUKU- 

MOTO, MORRIS M. FURUBAYASHI. MARJORIE T. FURU- 

BAYASHI, KAIZO FURUYA. JUDY M. FURUYA. JAMES A.

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII 68 HAW 

FURUYAMA.LOREEN M .FURUYAMA.EUGENE L. GI!L.FO, 

It. JO CAROL GELPO. FERNANUO J. CiEORCE. NOELIA 

GEORGE. ERICH P.GERHOl.D, MAROARETI>.GERHOI.D. 

UU SHUN GIM. KYUNGNIN Y. GIM. LAWRENCE Y. L. GO. 

SR.. ELLFN M. GO,TAKENORI GOJO.YASUM1 GOJO. KAK- 

KAIA GOI'ALAKRISHNAN. VIJAYAI.EKSHMY GOPAL.AK- 

RISIINAN. JAY P. GUKIAN. JULIA M. GtIKIAN. EOWAKD 

M. HAMADA. ARLEAN N. HAMADA,CAKY S. HANAOKA. 

AMY E. HANAOKA. WAYNE H. HARADA, V1OI.ET It. HA- 

HADA, ROONEY K. HAKAGA..IANES. HARAGA. SAMUEL 

7. HASEGAWA. AMY Y. RASEGAWA, Gl.tiNN M. HASHI- 

MOI'O. CINDY M. HASHIMOI'O. UMEO HASHIRO, 

CAROLE Q. HAS)IIRO, JACK HAWLEY. MARTA HAWLEY. 

SI'ANLEY I. HAYASIII. RUTH K. IIAYASHI. MELVIN J. N. 

IiEli, NAI'IiAI.IE I.. .I. HEE. t:(iMlOHII>ANO.YAEKOHlDA- 

NO. JAMES M. HIGA, MER1.F. N. HIGA. WA1.I.ACE M. 

HIFASHI. EUNICE T. Ill(iASt~1. GARY I. HIRAIWA. 

MARGARET F. tIIRAIWA. AKlRA HIRONAGA. MISAKO 

HIKONAGA,~JAMFS S. tIOI.0TRNESS. ARI)ELI.E S. HOL- 

DERNESS. EDWARD M. HOI.I.ACHEK, OPAL J. HOL- 

LACHER. HARVEY 0. HONI>A, VIRGINIA S. NONDA. 

HORACE H. HONDA. FRIEDA M. HONDA. MATTHEWC. H. 

HONF. KAFHI

50 SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII 68 HAW 

JORlE T. MINATO. CARL H. MITO. PHYI.LIS K. MITO, 

RlCtlARD 1. MITOBE. JEANNETTE E. MITOBE. CALVIN M 

HI1 HA. 10111 S UIIIRA. GAMY I .UIYAIIAI(A. JOAh\I1( 

U \lIYAIlAKI\. HI hKY H hlIYAU01'0. UI *IF S MIYA- 

010, I \ . I h \ l o Y l'AlKl'lA A MO\I)OY. 

1)0il(a1 A\ I hlO\l/,l l \l\k li MO\l/. IAKIOUI RAYA- 

MI, NOBUKO MURAKAMI. ROY H. MIJRAMOTO. KARFN 

K. MURAMOTO. MFLVYN M. MURAOKA. MARI1.YN 14. 

MIIKAOKA. GI 0H(11 hl SALAUA. bKA('t K hAKAUA, 

IIARKY Y VAYAUA.I'AI\Y I hAYAI1A.Stll(il~L;I4AKA- 

MOIO. l~lOUt\('l: K NALAUOIO. CI'SAN S \ALAI((h 

TO. FRANK K. NAKAMUKA. CLARA M. NAKAMURA. 

PAUL H. NAKANELUA, JR.. RAKBARA J. NAKANELIIA, 

THOMAS S. NAKASHIMA. HELEN M. NAKASHIMA, 

RICHARD Y. NAKASONE. SCARLETT S. NAKASONE, 

GERALD P. NAUCHTON.JUNEC. NAUGHTON,ROBBRTA. 

NISHI, ROSFMARY Y. NISHI. DONALD M. NISHIIYE, 

JOYCE A. NISHllYti. GEORGE M. NOJIKI. JUNEDALE K. 

NO.IIRI. NELSON M. NOMI. BEVERLY K. S. NOMI. HER- 

BERT M. NOUCHI. CAROL A. NOUCHI, RICHARD S. NU- 

SHIOA. SHERRY S. NIJSHIDA. JEUN ODA. JUOITH H. 

ODA.CI.IFFORD R.O'DONNELI..AKIRAOGATA. MUTSUE 

I.. OGATA. TOKlO OGAWA. AKIKO OGAWA, RICHARD T. 

OHTA. BARBARA K. OllTA, OWEN OKUMURA. MAKlON 

K. OKIJMUKA. CLIFTON T. ONAGA. ELLEN M. ONAGA, 

WAIUACE T. ONUMA, JANE K. ONUMA. RAYMONI) S. 

OSIIIRO. CARO1. M. OSHIRO, I X L . A. OSMAN. KAY F. 

OSMAN, SUENO OTA. WAYNE S. O'TAKE, JEAN H. OTAKE. 

VIVIAN Y.O'%AKI.GARETP. PA1,SYLVIA E. PAI.SAVlOW. 

H. PANG, CARFSSA Y. M. PANG, ALFONSO J. PASION. 

GRACE II. PASION. TIM L. POELL. LAlJRA W. POFLL. 

RONALD PORTO, BRENDA L. PORTO. ROBERT J. PROC- 

'TOR. ARDITH J. V. PROCTOR. SYED A. RAHIM. MAJEDA 

HAIIIM.PAIRII'IA I KEII.I.Y.MAYIIF.I (I HI /I VI1:\. IH. 

YVONhl: A. RILI NIFS. KAI PI1 S SAI IO. JbAV K SAIIO. 

1III)FKO SALAMOIO. 1IIOMAS S SAKAIA. IIIOIKO 

SAKATA. IlORACl: N. SASAKI. EMMA N SASAKI. ROSA-. 

LINE M. SASAKI. ROY S. SASAKI. LAURA N. SASAKI. 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY v, LYMAN 59 

Sylhbw 

TtRKY T. SATO. HARM) SAW. KICHAKI) C. SIIARPE. 

OlAhA M. SHARPE. YASIIKO I1 S1II:KIIF. RAY\lONI) 11. 

SHIBATA. LILLIAN Y. SHIBATA, FRED H. SHIGEKANE, 

SHARON J. SHIGEKANE. MELVIN E. SHIGETA. JANE K. 

SUEYOSHI. SHARON H. SUEYOSHI. MELVIN K. SUGI- 

HARA. EVELYN C. SUGIHARA. SE MO SUH. YOUNG S. 

SUH, HRlAN N. SUNADA. I.YNETTE C. SUNADA. TSUNEO 

SUNADA. ROSE H. SUNADA. MORlYOSHl SUZUKI. YASU- 

KOSUZUKI, ROBERTL.SWAN. PEARLL.SWAN,ALTON H. 

TAKAHASHI. PAMELA A. TAKAHASHI. HERBERT Y. 

TAKAYAMA, BEVERLY E. TAKAYAMA. JAY M. TANAKA. 

HAZEL M. TANAKA, KATSUKO H. TANG. ROLLAND F. 

TANG. SHIRLEY A. TANG. ROHER1' EllCHl TERIIYA. 

JI'I)I I H S II.'KIIYA. ROHI HT Ll\Hll 11 KIIYA. A1 l('1 A 

I~RUYA. HOLIAL.II M IOKIIA. \AI IY r IokIrA. KIIRO 

R. TOUASA. ClAKA K I' lOUASr\. 111110 IUUIIA. 

I:I.IFA\OK 5 TllUIrA. VI.'l MI\ l

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII 60 HAW 

Sylbbu 

SHIPS 1-10, WE CORPORATIONS 1-10. WE "NON- 

PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10, end WE ENTITIES 1-10. 

DdcmfenB 

NO. 9m6 

APPFAL kROM FIRST ClRCUlTCWURT 

HONORABIL ARTHUR S K tONti, IUDCE 

HONORABLE RONII D B IiREIO. JUIX,E 

(CIVIL NO. 6rnI 

JULY 29.1983 

LUM. CJ. NAKAMIIRA. PAlXsllT IIAVAFIII. 11. 

ANDlNTFllMtlllAlE CUVRTOF APPFALS 

ASSOCIATE IllfX~t IIARRV I TANAKA IN PI ACE OF 

WAKAnUKI. J. UISQIIALICIFD 

EMINENT DOMAIN - ~ rmaJrkhl- pun!,< m. 

unarr tho Hard conwtution. tk swa is wrtd d h ik ti~ht mukc ptimtc 

pwny lor pubk me bul rtmly pnwa :.king nll $14 WY -mitetima1 

pblr uu hw. of tk htgh rrwd roun, mtvl h.m fa dsmon d. madtrve 

Lpnmnl of tk gommmrnl on mttm rllhln IU kwrkdgt ad &ly 

SAME - uu - "m. - lo- - .a"" 

covn. .n b""d by ,k k".l.,um', pbk (ru~mntrn ,,"*-,.I& 

rlOll, .rd P1p.M" d. pn.,. rhl-l 

w r 

SAMF-mr---wr-mw 

hIkk~d.lu~h..~polmonc~*rrlr~~nohsd.alona.ltkrurrlx 

d ikemrm dmvm prv r nlso~lly nbld lo~koblatnmughl.th k#uC 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY u. LYMAN 61 

SAME - xlme - ,ern - xrmr - m. 

lf6omcomr.bkpblkbnrfil~~brmtvrd.rh.tbM~rdh.ah.pnne 

,nn,.c,ion M Y k mYd I0 . PUbh. .(I. 

CONsTlTuTlONAL LAW - hIrh,fvmnnmu -p"-pr& q(m~1fmhA 

EMINENT WMAIN - rommmon - luriwnrs efna~~wr provuuu 

Tk sonrlwmwul rmunrncnt th.l5uu corn-"on" k pnt fur eandcmd 

WDBrty ir nM nolaced vhrrt ik An prorntn ih.c eomwuon k pard fa ikfltr 

m.rlic, r.Ilr0f lkorrr.ikuo.'%-Y.ud fcr,",rml.-mNIrkrr,kownrr,iruor. 

.Iluwcd lo prrwlsrldcna ollvhv.lurur,n~.ny m~lhodounnslly uwd byqwhid 

.pp,s,wr 

EVIDENCE - rckuemr m grmd Wkrrthowncrlkr inlroddrr~md~kr$au%dukpnoof-in 

rrudcnlzll kswhold 1s"dl.I comp.r.blnto kd lorrllrtkpr~ny inthcluu. 

,I r.~rithm ihcaund dtwsua dlhr tnslcounlondm&lihr rrbululte~imay of 

.n *Itorrry who rn involvd m the ncgol,.lrd ukl. 

SAME - c spn irvtm8onv - ddmrrdw orhrrm PPY', qmIY1Ircwt. 

Tk ,.,.I Ec."" dld "a( rbuw is d,ur.r,on "I rr1,,ang to 4mit into mdma. 

pmmw 01 sn appmiul rrpon prrpred by opmm8 may in connrtim onth 

p"lrUI Nytutica,.


. A jndsmee in bnd 

opinion or t* Cov" 

R&m M rondmnniaa +iy i m* pni.1, 

.kh~#h it lum vnradraf s crasshim lor. ponion dlh~hmlvtihn.*.d. 

SAME - rrny -- wme. 

