Real Estate & Property Law

HAWICA: No "Vested Right" To Beachfront Accretion

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

This just in: the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175, a case we recently analyzed here.

We conclude that (1) Plaintiffs and the class they represent had no vested property rights to future accretions to their oceanfront land and, therefore, Act 73 did not effect an uncompensated taking of future accretions; and (2) Act 73 effectuated a permanent taking of littoral owners' ownership right to existing accretions to the owners' oceanfront properties that had not been registered or recorded or made the subject of a then-pending quiet-title lawsuit or petition to register the accretions.

Accordingly, we vacate that part of the PSJ order which concluded that Act 73 took from oceanfront owners their property rights in all future accretion that was not proven to be the restored portion of previously eroded land. We remand this case to the circuit court for a determination of whether Plaintiffs have accreted lands that existed when Act 73 was enacted and, if so, for a determination of the damages they incurred as a result of the enactment of Act 73.

Here's the court's opinion by Judge Watanabe, and the concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge Nakamura.

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners, available here.

More, after a chance to read the opinions.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on December 30, 2009 (boomark / email).