HAWAI‘I SUPREME COURT RULES STATE MUST PAY CLAIMANTS
DAMAGES FOR DELAYED HOMESTEAD AWARDS CAUSED BY DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LAND’S
BREACHES OF TRUST
On June 30, 2020, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court ruled that the state can no longer avoid its obligation to pay damages to the Waiting List subclass members in this case. In a unanimous opinion, the Court rejected arguments that the State has made for 2 decades in its attempt to avoid paying for delays in homestead awards.
The court ruled that:
By mismanaging the trust, losing trust property or being unable to account for it, giving trust property away and failing to compensate for or recover it, failing to keep adequate records, and continuing to litigate this case for decades state breached its trust duties to beneficiaries.
The State, by mismanaging the trust, failing to keep adequate records, and continuing to litigate this case for decades is responsible for creating a situation in which it will be difficult to accurately assess damages
The Special Master, who is like an assistant to the trial judge, will calculate damages using this formula and make findings and recommendations that the court will review; there will not be individual trials.
Damages do not end in the case where a claimant was offered a lot but could not qualify for a loan; the state’s defense that a claimant failed to mitigate damages only applies if a claimant, who was able to obtain a mortgage, rejected a paper lease.
What happens next:
Class members’ other claims, such as lease, loan or construction issues, will be resolved after the Waiting List claims are decided.
What we expect:
What we hope:
Summary of the Opinion
At the outset of its opinion, the court notes that in 1990 Sen. Michael Crozier had observed “both the length of the list and the length of the weight make the vast majority of native wine people despair of ever receiving an award of land.” The court noted “in the 30 years since Sen. Crozier’s statement, the State of Hawaii has done little to address the ever-lengthening weight list for lease awards of Hawaiian homelands.”
In construing the statute, said the court, “the interests of justice and the extent of the state’s wrongful conduct support a liberal interpretation… and a generous construe rule of the circuit courts damages model.”
The Court rejected the State’s argument that each claimants’ damages had to be proved by individual cases. Instead the court upheld a measure of damages using fair market rental value of a developed residential lot in Ma`ili as an appropriate measure of the value of a homestead for all claimants, using the Fair Market Rental Value for such a lot for each year the beneficiaries were on the waiting list. With claims going back to the 1960s, the court recognized “the State’s decision to continue to litigate this case for decades has compounded the challenges resulted from its own failure to keep adequate records….”
It would be “unjust,” said the court, to allow the state to demand individual proof when DHHL’s own failure to keep and maintain adequate records regarding beneficiaries’ applications and trust land inventory made it difficult if not impossible for them to produce such proof.
“It is clear to us that the State, by mismanaging the trust, failing to keep adequate records, and continuing to litigate this case for decades is responsible for creating a situation in which it will be difficult to accurately assess damages,” concluded the court in adopting a class-wide measure based on Fair Market Rental Value.
Additionally, the court rejected the argument made by the State that beneficiaries who did not accept awards because of poverty and inability to qualify for a mortgage were not disqualified from receiving damage awards under the ruling.
By arguing for 20 years that poor beneficiaries who are “deferred” from receiving awards because they are unable to obtain mortgages aren’t entitled to received damages, the Department has undermined and perverted the very purpose of the Home Lands Trust-- to rehabilitate Native Hawaiians. The court ruled Poverty is not a disqualification to receive homesteads. DHHL has statutory authority to lend and to develop property. The court rejected the idea that Native Hawaiian poverty is a defense for DHHL to avoid its ongoing breaches of trust since statehood.
The court also rejected the trial court’s ruling that damages would not begin to run until a beneficiary had been on the waiting list for 6 years. The court found there was no logical reason why the State should be allotted a six-year grace period between an applicant was placed on the waitlist and when damages begin to accrue.
DHHL’s duties as a trustee are the highest duties recognized in law. DHHL’s principal duty was not to create waiting lists; DHHL’s principal duty is to rehabilitate native Hawaiians by creating homesteads that they can inhabit, farm or ranch. The Hawaii Supreme Court understood this and applied the statute in a manner that supports its remedial purposes to achieve a just result.
Using the Hawaiian Claims Office list of claimants, who filed claims in the period from 1991 through 1997, established the class of those beneficiaries who could pursue compensation for being placed on the waiting list. The State has the burden of proving that these 2,721 beneficiaries did not suffer losses or were not qualified to receive homestead awards.
In addition to mismanaging the trust assets and failing to maintain adequate records, the court ruled that the state, as these successor trustee to the Federal Government at the time of statehood, was obligated to restore the trust by replenishing property or providing compensation for trust properties that had been wrongfully taken from the trust by the federal state and local governments.
The Hawaii court recognized that the state use litigation as a tool to complicate and delay the relief the statute was intended to provide to the 2,721 claimants who submitted claims in the administrative process between 1991 and 1997. Because they received no compensation, those claimants filed suit in 1999 in state circuit court. Every administration after Governor Waihee’s has vigorously opposed any compensation and even the right of the beneficiaries to sue in court. Today’s case is the second appeal; the first one was filed in 2000 and resolved by the first decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2006 which ruled that the claimants had a right to sue.
Read the Complete Hawai'i Supreme Court June 30, 2020 decision Here.