A mvrt M& an ih OW mio.. anifye cum pmmt to HRCP Ruk Wb). 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LUM, C.J. 

This u an appeal from s judgment in condemnation proceedings 

involving residcntial leasehold lands brought by the Hawaii Housing 

Authority under Hawail Revised Statute%. Chapter 516, a codification 

ol the Hawaii Land Reform Act.' Thc Trustees of the Bernice Pauahi 

Bishoo Estate. as Aoocllant~. . . challen!ze thtconstilutionalilvoflhe Act 

on lhc &rounds lhsl 11 allow lalmgol thclr prvprty for prwatc rather 

lhdn publac urr and thrt lhcy ucrc drnlrd pa rumpcnratmn Kswr 

ItaurwKs6 lkvrlupmrnt Co. KaMr A~lnasnd Karor Kcally. Inc .the 

properly developen. separately appeal from lhc rrmc judgment lo the 

crlcnt that it nflccts lheir contractual inlerc$t in thc condemnation 

prods and from a lsttr order denying a motion toslter or amend thc 

judgment.' For the reasons rct forlh below, wc affirm the rulings olthe 

lowel. courl. 

The nnctcnl Hawsmn land tcnurr sywrm was nrcntmlly feudal in 

nature and drvatd of the mlruvrly rnodrrnconapt of pwalc prapcny 

ornrnhlp I he pattrrn of land dwsm~ parollrkd lhesocwal hmrarchy 

80 that ~utharity and mntrol owr lhc land mled with a companliv~ 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LYMAN 63 

qunm d t h Covn 

lew.1 Beginning in thc l8Ws, cifonr were made to adjust land rights to 

new rrtationrhips and dcpendenckr largely brought sbout by watcrn 

influences. While dramatic land divi~ion. were dfccluatcd nnda syrcem 

of fa simple ownership in~tiluted, for a number of soei~conomie 

reasons land remained vnld in a minority. Secpnerofly J. Chinen. 77w 

Freer Mohrle (1950): Lcvy. Native Howdon h d Rl8hlz. 63 Calif. L. 

Rev. 848 (1975). 

This disproponional concentration of land nwncnhip continua 

today. Aflcr a comprehensive investigation. the legirlsture determined 

that at kart three-founhs ol all the privately held land in the statc is 

currently owned by a small pup of cststn. trusts. and primc landownen, 

some of whom have chosen lo kale their land for midcntial 

urcrather than loscll it. Act307.# 1.1%1 Haw. Seas. Lnwrd88.489: In 

extcnsiw findings, the legirlatufc caneluded that thin concentrated id 

ownemhip was responsible for skewing the aalc% residential lee simple

. . . . . . . . . . ... 

14 Lay ol dn pull dew .(9~61) OC~IS 4 S ~ -kexldds H 1uau.1 

w!J!lenh 01 WllP Puq aql IW ~IUI VHH -1 'all!& Su!~!nb?a 3lIJV 

-uap!sas 341 $0 I~JSUBII ivanhasqns pue uo!lruur~pum aq) LOJ Butp!m'd 

'(IW aqt *.IJBUI~~) 91s ia1dwq3 S ~ *13v H wmpn 'pun ymEH 

aql PwRUa 1961 UI a~nlelP!9al a41 'swa~qoid mql 6pmu OL 

('aJeJ134. 3!1qnd lyl ~U!IO(U! PUB '63~!~d puel BU!I~UU! 'P~JBLU

nnPln an ~lfqnd *I jo I((IIINJE 3(11 ~sssed IJV 

WI 18q1 apntwo:, pue aamap am splepuels atqmtdda aq~ rapun .asn 

awnd uaql ln(lsr atanud Apawud rat ilafiod UOII~UUISPVO~ . . 

131811 

WI jo %!31W1 ,smoilni!Isuomn 3q1 q!wixi .q3ns EB sPnP Jil 

qnd yqe!ludda ua lnoql!n waunopuel alSh!ld 38Jells36!p 01 ldwgie 

pal!% 61u!q1 s q wv aq~ pua~uoa wtrnll y~ ~UO!I~I!ISUO~ !!WPH 

+I JO OZ Uo!l~?s 'I olqus jo rurrua~!nbaJ .m xlqnd, aql eae(o!n 

wV wrojan purl !!smaH 1111 Jaq8aqm jo ansq aq~ lug ~P!OUOJ ZM

!!e*VH 3q.L 6ZCZ I0 'PI PISlXAOd YXlod s.u8!2JaAO% t JD aoJs ql ql!m snou!w~~lo~,sl asnel~ sm wqnd 9ql leql naq 6lpeolq '(~~61)9t 

'Sn 8~ 'ra~md '6 uowia~ uo 8u1Lp~ 'uno3 aq~ 'mqj '62-8~~2 la 

'venalail! E! P~IUIU! F! u!ewop IUJUIIU~ teqi PPJ aqt !srumt aA!rnpuoJ 

qs!u-llan U! puepap uwq sreq lsmlu! wqnd aq1 '0% uop %utneq 

'pun pua tsqr myqm or a p q 941 ~ tqs~ ot pxarnodw q I! 'Lrpoqms 

s.mntrls!BaI aql u!qt!a s! p~qrqdruone aq 01 wlyo aqt re Sue( ry 

'uejlam ?lwnd 2q1 %us 01 par!%amaq L~UI hluoqtnu aqtelE!aq qqm 

qSnorql sueam B Alaatu s! 'l%od qod 2q1 3x11 'U!VUIQP iltau!ws lo 

rmod 5111 rnqt paulruzatap 11 o , ~ ~ 3s" ~ wqnd ~ n uo ~ 6i!~suo!inr!gsuo~ 

~ 8 

E,I~V aqi ploqdn Lfmou!ueun una3 aq) 'usq~ iuo!rrn~s!p >no 01

.. .. 

a ~ plno, q hlqeuursal rlnlslrJ2l 2111 'i(lml> dlodudtlo pun1 s ju 

sllu ~lruuuos pue lalwr panla~la4 31 SuusneJ Aq am qqnJ P 3 ~ 3 . 

'occz re 'mdns '//~~P!Iv 

'a .fIlIovmv Su!sIIoH !!vmo~ 're08 ?on qqnd aql ~E!I~IUOJJB plnon 

uaaod UO!IBYU~~PUOJI.UI)!JI~AOT iqi JO uo!~n!ldda 18q1 pa~qaq a~sq 

PlnoJ AIIWJO!~ I! ~aqtaqfi pur '6~ IB .p! 'qqnd an =yl I~P!SUOJ Alqe 

IL NVIYA1 'a UI8OHLflV ONlSnOH IIVMVH

n SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII ~1 HAW 

public use clause." 

OpinMn 01 th. COM 

The Trustees furthcr contend thcy wcrcdcnicd*juslcompcnralion." 

as rcqumd by the fcderal and statc constitutions, for their intcrcstr in 

the condemned oarcels. Thcvaruuc. first. that the orovisionrof the Act 

they argue that anain procedural and cvidcntiary rulings made by thc 

trial coun resulted in lheir mcciving lcsa than just compensation. 

Finally. they erguc that thc trial coun'r decision thal intcrcst on the 

mmpen~ation sward&-also known asUblight of summoluXdamagn 

-muat be limited to tho mte of live pcrrrnt, deprivn them of jut 

compensation. 

'Thc Act provides for tho eondcmnation ol the"1eased ice interests* 

in thc hou~lot~, and 'leased fee interest" is defined as"al1 oftht interests 

of the fee owner, lessor and all legal and cqumblc ownen of thc land 

which is kascd, other than the lcrree'a mlercst as defined by this chapla." 

HRSP 516.1(6) (1976). The Act further provides that"(tlkcompensstion 

to be paid for the leased fee interest . . .shall be the owner's 

basis ar delincd in section 516-1f14)." HRSS 516.24fSuon. I984Land 

provide the lessor with just compen~ation for his interest in the lot and 

shall lake into consideration every inlercrt and equity of the ltsrcc in 

c~tablishincthat markct value." HKSS 516.III4)lSuao. . . 19841. Section 

116l(141 gws on to statc that the valuc of lhc lead In: lntcrcll may he 

drlrrm~ncd by rtthcr of Iru$peafird mrthodr or by 'any othcr mcthod 

wh~h IS normally uud by qual6tcd apprancrs tn cstabltshmg the far 

market value of a ltssor'a kawd fee intercst in land." 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORIN v. LYMAN 13 

0pini.o d ih. C," 

The Trust~s have not dcmon~lrmd that the slslulory provisionr 

deprive them of just compensation. They fail to show that their intcnrt 

in the land is greater than 1hc"Ieared fee i1crmt"asdefined in the Aa. 

With regard to valuation methods. neither pny alumpled lousecithcr 

of the twomethodsspecii~edin§ Slbl(14), therefore wcnced not decide 

whether those methods would have orovided iurt comnensation. noth 

contend thal they were prevenlcd from introducing valuation evidence 

according lo the mcthod of their choice, nordo thcv contend that the 

8. 

The Trurtees contend that the Lcswes should not have be." a nanv 

the valuc of thc interells being taken. and this obligation was not 

fullilled where the HHA failed to present valuation rvrclrnet from its 

own experts but rather relied on the le~timony of crpenr hi& by the 

Leswni. 

In I983 the tcgialature amended the Act lo makc explicit that the 

teuees rhall be a pany to proceedings under the Act and that thcy must 

he given thc appanunity to pmnt valuation evidence. HRS 5 516.56 

(Supp. 1984). This case, however, wss tried prior to this amendment to 

the Act. The issue. therefore. is whether is was aronsr for the trial mun 

domain proaedings generally. my% that: 

Any person in occupation of or having any claim or intern1 in any 

properly sought lo he condemned or in the damqcs for thc taking 

thcrcof though not named in thecomplaint, may appear, pkad,snd 

defend in rtsmt to his own lrraoenv . . . or interest. in like msnnerasif 

named in she camplaint. 

Tbua we find it vsa welt within the trial cwsl'% d i i o n lo allow the 

Lesser to appcar as pnia herein.

*Psw rl plnon 'wolj pa~w.Xld= 1u~8pniw1 u! palm1 nunows 191 uo 

tcualu! JO piens u1 IWI WOJ I~UI y~ /q pa~qdwa~m~a I11uapy IW 

11 'Irualu!Jo Plb'~Wbu81oj uo!s!nozd ou uxsw ~nq 'pauwrpuoa Su!y 

ml wi JU wn lot ,traalu! =J peat, a111 10 ~ IIBA a91 sty ~uaiu%pn( 

lsW.'(qkSal*8 d3UH 01 tusnsindno!ha~ojpay!u;avenq>!qn 'C861 

'a ~aq~~atdas uo p31Ua tuawPpfir s UKUJ uqq E B pddv ~ i!q~ 

'xn alojx, plom =ql jo WIE 391 U ~A@ '~YIII ~uwatd 

y11S yo!~sanb c!qI aPJJql01 Za~aaoq '111e13nta ale 1~ .uo!lesudwoa 

lsn!o~lqSu~auo!~nl!lsu~~~!a~l~~I~!uap~s!~u~~~~d 

~ALI 01 frww! qms 

JOUO!I~I!UI!I 3ql IwSu!nBm'~ap~o IB~I ISXI~BOI idwwe nou S~~IFNL 

WL 'Ud"E "03 IU%ilS+%UI P>PUOU 'A "f"lOl4OH 10 drun03 p 6I!J 

u! uo!r!=p $no pua 'ic-101 pus $L.IOI §§ snH 01 lumwnd 'lumrad 

y 10 alw aqt IS p!ed y 16nw IWW! q~ns /ue 1841 p q uno~ ~ ~ aqt 

I~JJ~UI 'UQ!lOW ~~lI)u!6~~p'Z861 '61 iy9o1y) uoi?plo ue pqy imo3 

w(1 '2861 '02 ~aqura~das "0 UO!lOtu iql "0 Suuslq e l$lJV 'pa,%!'" 

