Town v. Land Use Commission

Hawaii Supreme Court
55 Haw. 538, 1974 Haw. LEXIS 130, 524 P.2d 84 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statutory time limit for an administrative agency to render a decision that uses the word 'shall' is mandatory, and failure to act within that period renders the decision null and void. A proceeding to amend a land use district boundary that affects the property interests of specific parties is a quasi-judicial 'contested case' under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act, requiring adherence to procedural due process protections.

Facts:

On April 14, 1971, Ralph S. Yagi petitioned the Land Use Commission (LUC) to reclassify his property on Maui from an 'agricultural' to a 'rural' designation.
Michael A. Town, an adjoining landowner, opposed the petition.
On July 16, 1971, the LUC held a public hearing on Maui where Town and others spoke in opposition to Yagi's petition.
The LUC scheduled a final decision meeting for October 8, 1971, but the decision was deferred at Yagi's request.
Another meeting was scheduled for November 19, 1971, but the decision was again deferred at Yagi's request.
On January 7, 1972, 175 days after the public hearing, the LUC held a meeting in Hilo to make a final decision.
At the Hilo meeting, Yagi was permitted to speak, rebut opposing statements, and submit documents, despite Town's prior written objection to the taking of any further evidence.
At the same meeting, an LUC commissioner stated his support for the petition was based in part on his own 'field investigation' of the land, of which Town had not been notified.

Procedural Posture:

The Land Use Commission of the State of Hawaii approved a petition filed by Ralph Yagi to reclassify his property.
Michael A. Town, an adjoining landowner, appealed the commission's decision to the circuit court of the second circuit, State of Hawaii.
Both Town and the Land Use Commission filed motions for summary judgment in the circuit court.
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Land Use Commission.
Town, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's decision 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 the Land Use Commission violate statutory requirements and deny due process by rendering a decision on a district boundary change petition outside the mandated 45-to-90-day time limit and after receiving ex parte testimony from the petitioner?

Opinions:

Majority - Kobayashi, J.

Yes, the Commission's decision is null and void because it violated both a mandatory statutory deadline and the procedural requirements for a contested case. First, the statute's language that the commission 'shall' act within a 45-to-90-day period is unambiguous and mandatory, not merely directory. This requirement protects all interested parties, including adjoining landowners like Town, from being placed in a state of 'limbo' at the discretion of the applicant. Second, a proceeding to amend a district boundary is not rule-making; it is a 'contested case' under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (HAPA) because it is an adjudicative process that determines the legal rights and property interests of specific parties. As a contested case, it required procedural due process. The LUC violated HAPA by receiving ex parte testimony and documents from Yagi without affording Town the opportunity for cross-examination or rebuttal, and by relying on a commissioner's personal 'view' of the property without prior notice to the parties.

Dissenting - Ogata, J.

No, the Commission's decision should be upheld. First, the 45-to-90-day time limit is directory, not mandatory. Legislative history shows the deadline was intended to prevent undue delay for landowners, not to invalidate agency action taken after the deadline. To construe it as mandatory would create a nonsensical result where a petitioner must refile indefinitely if the agency delays. Second, this proceeding was an exercise of the agency's rule-making power, not a 'contested case.' Amending a district boundary is an agency action of 'particular applicability and future effect that implements... law or policy,' which fits the statutory definition of a rule. Therefore, the strict procedural requirements of a contested case, such as the right to cross-examination, do not apply. Even if there were procedural errors, they were harmless.

Analysis:

This decision is significant in administrative law for clarifying the distinction between quasi-legislative rule-making and quasi-judicial adjudication. It establishes that agency proceedings determining the specific property rights of individuals, such as zoning changes affecting adjoining landowners, are 'contested cases' that trigger constitutional and statutory due process requirements. This holding strengthens the procedural rights of parties in land use disputes against agency action. Furthermore, the court's strict interpretation of 'shall' reinforces that statutory deadlines imposed on government agencies are mandatory, preventing agencies from indefinitely delaying decisions to the detriment of interested parties.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Town v. Land Use Commission (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature