Real Estate & Property Law

HAWICA Oral Argument: Can Complainer Avoid The Administrative Process By An Original Jurisdiction Lawsuit?

By Robert Thomas

Starting at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 2011, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Pavsek v. Sandvold, No. 29179. In that case, the court is considering whether a complainer can circumvent the City's enforcement procedures and the administrative appeal process by instituting an original jurisdiction lawsuit claiming that a homeowner is renting her property in violation of the City's prohibition on rentals of less than thirty days.

We won't be analyzing the issues or live blogging the arguments because our firm represents one of the appellees (my Damon Key partner Gregory Kugle will be arguing on Wednesday), so here's the summary of the case from the Judiciary web site:

Plaintiff-Appellants Joseph Pavsek and Ikuyo Pavsek (the Pavseks) appeal from the final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) in favor of Defendant-Appellees Todd Sandvold, Juliana Sandvold, Kent Sather, Joan Sather, Waialua Oceanview LLC, Hawaii Beach Homes, Inc., Hawaii Beach Travel, Inc., and Hawaii on the Beach, Inc. (Appellees). The Pavseks own residential property on Oahu's North Shore and Appellees own or manage property that is on the same street as the Pavseks' property. The Pavseks filed a complaint against Appellees alleging, among other things, that Appellees have been using the properties Appellees' own or manage as transient vacation units and/or bed and breakfast homes in violation of the City and County of Honolulu (City) Land Use Ordinance. The circuit court granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss the Pavseks' complaint and entered final judgment in favor of Appellees.

On appeal, the Pavseks argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their complaint by ruling that: 1) the Pavseks had no direct statutory right to seek an injunction to enforce the City's zoning ordinance under Hawai`i Revised Statutes 46-4(a) (Supp. 2009); 2) the Pavseks had failed to name the City as an indispensable party; 3) the Pavseks have failed to state a claim for nuisance; 4) the Sandvolds owed the Pavseks no fiduciary duties regarding a jointly-owned easement; and 5) the Pavseks cannot maintain a claim for unjust enrichment.

Here are the briefs in the case:

• Opening Brief (Pavsek)
  

• Answering Brief (Sandvold-HBH)

• Answering Brief (Sather)

• Answering Brief (Waialua OceanView, HBT, HOB)

• Reply Brief (Pavsek)

The ICA will be convening in the Supreme Court courtroom, 417 South King Street, Honolulu. We'll link to the oral argument recording once it becomes available.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on January 27, 2011 (boomark / email).