E! tuawded [In] ~IBP 9111 1!1un uo!~suS!sap JO w p ?ql uolj paems 

uo!leuw~Puoa aqt lo tuawi(sd u! .&lap YI 20j S%mep ilu!mdwoa 

u! Pam y 01 pa!Id Bu!punodwo~ pus ale2 l~mtu! ols!>do~dde ?q~ 

q*!lqvlfUOl ~aP!~31Uxa1d 01 paaolle y ptnoqs 6391 ley1 wu 01 "no* 

?I pa888 bWl qYI& U! IVl 01 loud uO!low 8 pa~y ngstu~ aql 

'3

16 SUPREME COURT OF HAWAU MI HAW 

aRcr the disposition of this appeal. Although it might nevertheln. be 

wraiblc for us la micw et this time the decision of thc trialcourt thst 

any inmmt swarded wll hr hmjtrd to lwe percxnt, x. dcrlmr the 

mwlalnon. We thank it prrlrrabk thrl an oppelbtr court dccldc that 

&sue on a w r d thst includes a compkte treatment of the Might of 

rummom issue. We therefore mewe our decision on this issue until 

~ c lime h ar it is properly prucnted on appsl. 

~efcndants Kairct Hawaii-Kai Devclopmcnt Co., Kaiwr Aelna and 

Kawr Realty, Inc., (hcreinafier eollectivcly Kaisn) appcpl from the 

judgment tnteml Scpfemher 29, 1983, Kaiser was named as a Delcn- 

dent in fhccminentdomain action inttialed bvthe HHAalon~withthe 

" 

Tmrtm. thc camplamt scckmg rrrdutwn of all clams tu the subject 

propcny and to thc mmpcnsat!un and damage swarded. Kamr crasscls~med 

agaonrt the rrurlcrr for a *hare ol thc condcmnatwn award. 

Kaiaet had acted as dsveloper of the Kamilaiki tract, and pursuant to 

the terms ofits devdopmeniagrecmcnt with thcTrwtnes, Ka*crallcgcd 

that it was entitled to a portion of any such proceeds. 

&fore trial. the martip and thc ... iudae axrcrd inchamherstowDsrale 

Kamcr'r erwdatm (ram thc cundcmnalmn pructcdlng on pubic uw 

and valuat8on rhc Ordct appealed from hold$ that tlc taklnl IS for I 

pmblic ur and assigns values lo the individual lots. It statesthat thereis 

no just reason for delay and directs entry oljudgment on these issun," 

Kaiser asserts that the failure of the trial coun lo Nk on its crossclaim 

aeaina ~~- the Trustees rendered the . iud~mcnt " on valuation ~anial, 

and thercforc nM nplxalable. Our review ol the record eonvim us. 

however, that the trial wurt committed no error in anifying its judgrnCRt. 

KairZs argument flies in the fraofa plain ding of HRCP Rule 

Wb), which provide,: 

(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Partin. 

When more than one claim for relief is pnaenled in an action. 

whether us claim. countmehim, crosbelaim, orthird-p.ny claim, 

a when multipk panin am inro)m(. the court mrry dkcf lhrcnfry 

"Whrk na apdkaly nhmn( lo HRCP Ruk %bI. Ur csprrr&lcahU*~~ 

rraM tn t h hdn m d ; tb he- dlhl Rukb ngvlmnrntr 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LYMAN 77 

wnia or the CW~ 

o/e~in(~i~m~.nr 0s 10 om or mom bur/wer rhn oll~)/~hr ckrims 

orporfies only upon an expms determination that there is no just 

nuson for delay and upan an express direction for the entry of 

judgncnt. (Emphasis added.) 

The fan that no ruling was made on the crosselaim, therefore, is 

entirely within theurntemplation oithe~k, withitslsnguagdimtina 

~Udgment as to 'lcwcr than &I1 of the claim." 

It is true. a% Kaiser points out, thal whik HRCP Rule %(b) pmiu 

the entry of judgmcot on one of scvcrrl claim, the claim it=# must he 

fully adjudicated. Kaiser alkger thal the valuation judgment is mcrelp 

mnial. bceauw it leaves aim the iuucr of who will be liable to em the 

condcmnallun axsrd. thc panm to rhom hl must k pad and vhcn it 

w~ll be paid Katur's cnutlcmcnt to a punm of thr prcxcedl ras also 

not ddermined. 

As the HHA mots. howevn: the Rnt thm of these elements ass 

d~elatcd by \latutc. Thc statute. in HRS 6 516-21 (1976) rrfcrcna. thc 

%tstutory cmlntnt domam mlwns, whtrh prowdr for paynvnl by the 

pla#nl#ll. HKS 8 101-25 (19761. The t~nd Hrfo~m Ad wction on 

compensation itscli reicn to"compensa1ion paid by the Hawaii houaing 

authority." HRS g 516-26 (1976). Rcgardlers of thc HHA's uttimare 

soum far these funds, by statute the HHA as plaintiffcondemnor will 

be the party bearing liability, if any, for thc award, 

Similsrly, the itatulc provide for the identity ofthe recipient oflhe 

award: 

Inremsf in carnoensarion odd 6v ik ourhnrirv. The fee owner. 

kror. and all lcgsl andcquntablt ownm shall sham in thc campenkluon 

pzed by ihr tlsuan hou,,ng ruthonly as thor nnpcrtl~ 

interests appear. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in any 

contract or kaw, a devslopr ar other person cntitkd to sharein the 

kav rentah shall share in suchcompnsalion paid by thcauthority 

to the enlent of his interest as may he dcremincd by agrnnent of 

thoseentitlcd toshare in themmpnsation paid by thcaulhority,or 

in thc sbvnce of such agmmcnt, pursuant to chsplcr 658. 

HRS 51626 (1976). 

Kakh rights to my p r d r of the award ncecmrily derh ffm 

thmr of the Trutm, $nee such rights, if they do exist, stem from.the 

development agmment contract. Kaiser d m nM aIren an quibbk 

interest in thc subject pards, but its rights punusnt to thi%dacumcnt. 

Therefon, white the T ~ r t may m ultimately be liable to Kairr punu-


have to be resolved later. 

Finally. the time of payment is provided for by statute. HRS 8 101- 

25 (19761 provides for payment within two years after final judgment. 

Similarly. the judgment is not panial although it leaves unresolved 

the apponianmcnt between Kaiser and the Trustees. Kaiser", rights to 

such nroccrds. if anv. will derive from the devcloomenl aweemel. 

condemnation award while acrorrslaim considering the Truslnr'sduty 

lo pay Kaiser s shrrc war pending. The cross-claim =maim Kaiser's 

whiclc for determining its sham of the award. 

In addition, we find no merit in Xaiser.saPcgation that thetrial coun 

absued its discretion in granting the Rule Wb) cenifiration. The trial 

court is vested with discretion lo cen~fv a claim under Ruk 54b)after 

court may no1 certify a non-final claim, it may in its discretion anify 

fcwerthan all claims in a multiple claims or parties situation. Sears. 

Roebuck & Co. v. Mackqv. 351 US. 421,437 (1956). 

This discretion was nor abused in this casc. Notwithaunding KaC 

aer's arguments. additional piecemeal litigation would not mutt from 

anificalion, since the TrusteelKaiser claim was an entirely separate 

matter from the merits of the valuation claim. The agrccmcnt of the 

panin in a sense contemplated adjudication in pieces, since the crossclaim 

was bifwcated from thc valuation proceeding. Its resolution 

would turn not on the is$"" raised sl the valuation proceeding, but 

upon interpretation of thc dcvclapment agreement. 

Kaiser's argumcnl that the trial coun erred in not eomidering its 

inlcmt in the Ittigation is fallacious. By its oun representation made by 

counscl in chambers. Kniwr had no intcrcsl in paniripating in the 

~lualion ponion of thc prming. Similarly. Kaiser's srlsck on lhc 

attifcstion procedure b unwailin& The eoun's powcrloanify suchs 

cUm under Ruk Wb> rrmv he invoked on motion of s oenv. bv 

HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY V. LYMAN 79 

(yiniw d Ik Cant 

on its own motion. 6 Moore's Frdrr.lPlorrirt. 154.4l[Jlat 74243(2nd 

ed. 1976). 

As sgamslthr Trurtrr'schallcngr. wc uphold thcconrt~tutmnsloty of 

thc Hauatt I and Rcform An under lhc puhltc ulc and psi compcnratoon 

clausrs ol andc I. Krtm 20 ol t k llavan~ Cuntt~tut~cm and ihc 

just cornwnlalion clause or the hflh amndrnml to the United Stam 

Constitution. Appellant Kaisrr'sappeal~onnrningaltegaferronintbe 

lower court'% condemnation award is di~mirsed Pa being without merit. 

The judgmcnt of the trial cow is affirmed 

Clinton R. Arh/ord( Wavnr Nmer. Rotrmor.~ T Foiioand PdS. Aoki with him on the briefs: Ashford & Wrirrun, d counsel) lor 

Appcllaas Tmrtm. 

Mirharl A. Lillv. Attorney Gneral. (Sonia Fowr, Trrrrncr Ynmp 

mom. Peter L Yee. Deputy AltorneysGencrsl.wilh himontheanzvering 

brief filed on 1/3/85) for Appellee Hawaii Housing Authority. 

Dennis E. W. OConor (Jerrold K. Cuhm and ntmdowc Y. UWIO 

with him on the briefs: Hnddick Reinwald. O'Connor k Marrack. of 

counsel) for Appcllnn Lessees. 

On the Briefr: 

R. Chorlrf Bocken end Heidi M. Rim (Domom, KC". Char A 

Bocken of counscl) for Appellanl. Kaiser Hawaii-Kai Devclopmmt 

Co.. Kaiscr Aelna and Kacor Realty. Inc. 

Dokid H. C#st and James M. Cribley (Cam Ko!. A Lywh, of 

caunrl) for amici Nriac Queen Litiuokalsni T ~at, King Lunalilo 

Tnrrl. Alu Like, Inc.. and Aruaialion of Hawaiian Civk Clubs. 

RK. &USI Keppler for amicus curiae Thc Offim of Hswaiisn 

Affain.

