This brief was filed to support the application for writ of certiorari which asks the Hawaii Supreme Court to review the decision of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009).
In Maunalua Bay, the ICA held that "Act 73" was a taking. In the Act, the legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land.
The ICA, however, held that the Act was a taking only of existing accreted land, but was not a taking of what the ICA called "future accretions." The court held that because "future" accretion might never happen, the State could acquire it without first paying compensation. Maunalua Bay, 122 Haw. at 53, 222 P.3d at 460. The ICA accepted the State’s argument that Act 73 did not affect a taking of future accretion, because the right is simply a contingent future interest. The panel concluded, "any claims that Plaintiff may have to future accretions are purely speculative, and other courts have held that a riparian owner has no vested right to future accretions." Id.
This brief asks the Supreme Court to review the ICA's conclusion that future accretion is not a property interest.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.