Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd.
66 Haw. 1, 656 P. 2d 745 (1982)
Rule of Law:
Traditional native Hawaiian gathering rights to enter undeveloped lands within an ahupua'a are reserved for lawful occupants who actually reside within that ahupua'a. Mere ownership of property within the ahupua'a, without residency, is insufficient to exercise these rights.
Facts:
- William Kalipi, a resident of the island of Molokai, owned a taro patch in the ahupua'a of Manawai and an adjoining houselot in the ahupua'a of East Ohia.
- Kalipi was raised on these properties and resided there periodically until 1975.
- At the time of the legal dispute, Kalipi and his family resided in the nearby ahupua'a of Keawenui, not on his properties in Manawai or Ohia.
- For many years, Kalipi and his family had a practice of traveling onto the undeveloped lands in Ohia and Manawai, which were owned by the Defendants, to gather natural products like ti leaf, bamboo, and medicinal herbs for traditional practices.
- The Defendants, who owned the large, undeveloped tracts of land in Ohia and Manawai, refused to grant Kalipi unfettered access to their lands for gathering purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- William Kalipi filed an action in a Hawaii state trial court against the landowners of the ahupua'a of Ohia and Manawai to establish his right to gather natural products.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a special verdict finding that Kalipi had no such gathering right.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants based on the jury's verdict.
- Kalipi, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who owns land but does not reside within a specific ahupua'a have the right to enter undeveloped private and state lands within that ahupua'a to gather natural products for traditional native Hawaiian practices?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, C.J.
No. A person must be a lawful occupant residing within an ahupua'a to exercise traditional gathering rights on undeveloped lands within that ahupua'a. The court interpreted HRS § 7-1, which grants rights to 'the people on each of their lands... from the land on which they live,' to require actual residency, not just property ownership. This interpretation is necessary to balance the constitutional mandate to protect traditional rights with the principles of modern fee simple land ownership. Extending these rights to non-resident, absentee landowners would be contrary to the statute's original intent, which was to support the subsistence lifestyle of tenants. The court also held that any customary rights preserved under HRS § 1-1 or in original land grants would similarly be limited to residents of the ahupua'a. Since Kalipi did not reside in either Ohia or Manawai, he was not entitled to exercise gathering rights there as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical and bright-line residency requirement for the exercise of traditional native Hawaiian gathering rights. By tethering these rights to residency within a specific ahupua'a, the court limits their scope and prevents a conflict with modern fee simple property rights that could arise if any descendant or absentee landowner could claim access. This ruling provides judicial guidance mandated by the Hawaii Constitution, clarifying that these are not universal rights but are specific to the inhabitants of a particular traditional land division. The case sets a precedent that plaintiffs asserting such customary rights must first establish their residency in the ahupua'a in question, significantly shaping the landscape of future native rights litigation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Kalipi v. Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd. (1982)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"