Appendix C 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF HOLDERS OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE 

TO LANDS BENEATH LEASEHOLD CONDOMINIUM UNITS 

County Tax Assessment Records - Summer 1986 

FIRST CWNEX 

A C LYAU CO LTO 

A F c E A K ~ ~ TR E EST N 

11 A H EOTERVRISES 

ABC LiIjUQi ifiSL0 INC 

-:LADLUS FLCYE G ETAL 

* &DM:< SF VETEQAYS AFFAIRS 

1 AHNtcROYMA:tY!4 

*)(&%ELLEN C ETAL 

AHIN^ IN^ THOt4LSINh TR EST tTL 

*i AKANA WbYNE K ETAL 

+i__*KlN VEE LTD 

AKIIAMA HINCRU/GRACE S 

ALA dAI RANSICN XNC 

---ALA$cL% KAuAL~NVSTHNTS 

ALCANTLRA RU5:N R 

ALtGKc FRANC C SR TRUST ETAL 

BthSCV EISINt TRUST 

ALII VILL4S 

" AHTRCDDFHIINC TRUSTkE 

* AH TWST cc OF ni rhc TRS 

CC CF WA*bIl INC TRS 

rWiRiCkh IbiViVtST CO LTO 

SVbS C LN ASSCC 

" hNt*IChN TR C3 OF HI IXC TRS 

AWEhiChN TR CF1 DF U I INC TRS 

A*c~~?!V~I&UST Cw!2QlP24 

J ' ~ ; R I < A N TRUST co HI INC TRS 

AMtXiChN TRUST CO OF HI TRS 

AHFLC UEV CCKP XTAL 

" AUFAC INC 

0 

AUIYA SELMA 

AN~~ASON LIAJI3 C ET AL ANGrkSijN DAVID GNEAhNf 

TMK # DF UNITS ISLAND 

27003023 1 1 

2 eo-1x2 7 26 4 

34C08044 3 2 

26020069 3 9 1 

ZhO2lOll 228 1 

94005028 1 1 

23023006 1 1 

2&0=02 6 32 1 

24C23033 1 1 

23021029 1 1 

24CG33 122 1 

24029626 I 1 

26015009 33 1 

75004PZl . 95 3 

23021028 1. 1 

4300202 1 1 2 

54012408 1 4 

75021007 12 3 

27035034 185 1 

Z_ZCO~BIO 42 1 

27035034 1 1 

24023013 49 1 

L6235940 33 1 

280120L,1 1 1 

7301201* 62 1 

1 3 

i6015013 14 1 

77015069 18 3 

24CMQO7 67 1 

44006011 11 2 

440CB002 1 2 

43002019 ~1 

54012002 3 4 

INSTRUHENT 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

b 

L 

L 

I 

L 

L 

I 

L 

L 

L 

O.; ANbERSCN JLLI?INE A E4C05003 

"I - ANDCKSDN . . - ---- JEANNE A F401200_2 

AN3hfH JAMES i', EThL 41006063 

*. A~GuTAS OCROTnY S TRS ETAL 16006036 

3 

9 8040lWZ 

AUht HL)Y#ASi EST 44C01052 

*~.~OII.BC_Z&~~D R/ETHEL S ?-?.G45p13 

m APU GiGQGz iTAL 43C06014 

* ARFZAXI JASON I 73012014 

11 ARlrtrKI TSUYtf 230x36 

* rxn ~ATfiLlNG O:Cril/ERNESTINE 2 1019014 

"!A.SJl APT JU"

AUSTIN PLALC ASSOCIATES ETAL 21012006 1 1 L 

AUYCNG ELSIE L ETAL TR 16006n36 120 I L 

hV0.4 IYC TtX INC C NnK~web 69003019 27 3 L 

I AViRY CLiCE 0 TR ETAL 4600;007 181 2 L 

, B P MiStcDD EST 39008009 1 1 L 

B P BISHOP 1% EST 96003053 22 1 L 

BACLAdSKl &NN 23021028 1 1 L 

BALI LAY0 CDRP 11062024 297 1 L 

BALS;~ Lnu:s WANNABEL L 23019061 1 1 L 

, - --5 ah;:~~~-~j1.ggtI~~c~~~ llObOOf1 1 1 L 

ei; BANS~AS LIFE INS co OF NEB 1lot.0011 22 1 L 

' BAME.IS LIFE INS C@ OF NEBR 110_6COl 1 324 1 L 

:: OkNllCIH CURP 2101200h 15 1 L 

I) BA~YESON J ~ L N TRUST 44ooeooz 1 2 L 

. . BARtlrlILL-AUDLEY VMhRCgLLrp 9 26024024 - _ 

-. 1 1 L 

, BAT15 RJbERT LlJtZEBEL K 75C2GO03 7 3 L 

6': BtCOihAH~ CAilOL A 36013003 1 2 L 

mi -- 6Eh:JtTT MAUtiAktT C ETAL 230054 28 1 L 

" BEht* CfllSfl TkS 39035013 1 1 L 

' BERSEU GtKTRUUE F ETAL 44001033 83 2 L 

3SRhARO PARSiR 73@.0z 2 1 3 

" ~ L - S L ~ N S SERVIC t BUICK 

.)j BIL~c?00hi JGHN C ETAL 

42G01028 

38014004 

1 

2 

2 

L 

L 

SLI~nu 

n 

PUGUST P TRUST 

BIS~UP B P EST 

262g04 

35~2w-m 

36 

43 

1 

I 

L 

L 

8' 

" 

J ~ 

" 

BISt!f?OPEST 

BIL!iDP B P EST 

~ % @M P D EST 

BISHOP 8 P EST 

66C02034 

46(rGL03 5 

46002036 

46002037 

20 

11 

24 

32 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

"j BISHOP b P EST 

a 81>*3? b P EST 

0' BISHPP B P EST 

. . . BILWP . . . - - - B - P EST . 

B1SnSD M P EST TWSTiiS 

9 1 BIStiCP b P EST TRUSTEiS 

''R~SFIUP R P TR EST 

BlbHOP B P TR EST 

0' BISHCP 9 P TR EST 

BS-ICP 3 P TR EST 

"D B P TR EST 

BI$43P B P TR EST 

4ao~o.~ 8 

98onin3* 

98002035 

9bOCZ(r39 

40051022 

9e059~03 

15x001 

15Ci6014 

15C26017 

1 IUi60_90 

1502701 8 

15027042 

16002090 

ZlCiaOlb 

43 

60 

65 

64 

192 

139 

6 6 

69 

48 

8 1 

147 

59 

144 

12 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

0; BIStlCP B P TR EST 23016017 176 1 L 

B X U ? 3 P TR EST 23k&C1_24 2 2 1 L 

23918023 92 1 L 

BISHCP B P TR EST 23019006 67 1 L 

2= 7 125 1 L 

BIW~PBPT~EST 27016002 51 1 L 

BILHCP B P TR EST 27016006 45 1 L 

9: -.- -. BlLYdP . - - B P TR E_ST 

2701.~k32 30 1 L 

' 1 BlSnDP B P TR EST 28006060 25 1 L 

" BIJHOD 0 P TR EST 35016016 87 1 L 

h ! S H O P B P TR tST 3_5017004 4 

I) BlSrKIP B P TR EST 35017018 2 14 1 L 

BISneP 8 P TR ESl 35017029 67 1 L 

Y B~ZHJ? M P TR EST 35017035 181 1 L 

BIS~DP M P TR EST 35023002 194 1 L 

6' BISHOP B P TR EST 35C24009 94 1 L 

BISHOP R P TR EST 39ncteo1-14 124 I L 

* 

L

0 

2 ' 

1 

-1 

-8' 

BZSHCP B P TR EST 

BISHJP B P TR EST 

BISnC@ B D TR EST 

BISHOP B P Ti7 EST 

BISrrOP B P TR EST 


Bl>HlP B P 14 EST 

81.5hOP B P TR EST 

%CP ---- 6 P TR EST 

BISHOP B P TR EST 


39OOBCO 3 

39008009 

39029076 

39030050 

39030051 

39030052 

3903C053 

39030065 

3 9 

39034001 

39034002 

~ 

90 

201 

64 

3 

8 

6 

2 

37 

1 

6 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

Z 

1 

L 

? . 

I! B G V J ? 9 P TR EST 390.%CC47 6 

" BISrI3D B P TR EST 3903404P 4 

I?. 

BI5HuP 3 P TR EST 351034049 4 

~ - 01 $13- P TR EST 39Q34010 

4 

. BISHOP B P Tk EST 39034051 4 

- 1 BISH3P B P TS EST 39034052 26 

"j BlSYOP 3 P TR EST 39034055 6 

" BI5nCP B P TR EST 39034056 2 

. -I BISHu? 3 P TR EST 39034057 4 

I BISnY a D TR EST 39031-;059 54 

erO~~%~ 3 P 7R EST 39034064 61 

BISHOP 0 P TR EST 39035004 6 

"1 BISYPP B P TR EST 3903a95 2 

n BISWP R P TR EST 39035G06 8 

-' BlSnOP B P TR EST 39035007 19 

----- 31 SHLP 3 P TR EST 330SQCq 

I.? 

BISHOP % P TR EST 39035010 6 

-'I BI$HOP B P TR EST 39035011 11 

"~A~HcP 

B P TB ST 39031U 74 

SIIHuP B P TR EST 3U035013 125 

* BISeUm B P TR EST 39035016 38 

_ B?.C%2%LPTRlST 2 4 0 3 8 C 0 5 L 5 

BISHJP B P TR EST 1f907nooi 14s 

*,' , BISYJP B P TR EST 39070002 111 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

I 

L 

L 

L 

L 

' 

i__WSHSP B P TR EST 

Y BIS",a? 0 P TR &ST 

*> 81 5H30 B 0 TR EST 

Y SILnnP e P TU-ST 

"-BISHOD B P TR EST 

! B1SIOP 9 P TR EST 

n l j SISH?? 3 P TR EST 

* B I S ~ ~ d P P TR EST 

*, ~ISHCP a P ra EST 

BILH$D 8 P TR EST 

u ~ ~ x B C P TR ~ EST c ~ 

*' BISq3P B P TR EST 

aL1lsiw 3 P ra E n 

* B1:HJP a P TR EST 

* BISllOP 0 TR EST 

" --- 01 Xicp!b-*-I.LST 

:a ! 

BIkIGP 9 P TR EST 

a-1 BI>tiO? B P TR EST 

s3 L.r-sr(':.~ b P TR EST 

u BISYuP B P TR EST 

0: B~SHC* a P TK EST 

39C70003 

3Y070004 

39070006 

39070007 

39070no8 

46001055 

460C1056 

66002032 

4600~03~ 

46002&0 

46002058 

46017050 

4603 lQ10 

46031019 

960030*0 

9_00€3P52 

96003053 

96003054 

9 EDOZ-Q~R 

98002044 

PBOOSOCP 

132 

42 0 

114 

2 e 

46 

28 

13 

34 

58 

2 

20 

1 

66 

122 

32 

27 

14 

25 

e~ 

24 

36 

I L 

1 L 

1 L 

1 L 

L L 

1 L 

1 L 

1 L 

I L 

1 L 

1 L 

I L 

1 L 

1 L 

I L 

L 

1 

1 L 

1 L 

1 L 

1 L 

1 L 

Bl.&H~Op 3 P TS-Ex 

" 7 6 1 2 B ~ P ~ TQ EST 

'"'I BIWOPBPTRtST 

Y BISHOP 6 P TR EST 

I 

98CIl041 

98nl1048 

48011049 

96011050 

119 

37 

124 

93 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L

Bl5nOD 8 P TR EST 98011052 91 1 L 

BILHOP B P TR EST 58012054 204 1 L 

BISWD B P TR EST 98012079 41 5 1 L 

BI'riUV B P TR EST 

'/B1;YOP B P TR EST 

98014009 39 1 L 

98014016 42 1 L 

98014017 27 1 L 

58014027 42 1 L 

BISHUP Y P TR EST 98030053 300 1 L 

BISHOP a P TR EST 9 8 0 3 ~ 1 141 1 L 

: BISHOP B P TR EST 98039002 367 1 L 

BISYOP B P TR EST 9803900~ 88 1 L 

r d s w P B P TR EST +8=009 300 1 L 

3 BISHOP 6 P TR EST 58039012 43 1 L 

BIlHD? 6 P TR EST 98040002 111 1 L 

. .. B? j!OP2PTR .EST_- 9~w~nn6 92 1 L 

., BISHCP B P TR EST 9EOf90Ol 107 1 L 

0': BILYL?? b P TR EST 98059002 113 1 L 

"i bISHUP d P TR EST 9$eY_003 37 1 L 

BIXDP B P TK EST 98059005 113 1 L 

' 5ISHQP 8 P TK EST 5805Y007 1 1 L 

BlhruP 8 P TR EST S9059008 11-15 1 L 

'1 BISHCP B P TR EST 98059023 103 1 L 

' BISI(0P 8 P TR EST 99064025 63 1 L 

1 BIhWP B P TR EST ETAL 4601:002 115 1 L 

" BISnLP 6 P TKS EST 42002016 135 1 L 

li' BISdDP B P TKS EST 46017050 12 1 L 

a bj5tiCP 3 P TRS EST **.21011 00 1 L 

"IBISUEP 

B P TRS EST 46031016 105 1 L

- BRAY 1NVESTM;NTS LTO 26020069 1 1 L 

BKi

a - 

'' 

