Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; June 27, 1980; Hawaii; State Appellate Court
In the case of City and County of Honolulu v. Manoa Investment Company, Inc., the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii reviewed an appeal concerning an eminent domain proceeding where the City and County sought to take a road easement identified as Parcel 19, owned by Manoa Investment Company, Inc. The court granted the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment, awarding $1.00 as just compensation, asserting that Parcel 19 had been impliedly dedicated as a roadway for public use.
The history of Parcel 19 revealed that it was part of a larger tract previously owned by Hirotoshi Yamamoto, who had subdivided it and set aside Parcel 19 for the proposed Woodlawn Drive-Lowrey Avenue Extension. This plan was later approved by the City and incorporated into the city’s Master Plan. The court referenced the precedent set in Territory v. Ala Moana Gardens, which established that when a subdivision owner dedicates land for public use and the plans are recorded and approved by local authorities, such dedication becomes binding on subsequent owners without the need for the streets to be immediately opened.
On appeal, Manoa Investment Company argued that the trial court incorrectly ruled that the implied dedication of Parcel 19 was valid. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming the implied dedication based on the established legal principles regarding land subdivision and dedication.
Defendant Manoa Investment Company, Inc. contends that the principle of implied dedication of Parcel 19 as a roadway does not apply because Mr. Yamamoto set it aside under statutory compulsion and an existing Master Plan, rather than voluntarily. However, the court cites the decision in City and County of Honolulu v. Plews, which established that implied dedication can occur even when a Master Plan is present. Manoa further argues that implied dedication only pertains to lands registered in the Land Court, but the court finds this argument unmeritorious, noting that prior cases did not restrict implied dedication to registered lands. Additionally, Manoa raises an appeal argument regarding the necessity of all of Parcel 19 for public use; however, this issue was not preserved at the trial level, as the defendant previously withdrew a related motion, agreeing that the entire parcel was needed for public purposes. The appellate court, adhering to the principle that it will not consider unpreserved issues, affirms the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment.
