01-25-2025, 07:22 PM
"but the ONLY Hawaii Supreme Court Case dealing with HPPOA (and its predecessors) is from 1983 and not 1981, in which the court found that..."
You are right about the date. It was 1982 (apologies). But you are incorrect about the "once." Casetext is limiting that way (sometimes you have to go looking for hard copies) and it does not help that PHH (now HPPOA) either forgot the other rulings or decided not to share them.
But yes, the '83 ruling, to which you are referring does state that owners have a legal obligation to contribute to road maintenance. A no brainer (at least for me personally) and probably the least complicated ruling to come out of 6595. Unfortunately, there were more difficult issues, which the lower court and PHH (now HPPOA) were to address, prior to 1983. However, PHH (now HPPOA) did not address all of the issues (or they did and then promptly forgot them again).
PHH (now HPPOA) had a rather cunning attorney. In fact, they had several, who managed to talk their way, through, around, and beyond. In fact, there was so much of this that the cases (it became plural) which spanned 20 years, were so dreaded by the courts, appointed attorneys, receivers, property managers, etc., that they just wanted it DONE. So, when the opportunity presented itself, as in a major case participant died, leaving the case ruling unchallenged, everything was hastily run through, avidavited, signed, and FORGOTTEN.
There are more Supreme Court rulings. I've seen them. You will just need to dig. It isn't as easy as Google, but it can be done.
From the SC:
"It is patent that the Plaintiff (PHH now HPPOA ***) seeks to be clothed with quasi-governmental powers to assess land owners for road maintenance where its organizational documents do not appear to authorize the functions for which the assessments are to be levied. Even should that authority be recognized, the proposed means of carrying it out is innately unfair."
*** added for clarity
You are right about the date. It was 1982 (apologies). But you are incorrect about the "once." Casetext is limiting that way (sometimes you have to go looking for hard copies) and it does not help that PHH (now HPPOA) either forgot the other rulings or decided not to share them.
But yes, the '83 ruling, to which you are referring does state that owners have a legal obligation to contribute to road maintenance. A no brainer (at least for me personally) and probably the least complicated ruling to come out of 6595. Unfortunately, there were more difficult issues, which the lower court and PHH (now HPPOA) were to address, prior to 1983. However, PHH (now HPPOA) did not address all of the issues (or they did and then promptly forgot them again).
PHH (now HPPOA) had a rather cunning attorney. In fact, they had several, who managed to talk their way, through, around, and beyond. In fact, there was so much of this that the cases (it became plural) which spanned 20 years, were so dreaded by the courts, appointed attorneys, receivers, property managers, etc., that they just wanted it DONE. So, when the opportunity presented itself, as in a major case participant died, leaving the case ruling unchallenged, everything was hastily run through, avidavited, signed, and FORGOTTEN.
There are more Supreme Court rulings. I've seen them. You will just need to dig. It isn't as easy as Google, but it can be done.
From the SC:
"It is patent that the Plaintiff (PHH now HPPOA ***) seeks to be clothed with quasi-governmental powers to assess land owners for road maintenance where its organizational documents do not appear to authorize the functions for which the assessments are to be levied. Even should that authority be recognized, the proposed means of carrying it out is innately unfair."
*** added for clarity