CHnrJG FRED Y W ETA1 

CHPNL N S INC 

CUA@MAV J n h ~ L 

CHAS tfILLIAM K 

CHiS: ELLEN C ETAL 

23n21023 

24013015 

75018012 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

3 

- 

L 

L 

L 

~ 7 5 0 1 8 

CnEE UJLLIAY K MIYAY c 

0' CHIUNS VALILNT K P 

' CHlLO ~- 

JJHN - E 

I CHILD JULIA E 

0, CHI% ALFREUlEDITH T 

' CHING HUNS W J TR 

CHiYG KIN INC 

L - CHIN; MUN SnEi EST 

CHiuZ 

~ SHAI t(ilJRY/PATCY 

0 1 2 

24012012 

23019061 

21n3~n09 

21038008 

11062049 

260-14026 

99007001 

26024097 

- 24012011 .- - - 

6 1 

20 

1 

1 

+ 

37 

121 

60 

89 

'4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

C 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L - 

L 

CHING YOU KiE/EONA 

CHilvG JERKY I 

"i CH2YG PATRICIA A'YV 

T 

L G iTAL 

23011025 

23021028 

16006036 

63 

2 

1 

1 

1. 

1 

L 

L 

L 

CHLY At< TRUST tSTATE 

L' - CH9Y

DAVfES THE0 C CCO LTD TR 

0 DLVfiS -~ THE0 .. H : CO ~. TRUST 

DAVI~S rnio rcco LTO TR 

' OE LGtJIAR HENRY 

*'[ OE PfShLTA LS#DA S EThL 

'] DECCIYTAR HENRY 

' DERUSCh HARZANO P ETAL 

" 

- 

OilSLFR DONALD EIOIANE L 

OENISJN HARAV L TR 

OITr(A%S RICUARO W SR ETAL 

WHcuTV STEVEN n ETAL ' DOUGALL JAeS W D P 

" DUiSSiL OAVfO YVALAREE ETAL 

*. OR5SSFL UAViD LIVILAREE S 

: DU@C&LitILLl.$uJEANE T R 

:'I WLC; FAANCIS K V/M4RGhRET 

22004022 

-- 22004012 ~ .-- 

.,04 

77003022 

11060011 

77n0en22 

1SG27042 

27G27023 

3-92 

43009002 

45003011 

43BB7 

20024070 

2bG24079 

41003QQ4 

11062009 

5 

36 

62 

17 

1 

7 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

I 

I 

44 

1 

56 

1 

1 - 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

L 

L - 

L 

L 

L 

f 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

-'I DUhN RICHARD A 

u h u ~ ‘ i d ;I*ILILPI c ETPL 

DVIANT JAYNE 3 TR 

* DUR4NT JAVNE S TRUST 

",_f&LTU RFALTY CO?P 

EBISVZA~I K LTD 

ESBrRT WAR3RET A ETAL 

NA~CV c 

" ELIZA?ETH P SYINGT3N TKUST 

26024024 

+20n1032 

26021020 

26021020 

2700102P 

21006018 

43039001 

23QZU2a 

44C01066 

1 

I 

138 

1 

4 

34 

1 

1 

43 

1 

2 

1 

1 

I 

3 

1 

1 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

I 

L 

L 

L 

L 

Eti*CILISTA SOLEDAOlE L 

" ~ X C c L S 1 3 R LC3GE 1 IQOF FAIRCS OENA n ETAL 

FAR* hLcXAtJ3ER 5 EThL 

FA*W4D STtPHtN R 

" FElG ISA4C ETAL 

17G31006 

23C3AQQ1 

26013014 

28013087 

2bOl9POl 

33013003 

1 

a 

1 

20 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

-: 

FEIG ISAACIAUISLW N 38013003 47 2 L 

FELIX hZNRY M _ .- . 21C41024-.-24. I I 

FELTS ZETELLE H 69003019 1 3 L 

*ti FELNA,:C)Z~ ROSE F TR 24n30n7s 54 1 L 

"1 FEkAEZ RCiA'J. G/Sb.REhRA t 44PPE002 1 2 I. 

" FlL2clTY FEU SPV C LCAN - FIN PLCZA OF THE PAC TR 

X___UErUS5i?t~LL.0L3 PD 

FIRST HAIIAllAN BANK TRS 

FIRST ~~~W~IIIN SAM TRS 

"I FIRSUWA llAN SAVK TRUSTEE 

75ir2Ci014 

2101i000 

24QW.Q+ 

26017016 

2wn2030 

43Q&941 

147 

2 

53 

67 

168 

50 

3 

1 

t 

1 

1 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

FIGT HAWN J A M TR ETAL 260156f0 

' FIflJT WAYN JAVK TRS 24017051 

FIRFTH-(+N RA7K TPS 23-5 9 

~17~3 

HCUN BANK TRS 26012029 

-'4~ FIRST 

HAIN JA~K TRs :bn24ns9 

FlkiT HW~>J BPGK ?RS ETAL 26015_050 

FIR31 H k m 9AW TRUST3 2b023018 

' Fl4ST IWtK~TAfE BANK CF H&U 28017010 

' 1 INTERSTLIE B:NK_QE.~2&01ZQ10D 

FIRST SERVIC= CORPORATION 46017022 

153 

41 

60 

456 

109 

29 

56 

1 

4 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

I. 

L 

L 

L 

- i 

. - - . - - -. . . . . . - . - - - - - - -- - 

FISUEK FAHILV 7R 23036099 1 1 L 

.' F%~~-I%~XF~C~XPP.NY 5m.ao93 1 4 

", FLITCRUFT DAREN J iTAL 54012005 1 4 L 

' FLCOD BERNICE W TXUSTEE . - 

38014002 13 2 L 

Z-G &N STATE UP 26025022 4.e I L 

s

c 

f 2' 

/ 

FONG dESLEY F ETAL 

FOSTS CHARLES E/ALlCE T 

FRAtKHUUSER H T/P 

FRAZICR PETiK B 

FRlTSCHLE PARKER W 

WJJJAGA EDdIN Y/ANDREA S 

23021028 

26024024 

211-1~6018 

58011027 

44006011 

27035015 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

4 

2 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

C' 

FUJlTA GEORGE H ETAL 

FUROY). CLLRLNCE 0 ETAL 

FVHJYA CLCRENTE VLONA L 

17040002 

24016043 

2.014009 

97 

160 

11-13 

1 

I 

1 

L 

L 

L 

11 FURUYA GECRGE KIVURIKO ETAL 

a:' -. G N WXLCOX YEM H'JSPITAL 

* G N WILCCX MSHSRiAL HOSPITAL 

2702502e 

37001017 

37001017 

33 

1 

142 

1 

4 

4 

L 

L 

L 

GAM3Li LOBEAT t/ISABELLE 

GAailA KEVIN 3EE 

e:-.-GE8HC4~ M G/L+Ylu JCAN 

Ji GtCC FINANCILL CORPCRhlION 

- GEMI:

Q 

HAT* EUI ETAL 

HAW VETERANS MEMCRIAL FD 

24015017 

22030023 

1 

37 

1 

1 

L 

L 

HA3 V?TERANS YFRPRIAL FUND 

$1 HAMAII BAPTIST CONV~NT~O~ 

Pj k9aaii CALlFGt7NIA INVEST LTD 

'UH**aII CbRPFNTERS PFNLXDN TR 

' HAdAII CGNFtRtNCE FNDTN 

C' WWAIA CoNfERNCE f OUNOATICN 

' HAUnXd rlPLJS1NGJ~ Y 

WUSSN; t.UTHDRl+Y 

- 1 HAYAJi HGUSING AUTHORITY 

'1 tinuir I HUUS~W AUTHCRITY 

HA~AII NCUSING AUT*O~ITY 

t 

HAWA11 HOUSI 14G AUTHORITY 

Z7010Oz'? 

24028005 

18012051 

440m51 

17031028 

22020002 

Llf' fiEQQZ 

llC61002 

12001049 

1 7 0 3 ~ 

2200406; 

45005011 

1 

428 

1 

32 

20 

290 

el 

24 

27 

4* 

1 

16 

I 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

1 

L 

L 

1. 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

"-.--HA*AII 

HAWAII 

C!CUS.IIGAUTHCRlTY 

Nb.1.1 ats~ HDN ETAL 

95QC5034 

e4002049 

229 

201 

I 

1 

L 

L 

HAdAl I DNDRI CORPORATION 

"j HAe4A1C OMCRl CGRVURAT30N 

" tiAH**AII CMilRI CL'RPURATION 

' HAUAIl PRCJiCTS INC 

" HAUAIiAN ELFCTQIC CO IKC 

43006001 

4302001 

450011002 

43009005 

27019314 

28 

a 

10 

11 

346 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

HAWAIIAN RESUATS LTO 

51005004 

@4004006 

84 

126 

1 

1 

L 

L 

" UAWAIiAN TRAU5WlNDS ItK 

' HAMAIIAN TRUST CC LTO THS 

H*4iIIAN TRUST CO LTD TRS 

HAW 2EhL ESTATE COUP 

' HAu8'4 7R CD LTO TRS 

- HAW TA CC LTO TRS 

84004014 

4 3 0 ~ 0 5 2 

i6012010 

6 8 kLI.02 6 

16006036 

21006018 

84004014 

160 

1 

659 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

HAWX TRUST COLTD T R S 2 6 0 1 1 0 C 8 

HA4N TRUST CO LTD-TRUSTEt 23056011 

' HEt hOdG HI11 ETAL 28019003 

" L H l i W(WG HIN/VIOLET 28019003 

" HEGGSTAO HALYARD L ETAL 3801+015 

* tiElr~AlC&S HdllIET FAY ETAL 23019061 

'I__. _n

HON SIILORS HNE SOCIETY ETAL 

h - . How .- . . - SCOTTISH . RlTE ~. 

~ ~ BODIES TR 

nohi; JUN GI t EULSN 

'1 HOhG HIN HEE TRUST ETAL 

C'j HOE*OLJLU LINlTEO 

HC~CLULU LIYITEO 

' HONJLULU L1'41TEO 

~3 Wh3LULU LT3 

HOhClLVLU MYCHGJI 

21016015 

24025026 

2602&14 

28019003 

27004001 

38OJ4021 

44001097 

44001099 

2-3 5 

6 

70 

1 

30 

568 

71 

420 

190 

173 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

I 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

O'; 

q: 

WONiJLLlLU MY3HOJI 

HOP~LLIIU SAlLSRS H3ME SPC 

XDRIE ROY A/JPYCELYN A 

220111035 

21516015 

27035109 

5 

1 

15 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

0 

WuIKaWh TA>ASrI/NAlSUE 

W~SACA JALK T/ELEANOR~F 

24019029 

27017002 

19 

2 

1 

1 

L 

L 

WbACA KAZUU ETAL 23 017-00 2 1 1 L 

: nos? ~ ~~~~~~i~~i(i- 

27n17~2 2 1 L 

66; HGSCKA HASCNI/DORIS Y 27017002 3 1 L 

"1 liUSl l ~ L 1 O D L 

IDLA~I SCnD3L ETAL 

0' IOLANI SCHOOL ETAL 

2e012050 

42x004 

23036Wl 

24015021 

2s4.029 

75008003 

24020037 

. 27017002 . 

44008002 

27020009 

44611082 

45103001 

4 5 1 0 3 ~ 5 

48 

1 

1 

88 

1 

134 

1 

16 

1 

291 

148 

5 6 

61 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

I 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

" -. IOLANI SCHG3L ETAL 

%; IRELAbU LORfN E TRS E1AL 

c"; 1RU:Y CYARLES P/YAF~CV R 

" L l ~ ~ ~ ~ L [ FLEMR ~ 9 s ETAL 

~ 5 ~ p 38 2 0 

26012002 

39020003 

24019035 

14 

1 

1 

15 

1 

1 

2 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

ISLA??J IkJU.IAlrCE CO L70 13054004 86 1 L 

G: 

ITO ~TEVEN K 

lU~c!JTO CCN2T%$Tl3N INC 

i3n:in28 

27017015 

44Gir1100 

43002055 

1 

10 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

* JAWS THEiiLG6t R ETAL 

i' JktFERS JCSEPH ClNURIEL Y 

5e011027 

26024024 

24024029 

7 

2 

1 

4 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

JEUSTT HARTdA 

~ K TR 41005003 41 

0; 

, JONES OSCAR JR/HARY 43609005 1 

C, 

KAI ERNEST K ETAL 

KAILILAYI GIFT SHOP INC 

58011027 

22064020 

2 

1 

4 

1 

L 

L 

KALA3ZKUMU INC 

, K. miitNBERtiii HARK A ETAL 

t{ %Am DLqRxLYPi Y x 

KA% AILFREO Y 0 ETAL 

' KAHAOLi NCLLI UEVELOPHLNT CO 

(Ci KAi%HAYEHA GEVELOP%ENT CORP 

' -.-- KAMc3$HA TtIVt5IMj_NN_T CCRP 

' KAEEndMEHA INVESTMENT CORP 

*', KAtkHIEilA INVESTtrENT CCRP 

'i&*MiHPMiHA INVtSTUiNT CORP 

' KANtDA CWDSLKU ETAL 

al? 

KAkEUCRI JEIN H 

KAYTNAKA 

~ EDWIN N TAS 

75020011 

54011003 

zeooioso 

24021001 

39005008 

78010047 

7 ~ ~ 

78010033 

78010047 

70013W13 

21021059 

23621028 

21a03025 

~ 

66 

1 

1 

26 

28 

1 

3 5 2 

6 

6 

21 

12 

1 

1 

3 

4 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

t 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L. 

KAWA ESTATE IMCDRPORATED 

-'I KAPIOLANI OEV CO 

~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ i V ETAL i o i t s 

" KmusHsRn RCNbLD A TRUSTEL 

' KAW91.4310 CHURCH ETAL 

" ----- KAWAlArAG C*URCH TSS 

KAdA!HLO CHU

KNUXcN E A/A F TR ESTS 

G KNVOSiN E A/k F TR ESTS 

KO YPUYG HO ETAL 

11 KUPATLBE CLYD~ SISLRAH 

GI: KOSATAKE KELVIN K 

* U D k E l h GERALD TlOOUEEN ETAL 

4 KOhnSdI DURvTHY I 

C' KOYiTZNI HA*DLO K fTAL 

-. KONL . -. -- PRUPiRTItS -. INC 

1: KONA PROPERTIES IN5 ETAL 

C:, KCNG rlAYNCN0 F TRS E7AL 

K3kSEY MAX J/RCSi - T 

KOSni :4ITSUAKI/YDSWlKO 

C KOY PAUL TR EST 

-- KRhfirR .--- JiRRY .&'IRENE. 

., KRAUS GREGOkY PILGRETTA 

C'I KRCNIC< NCRRAN M ETAL 

I$/KRLNICK m C N M TRS ErAL 

* KUI&iXI NiLlCAL tfWTc% 

@ KUA&l:#l MtOICtL CTR 

KUILU; LAND CURP 

KUEJYAi-iA GEQIRUDE 5 

G': KUNIIlCTO CHI LDRENS TR 

1 KUhWUKI BRJTFERS INC ETAL 

KUPAU JESSICA R TR 

28017026 

28017026 

22003011 

2302in28 

23021028 

23021028 

2402:024 

24016004 

75007017 

75007017 

26007015 

2602407~ 

i1041024 

31035015 

2Xl90hl 

14005 040 

21021045 

2 1xlL4 5 

17017023 

17017029 

45ni4on5 

27017002 

23010009 

28010024 

13011024 

148 

1 

32 

1 

I 

1 

12 

47 

60 

1 

152 

1 

1 

16 

1 

1 

73 

1 

10 

2 6 

6 

2 

10 

95 

3 

4 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

- 

zr 

LAtHtL LEONARD P/FRANCt Y M 

LA1 YJS?P.T/2ACHAEL E :T&L 

23021PiR 

23021~8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

I LnKt ISABEL M 43009005 

LALAKEA ROLLIE P ETAL 17015006 

"/ LAK~JKN R38iKT M/LEXXE L 17015006 

" LAGD~N ROBERT t JR 54012008 

e, LAkIrr(EA IEC, 26012032 

-. LASICK .. . . -. JOHN .. - C 

4202n38 

" LAU L STEPHrldNIKGINIA t4 2@012051 

o'/ LAU RJSEKT INN WAI 240bbOO2 

1 

43 

1 

1 

28 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

3 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

" ~ 

Y 

0' 

a 

L A YUih U LIN TK kTAL 

LAY ~uULEIALOHA L) ETIL 

LEt hATHhN K T/NANCY K S 

LEL RAERT E K 0 

51003045 

43010C04 

27017002 

730IE8 

2 

101 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

23036039 1 1 L 

1'; 

a 

C;d 

Lft>r?cZS JAN J/K&REh M 

LELNG YW HSON TR 6ST 

LEONIlL DAVE T ETAL 

~ _ t i DAVIO ~ j P TR ~TAL 

38L13018 

2 bZOJ9 

22005004 

98006002 

5 1003001 

48 

1 

59 

1 

8 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

LZUIS TAACY/DLNA G ElAL 

* LEdlS WILLIAM R 

LI CHEhG PI< HAR ETAL 

ir: -- LILIU'k3LANI - . -.- -- TR EST tTAL 

LILIU.XALANI TRUST EST 

51003001 

75G200ll 

2bWOZl 

44008002 

26024079 

i ~ ~ 2 S O l l 

26026014 

27022003 

3 

1 

91 

1 

1 

435 

131 

96 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

a 

": 

" 

b: 

s 

LIM MAX S HlLlLY S M 

LIN %iu/IVY H J 

LItd UcLf TSUNG ETAL 

LIkYnY JMkS W/FKhNCkS 

LOCdE7T JOW 5 

LON16 DAVID D3VALO JR 

F 

74010036 

26011021 

23021028 

2h013Ci3 

54012005 

43003011 

43008005 

89 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

72 

3 

1 

1 

1 

4 

2 

Z 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L

LOCK DCNPLO C GIMILORiD 24023017 20 1 L 

@ LOCK DDl4LLD C G/HILOREO L 

LOUIS ANT!'&i TR EST 

' LDUIS LEIGHTON S C ETAL 

e;( rouls rrichrou s clxr 

L LOVE PARTS4 EdS 

' LOYALTY INS AGENCY LlD 

@: LUCKAJ WALTCR G ETAL 

LgM4LCE LETAL 

'-LU' C'iAKLOTTi C EThL 

0 , LUM GiCKGE C CMARR 1 ET C 5 

' L U J M MAN SING ETAL 

'"urn VIOLET n r c 

C1 LUH YIP KEE LTD 

28012025 

26013004 

24025067 

24025067 

14005040 

24019014 

39001107 

280LlU 6 

24025039 

23021025 

3103m9 

24o~nns 1 

26017005 

33 

48 

3 9 

2 

14 

129 

89 

48 

bo 

2 

62 

38 

198 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

' 

"1 

" 

LUM YIP KE-S-LL 

- LU

C 

UAY RANOOLPh P ETAL 

UAY9tRG sTAN'EY/kNNAr)iLLE 

UiA.43ilt WS RiiNLLO 0 ETAL 

38014002 

4400eO22 

24C07002 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

I 

L 

L 

L 

WCGAHA DAYLE C/KlJNI KO K 

UCiV=INY FDN tTAL 

C' HCiNtANY FN3TN TR 

26024024 

2302102e 

420GlO28 

23021029 

26021049 

1 

Z 

1 

2 

192 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

I 

L 

-- UCKPY RICHAXD U 

*I UC

MU%%KANI UICHIh' 220C4020 

t MUkAKAHl NICHINCJ 26027019 

MYFRS OLNIEL J JWaETH C 2402%? 

' MfE%S MlCHkcL S HRl0 PLAiv TR 28012061 

p:! NAKauuaA corsm to LT3 ETkL 68011026 

'LkLAMA KXKVJI RO/KIM lE FTAL 270CB000 

NAKAduTO CL4RL H T?.U57 ETAL 3760201 8 

* NAKAHJTO FRANCIS M ETAL 23021020 

- -- NA6%SOh1E . --- HAK6Y S 2701-41 

NAK3A CHARLES ETAL 43005009 

, NALcIiUA INUESMENT CO 43005020 

'~-.--&P.CSIEHA StWC5TUH+T CU 4190$021 

" N-LtIrYA IhVtSTHSNT CU 43605631 

f NbL=IiHA SNVt STHENT CL'MPANY 43005023 

-. N~~cln.4 

. . RENJkHIN - ETAl 42002029 

". NAHWitNG JEAN Y ETAL 

24025039 

-;i 

NATL SGCUkiTlES t INV INC B+002013 

N E L S ~ JuLzw N S/E~ELYN 2200r~o10 

" N=LSJY MICHAEL H 42602007 

' NEmALL LAR.3Y ETAL 2bC27003 

4 LMZ03 3 

26010007 

20002014 

- 26024024 

" NISVl*IRb CATHERINE N 45003011 " NISYAVDER TK!'lAS HIS 44~01042 

" NIU PI* FARq5 43QQ2G17 

"'NIU PIA FAR% LT3 43002013 

$ 1 NIU PIC. FhWS L7D 43001017 

J N*-,

; 

PHILLIPS TERRY LlOORIS L 

PIEdCc JWN J/PEARL T 

38013010 

78010032 

34 

1 

2 

3 

L 

L 

PIFRSCW WFNIFLL T ETAL 

'~IWFTI~LLU JDSE?H v ETAL 

Pll~rihIA AEIRAHAM 

43002019 

43010002 

27017031 

1 

1 

52 

2 

2 

1 

L 

L 

L 

*~IAVAIA 

ARKAWM 

' PICXEER FELiEitlL SAVINGS 8ANK 

PI*ES FRANK M TR ESTATE 

PlVAK3FF ANNE 

' PlVAKCFF ANNE 0 

' POLYNESIAN SHCRES INC 

*: POSTUILLIAW F 

'a POV 1VC 

i PT-v TRUST ETAL 

PUUCHE DEVELCPMENT 

27017031 

69C03ulP 

23012034 

26015035 

26015055 

54002013 

23_21oze 

54005039 

540~5039 

3 s 7 0 5 0 

1 

1 

11 

7 

2 

54 

I 

6 

176 

7 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

2 

I 

4 

4 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

i);jEcG-cmm~i& 

99076020 22 1 L 

G'! WrtiJ EMMA f3UNDATION THE 

"1 UUE-5N EMMA FOUNDATION Thi 

" PUttN EMMA F5LNOkTION THE 

' QUttN tMMA F5UIuE)ATION THE 

" QUE:; ESMA FCUIIUATION THE 

QUEEN EMMA FOUNDAT1 ON THE 

- tr''-- WJttN EMMA FJUPIDATION THE 

'@-Lt~rth; EWMA FC'UNDITION THE 

" uUttN EMMA F3UlOATlOk THE 

.,- QUEtN EHMA F CUNDATI ON THE 

' UUErN fWA iCUNnATICN THC 

'$1 QUrEN EMMA FOUNDATION THE 

~ $ 1 QUcEfiS M~JlCAL CENTER 

"/ QUIGLSY NTRYAN TRS ETaL 

26021 102 

99073003 

Y9G73Gltr 

99070009 

9907601D 

99076012 

99076011 

99076613 

Y'r070014 

99070016 

9 9020.1 8 

99070020 

99002017 

2e016026 

69 1 

Z 1 

20 1 

36 1 

19 1 

28 

28 1 

40 1 

59 1 

47 1 

57 1 

28 1 

76 1 

2 I 1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

QUISLEY NCRMAY-JOYCE 

w:: QUISLEY NCR*AN/JCYCE 

TRUST 

T G 

38b13013 

11058013 

16 

58 

2 

1 

L 

L 

-. - - ~UI;L~Y . . - . - NOR!+ANIJOYCE TRUST 3 801-3A3 4 2 L 

", QUISLiY b5R:IAWJUYCE TRUST 390C1044 42 2 L 

RA:4ELLP GARY WSIGSID E 46002007 1 2 L 

45013027 35 2 L 

RAhSIL ALICt M tTAL 84002010 1 1 L 

4 RASWSSiN MAKlr C TR ETAL 26027002 48 1 L 

RAY tDITH V ETAL 17C23008 1 1 L 

'I REALTY DEViLfl?HtNT CORP 21019014 2 3 L 

+ .x RtALTY INCOME TRUST 54012005 7 4 L 

RElLTY INCOME TRUST 5401200B V 4 L 

REALTY IYiO*E TkJST 54012009 6 4 L 

w ' REALTY INVESTMrNT CORP 

21019014 1 3 L 

* K E G 3 PAUL I/EL$IE A 26024CJl 51 1 L 

RE~YES 

LU~LIN? B 24014012 1 1 L 

RElMrl:N AUGUST JR 

AUGUST JR TR ETAL 

43002061 

43002021 

137 

55 

2 

2 

L 

L 

RESJRT MARKiTIhG ASSUC INC 75021004 

4 REIIJULDS CHSIS C ETAL 44001050 

RICE XIBEST L 7601.5316 

R ~ ~ ~ ~ C TRVST ~ J M A 6K2 ~ 2T 0 2 1 

'* RlCHAAV SSAAT TRUST 62002022 - RICr+AQD SMA-?T TRUST 6 2.CPLOt3 

" RILPIV JEANiTTE 38014002 - ' R061N53N aEVERLY N TRS iTAL 6600b005 

1 

2 1 

3 

23 

3 

14 

1 

5 1 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

* 

4 

"'--RCS~[~

ROellrSLIN IWLLZNI TR EST 11062013 26 I L 

@ ROSINJ~N MARY K H iTAL TRS 840021)lO 1 1 L 

R C S I ~ ~ ~~IUXAM J T/ELLEN 7% 

' ROGLhS BARBIaA TI? ETAL 

, RilHZS MAdVIN M/ELIZABkTH W 

2 ~ R O M s N CbTuDLIC CH J.N-St3- 

' RtNAh CATHULIC CWLI3CH OF HI 

p ROMAN CATHOLIC CMURCH s GF H 

340190~3 

24009002 

43002019 

42.U.4066 

39009029 

iin71ra6 

29 

39 

1 

84 

46 

2 

2 

1 

2 

3 

2 

1 

t 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

. RPMt% CLTHPLIC CHii'AClFUlf H Il@?lEZ? 2 I L 

I RO.4AH CATHDLIC C W C H S OF W 26025015 69 1 L 

e ROmV CATHOLIC CWilCU THE 210Z0046 363 1 L 

'1 RORER RPPERT ETAL m 9 0 0 3 I 3 L 

' RGnrRUiUS CHtRYL C 23021025 1 1 L 

C ROMiHD RiGHIS WVIRGIE M 

-- ROZSLK 

, ROU% PAUL KIGERTRUOE A 

*,, ROYAL LAGNAPALI JT VENTURr 

'ji RUYLL UUKI V'MTURES 

11058013 

402LOl- 

44C08022 

21039024 

1 

1 

2 56 

'12 

1 

3 

2 

1 

L 

L 

L 

I 

0 

ROYAL VAIKIKI VEItTURES 

RUEFF ALAN ETAL 

28012059 

54012005 

5 

1 

1 

4 

L 

L 

" RUNOFC M S T A F I L 

~/RUSYSWICYT H ETU 

" 1 RUTHL~FORO AN3REkl CftNID L 

E Y O a 

24031002 

34013026 

1 

34 

1 

2 

1 

2 

L 

L 

L 

18 $QlO 1 I t 

S UTSUKA ?ST INC 43009004 72 4 L 

S OTSNA ESTATE INC 43009004 1 4 L 

SCTiUKAIF1 4391DOF4 1 4 L 

'1 SAGA& ETHEL A 27017002 2 1 L 

SAJE ViNTURES I1 26012047 1 1 L 

AKATA LIIWI TRS 27C07031 86 1 L 

SAKUSPdA ALVIN N 23021023 1 1 L 

* S4NBJdN WINNIFREJ K 43006044 62 2 L 

SANG AGNES S A U - 23032007 293 1 I, 

SANTIVITWNJO~dGS R1TT TR 23036039 1 1 L 

SAPinr, 8 TR EST ETAL 26024074 2 1 L 

*, SAPIRO BdRNCTT TR EST ET 26024074 lle 1 L 

* SAPlR3 dlRNfTT TR EST ETAL 2 6 ~ 4 0 7 4 1 1 L 

* SASbKl JAMES S 27025013 8 1 L 

2 4 ~ 2 3 ~ ~ 32- 

27015004 1 1 L 

I). sas REALTY CORP 26067026 247 1 L 

~LC~C?ITW~SZP 

5 UBI zapm31 u7 1 L 

a SCWiclD2R JSi iPH JIROUA 54nll~n3 1 4 L 

SCHRAJEH CWtTTE TR ETLL 9702i020 1 1 L 

11 1 L 

1 1 L 

43002055 1 2 L 

Y??Q61 1 2 I. 

SHtLL tNTiRPRISE CO LTD 26020053 380 1 L 

'L SHEWAN CHAILCS i/L C ETAL 26604031 1 4 L 

" - SH1'4OZO?:O_FAyLY TR t7c>m(Lz 1 1 L 

SHIWZLN) FLN~LI TRUST THE 27017002 1 1 L 

, S~fnraE EOwlN K 28015051 1 1 L 

"dHIPLAkJ BESSIE M ETAL 2401OQl 8 

' SHlRAtil HILDA K 24021040 36 1 L 

*' SHLN EVELYN C ElAL 21040014 69 1 L 

-. SILL-JhC((_D ETAL 4 3OQm9 1 2 

L 

, SIMPJJN JULILN i/JEAN C 39@05023 8 2 L 

.*" SINDTO bKIHiKO/LVCINDY f lo62042 1 1 L 

SIPE RA-I ZTAL 44QOk.041 I 7 L 

-

c 

1 

SKILLMAN OAVIO V 

SHART RICHARD TRUST 

SMITH ELVIA M ~TAL 

SMITH EUGFNIA U TR 

54012009 

62002021 

26nz1n19 

39002024 

1 

11 

21 

53 

4 

3 

I 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

-*/ITH 

SSITH JOHN LISARRIE 

S U ~ A ETAL 

41005003 

45039001 

1 

1 

4 

1 

L 

L 

SMfTH THEODERE H TR 26021021 1 1 L 

S SnYrn THEOWQi H TRS 26021021 359 I L 

1 SHYTU THEilMSi H TRUSTEE 4x10007 1 2 L 

--. -- - 

, WYTH. TnZOUCKE H TRUSTEE 43010007 198 2 L 

SMYTH: THEOOOKE H TRS 26021021 1 1 L 

' SNCU NCRMAN R ETAL 

' : ~ c L CORPOG~ATICN - 

~ s 

'- SONG LOU1 SIRUSE 

Soitiwo P~VLINE P 

:.F- f O%Z*'~GX ~ ~ ~ ~ - E ~ 

?;i SP~NLZR PETER ETAL 

IS/ ST LWIS CHsYiNAOE ED CTR 

STAK6 OEVEL3PMENT LTO ETAL 

- ' STAP.K LTO ETAL 

* STATf OF tiAWb.11 

S1ATE SAV G LOAN ASSM - STENLING BETTIE & 

STtVtNS WILLIAM 

. 

F 

-!' STILL ERNEST WETHEL L 

* ST~~IE OO~ALL) ETAL 

390041$9 

27035079 

26024024 

2x3 1PZ 

E2*029023 T L 

15026014 

33001_0C7 

26023040 

23036039 

39Ca005 

7500L003 

75021007 

690032E 

54012OC5 

65003026 

98008092 

1 

84 

3 

1 

190 

1 

271 

173 

239 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

3 

3 

4 

3 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

38014004 1 2 L 

STREcT CHARLES G JR EST 26017006 14 1 L 

45039001 1 1 L 

a 

i;' 

STUeib G*EGDKY 0 EJAL 

SUGA?. uAr LTD ETAL 

26024024 

3e013014 

1 

187 

1 

2 

L 

L 

-. . ..-SULLI V4.N-f A%L._L/SIU-nrNG- 

"! SUNASA KACRUIAYAKO 

c;;/ SdthSJN JULIST P S W 

I SYLVA FRANK H 

" TAGUKC 8ETTf PI 

-' TA~ASC WWLAS T/JUOITH 

* TAKh.Wr+I JCHFS M 

u 

2 1 0 0 6 

45003002 

26016001 

45OOj009 

28024028 

230iloze 

27Oll_OOZ 

26024053 

0 1 5 1 - 

30 

68 

28 

79 

1 

3 

es 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

TANLbE GECRGE T ETAL 27007G55 100 1 L 

1 1 L 

- ' 

(I 

u'1 TA:;AkA

MADE ROBERT H/JEAN P 26024024 1 1 L 

e YAHLGUIST UARILYN W 

43002017 1 4 L 

WAACC PALMS INC 26C23007 143 1 L 

1 WAIKIKI HCLIDAY APTS HCTEL 26017028 44 1 L 

,I Y~lZ.lh1 HOLIUAY APTS HTL INC 26017023 1 1 L 

1 WA:PAhU INVtSTtiENTS LTO 94048062 34 1 L 

* WLnlMIYA AMY M 2&023005 1 1 L 

YAK4Y;Mk JACK WMILDRXI ETAL 24028001 97 1 L 

* urL~i!x cnp.a_cs w BET BETTY c 7502001-1 1 3 L 

'i YAP3UI;T@N JEFFP.EY S ETAL 45003009 1 2 L 

,ai YAK3 EUGENE E ETAL 75GOB016 1 3 L 

, YEt TIHOTHY 1 SR TR 2>017016 6 1 L 

- ' WEI?4U$RG HARRY 

WEIN354G HARRY ETAL 

. -. WEIhUtRG .~ WILLIAU 

. YELLS FCUH nur 

23C06001 

44001052 

44*055 

34008044 

351 

18 

306 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

UE~Y €MIL EST 87005011 

-a/ WHITM*N KIU H/K 6 s 75021004 

* WHiTTdKER Jb,lES U/LDlS D 43002049 

- IRA 0 '7 UILBUA JPtiN W ETAL 54011003 

UILFui3 WALTilN T i S Y 38613010 

TR ETAL 23036020 

YIL!?O2t BARBARA K 75021039 

59 

1 

1 

1 

146 

1 

1 

3 

2 

4 

2 - 1 - 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

- 

" Wlt.3ilnRD MA

C) 

YOSYlKAWA INVESTMENT CD LID YCULIN VIRGlNIA 5 

26024032 

36013022 

3 6 

18 

1 

2 

L 

L 

' 

YOUNG BETTl Y TRUSTEE 

YOUNL HYLCINTU TR ETAL 

39005021 

24015017 

7 

72 

2 

1 

L 

L 

Q:! YUWG HYACIVTH Y L TR ETAL 

$1 YCUSi HYACItITH Y L TR ETAL 

' YJUNG RUBSRT C/HtLEN tTAL 

24015017 

24015021 

28012054 

1 

1 

30 

1 

I 

1 

L 

L 

L 

Q' 

' 

ZALOabNY CUILO/GdOCHILO 

ZALO?&NV - - - LEONARD - H/ALMA - TR 

K 

28020003 

28019004 

77 

37 

4 

4 

L 

L 

I ZERar GiHTRJDt t4 TR ETAL 

0; 151 FIATL BAliK OF ASILENE TR 

'1 1650 PIIKOI JClNT VENTURi 

" 1976 LIJSTIN &ZV TR 

0 300 CORPURATION 

300 CCKPDRATIDN 

24020040 

75020616 

2230058 

21012006 

26010002 

- 39001006 . .. . . - 

43005008 

430G5015 

107 

1 

40 

1 

3 

07 

25 

77 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

L 

0' 

' 

300 Wc5T 23RD LTREET LO 

3or1 HLST 2340 STREET co 

3900 COUPDRITlON 

S~O3c_o009 

26017003 

4sno700t 

26021026 

57 

211 

190 

736 

2 

1 

4 

1 

L 

L 

L 

L

Appendix D 

1984 CO-OPS 

(No change for 1985/1986) 

Tax Key Name No. of Units 

Atkinson Towers 

Terrazza Ltd. 

Oahuan Tower 

Punahou Terrace Ltd. 

Oahuan 

Makikikian 

Waikiki Shores 

Waikai 

Tradewinds Hotel Inc. 

Kalia Inc. Bldg. B 

Kalia Inc. Bldg. A 

Kalia Inc. Bldg. C 

Rosalei Apt. 

411 Kaiolu Inc. 

Tiki Apts. 

Queen Emma 

Beachside Apts. 

Hawaiian Prince Apt. 

Beachside Apts. 

Waikiki Regents 

Alii Inc. 

Hawaiian Ebbtide 

Capri Apt. Inc. 

Kuhio Ebbtide Hotel Bldg. C 

Kuhio Ebbtide Hotel Bldg. A 

Kuhio Ebbtide Hotel Bldg. B 

Hale Hui Ltd. 

Coolidge Apt. Ltd. 

Prince Anne Apts. Inc. 

Canal Classic (Apt. 1-6) 

Canal Classic (Apt. 7-12) 

Hale Laau 

Hale Laau I1 

Iolani Banyan 

Diana Apt. Inc. 

Lani Homes 

Iolani Gardens 

Iolani Gardens 

Laau Gardens 

2511 Kapiolani Co-op 

Kaipuu Inc. 

Beretania Hale 

Punahou Arms 

Dole Terrace 

Diamond Head Surf 

Diamond Head Surf

Tax Key 

3-1-026-031 

3-1-026-043 

3-1-026-045 

3-1-032-001 

3-1-032-003 

3-1-032-004 

3-1-032-007 

3-1-032-010 

3-1-032-026 

3-1-032-027 

3-1-032-028 

3-1-032-030 

3-1-033-001 

3-1-033-059 

3-5-016-002 

3-5-016-005 

3-5-016-006 

3-5-016-007 

3-5-016-008 

9-4-047-017 

9-4-047-024 

"Assessed with Tax Map Key 2-6-021-076. 

**No change for 1985. 

List provided by the City and County of Honolulu. 

Name No. of Units 

Diamond Heal Alii 54 

Diamond Head Terrace 25 

Diamond Head Hale 16 

Tahitiene Inc. 3 1 

Coral Strand 50 

Diamond Head Apt. 5 7 

San Souci Apt, 88 

Colony Surf 171 

Diamond Head Ambassador (C) 22 

Diamond Head Ambassador (B) 35 

Diamond Head Ambassador (A) 35 

Tropic Seas 64 

Kainalu 5 7 

Seabreeze Apts. 10 

Kahala Gardens (Apt. E) 2 

Kahala Gardens (Apt. A) 4 

Kahala Gardens (Apt. B) 4 

Kahala Gardens (Apt. C) 2 

Kahala Gardens (Apt. D) 4 

Leolua Gardens 4 1 

Kunia Terrace 41 

TOTAL 2,7382;"

Daniel J. Mollway, Esq. 

Executive Director 

State Ethics Commission 

Kamamalu Bldg., Room 405 

250 South King Street 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Dear Mr. Mollway: 

Appendix E 

LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU 

State of Hauaw 

S1a:e Caorol 

Hondulu Hawat, 96813 

PhDW (BDB) 598-6237 

July 14, 1986 

I would like to request an advisory opinion as to whether it is permissible 

for me to do the study described below in my capacity as a researcher with the 

Legislative Reference Bureau. I have been assigned to do a study requested by 

the legislature through Senate Resolution No. 25, S.D. 1, and House Resolution 

No. 249, H.D. 1, copies of which are enclosed, the basic purpose of which is to 

,. study and analyze the ownership patterns of the land beneath Hawaii's 

residential condominiums and cooperative housing corporations" so that a 

determination can be made as to whether an oligopoly of landowners exists. 

The study is directly connected to the issue of whether the Land Reform Act 

should be extended to residential condominiums and housing cooperatives so that 

owners of condominium units and shareholders of stock in corporations owning 

housing cooperatives that are situated on leasehold land are given an opportunity 

to obtain or buy the fee simple title to such land. See enclosed copies of Senate 

Resolution No. 25, S.D. 1, House Resolution No. 249, H.D. 1, and respective 

committee reports thereon. The study, however, will not make any policy 

recommendation as to whether the legislature should or should not extend the 

Land Reform Act to condominiums and housing cooperatives and is expected to 

deal mainly with ascertaining who owns the fee simple title to lands beneath all 

condominiums and housing cooperatives in Hawaii and fee simple land ownership 

patterns that may emerge from that data. Other topics the study probably 

not necessarily will address are as follows: whether the Land Reform Act can be 

extended to condominiums and cooperatives under - Hawaii -- Housing Authority V. 

Midkiff, A U.S. -, 5 2 U.S.L.W. 4673 (1984). a copy of which is endosex 

assuming no land oligopoly exists and assuming that one does exist, and in 

connection therewith, whether and how "land oligopoly" is defined in 

Housing Authority Midkiff (it is not specifically defined therein, see enclosed 

copy of =e) and whether any exists under that definition, if any; a profile of 

condominium owners and of shareholders of stock in corporations owning housing

Mr. Daniel J. Mollway July 14, 1986 

cooperatives; and a profile of those who own the fee simple title to land beneath 

condominiums and housing cooperatives and their willingness to sell such title. 

I own a condominium unit situated on leasehold land. My parents as well as 

various friends and acquaintances of mine own single family residential homes 

situated on leasehold land and have undergone or are undergoing a leasehold 

conversion process to obtain fee title to lands beneath their homes and I believe 

it to be highly likely that many other friends and acquaintances hold leasehold 

interests to land beneath their respective homes or investment properties, be they 

single family residential, condominium, or cooperative properties. The study will 

be distributed to the legislature and or *t not affect decisions which 

may be made by the legislature as a whole indtvidx legislators if they deal 

with the issue of whether to extend the Land Reform Act or a related concept to 

condominiums and housing cooperatives, which decision, if any, in turn 

affect any interest I may have in the land beneath my condominium unit. If the 

legislature chooses not to act, this also may affect any interest I may have in the 

land beneath my condominium unit. 

May I please ask for an immediate decision on this matter. 

Finally, I would like to disclose that I have in the past on many occasions 

met one of the commissioners, Laurie Loomis, socially, and we share mutual 

friends and acquaintances. 

Thank you for your time and attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me 

at 548-6237 should you need more information or have any questions. 

CCS : mm 

Enclos urer 

Very truly yours, 

Colleen C. Sakai 

Researcher

CONFIDENTIAL 

Colleen C. Sakai, Esq. 

Researcher 

Legislative Reference Bureau 

State Capitol 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Dear Ms. Sakai: 

August 5, 1986 

This is in response to your letter of July 14, 1986, in which you asked 

for an opinion as to whether you may participate in a study to analyze the 

ownership patterns of the land beneath Hbwaii's residential. condominiums and 

cooperative housing corporatioils so that a determination can be made as to 

whether an oligopoly of land owners exists. You have stated that this study 

has been authorized through Senate Resolution No. 25, S.D. 1, and House 

Resolution No. 249, H.D. 1. When completed, the study will be presented to 

the Legislature, and the Legislature may then take action to determine 

whether the Land Reform Act should be extended to residential condominiums 

and housing cooperatives so that owners of condominium units and share- 

holders in stock corporations owning housing cooperatives may be given an 

opportunity to buy the fee simple title to such land. 

In your letter of July 14, 1986, you stated that the study will not make 

any policy recommendations as to whether the Legislature should or should 

not extend the Land Reform Act to condominiums and housing cooperatives. 

You have stated that you own an interest in a lease-hold condominium as an 

investment and for this reason are concerned as to whether your participa- 

tion in the study would involve you in a conflict of interest. 

The section of the ethics code relevant to the question you raise is 

section 84-14(a), a part of the conflicts-of-interests section of the ethics 

code, which reads in pertinent part as follows: 

884-14 Conflict of interests. (a) No employee shall 

take any offi6ial action directly affecting: 

(1) A business or other undertaking in which he has a 

substantial financial interest; or 

(2) A private undertaking in which he is engaged as 

legal counsel, advisor, consultant, representative. 

or other agency capacity. 

This section of the ethics code prohibits a state employee from taking 

action that directly affects a business or other undertaking in which the 

employee has a substantial financial interest. In tfiis case, you will not be

Colleen C. Sakai, Esq. 

Page 2 

August 4, 1986 

taking any action that directly affects your interest in your condominium. 

Any legislation passed in this matter, of course, will be passed by the 

Legislature itself. For this reason, we believe your participation in the 

study will not violate the conflicts-of-interests section of the ethics code. 

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel 

free to contact me at 548-2350 or 548-8504. On behalf of the Commission, 1 

would like to thank you for seeking the Commission's advice in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Y 

Daniel J. Mollway 

Executive Director

ownership patterns of land beneath hawaii's condominiums and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?