FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 12-FEB-2025 08:03 AM Dkt. 133 OP
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---
RICHARD NELSON III, KALIKO CHUN, JAMES AKIONA, SR., SHERILYN ADAMS, KELII IOANE, JR., and CHARLES AIPIA, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, KALI WATSON, in his official capacity as Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, 1 SANOE MARFIL, WALT KANEAKUA, ARCHIE KALEPA, PAULINE NAMUʻO, LAWRENCE LASUA, DENNIS NEVES, MICHAEL KALEIKINI, and MAKAI FREITAS, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, 2 Defendants-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, and LUIS P. SALAVERIA, in his official capacity as the State Director of Finance, 3 and the STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.
1 Pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 201 and Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 43(c)(1), we take judicial notice that Kali Watson is the current Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and is automatically substituted as a Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee in place of William Aila, Jr. 2 Pursuant to HRE Rule 201 and HRAP Rule 43(c)(1), we take judicial notice that Sanoe Marfil, Walt Kaneakua, Archie Kalepa, Lawrence Lasua, and Makai Freitas are current members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and they are automatically substituted as Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees in place of Patricia Kahanamoku-Teruya, Randy Awo, Zachery Helm, David B. Kaʻapu, and Russell Kaupu. 3 Pursuant to HRE Rule 201 and HRAP Rule 43(c)(1), we take judicial notice that Luis P. Salaveria is the current Director of Finance and is automatically substituted as a Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee in place of Craig Hirai. FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC071001663)
FEBRUARY 12, 2025
HIRAOKA, PRESIDING JUDGE, NAKASONE AND MCCULLEN, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY MCCULLEN, J.
The litigation in this case began almost eighteen
years ago when Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Richard
Nelson III et al., beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act (HHCA), sued the Defendants-Appellees/Cross-
Appellees State of Hawai‘i and its director of finance
(collectively, State) and Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees
the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Hawaiian Homes
Commission, and its commissioners (collectively, Department or
DHHL).
In their 2007 "First Amended Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment and Injunctive Relief" (2007 First Amended Complaint),
Plaintiffs claimed the State did not provide (Count 1), and DHHL
did not request (Count 2), sufficient funding to support the
HHCA's programs resulting in thousands of native Hawaiians
waiting for promised homesteads. This case is now on appeal for
2 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the third time following the selection of an inflation index and
its application to the fiscal year (or FY) 2015-2016.
We hold the Circuit Court of the First Circuit 4 did not
err in its selection and application of an inflation index. But
we also hold the circuit court erred in entering judgment in
favor of the State on Count 1 and in favor of DHHL on Count 2 of
the 2007 First Amended Complaint based on its findings for
fiscal year 2015-2016.
I. BACKGROUND
The background of this case was recounted in Nelson v.
Hawaiian Homes Commission (Nelson I), 127 Hawai‘i 185, 277 P.3d
279, (2012); Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission (Nelson II),
130 Hawai‘i 162, 307 P.3d 142 (2013); and Nelson v. Hawaiian
Homes Commission (Nelson III), 141 Hawai‘i 411, 412 P.3d 917
(2018). We provide historical and procedural context as related
to the issues currently on appeal.
A. Historical Context
Congress enacted the HHCA to protect and rehabilitate
the "fast declining" native Hawaiian population. 59 Cong. Rec.
7448 (1920). By dedicating over 200,000 acres of former
government and crown lands for a homesteading program, Congress
hoped to "place the Hawaiian back on the soil" and thereby avert
4 The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree presided. Other circuit court judges presided over the previous remands.
3 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"the entire disappearance of the Hawaiian race in the not
distant future." 59 Cong. Rec. at 7448-7449, 7453; 1995 Haw.
Spec. Sess. Laws Act 14, § 1 at 696.
The HHCA was later incorporated into the state
constitution as a condition of statehood. Admission Act, Pub.
L. No. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4 (1959), reprinted in 1 Hawai‘i Revised
Statutes at 135–36 (2009).
Cognizant of DHHL's "monumental and eternal dilemma in
funding[,]" delegates to the 1978 Constitutional Convention
(ConCon) introduced, and Hawai‘i voters ratified, an amendment
requiring the legislature to "make sufficient sums available for
. . . the administration and operating budget of the department
of Hawaiian home lands[.]" Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 189, 198-99,
277 P.3d at 283, 292-93 (some emphasis omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted) quoting Debates in Committee of the
Whole on Hawaiian Affairs, Comm. Prop. No. 11, in 2 Proceedings
of the Constitutional Convention of Hawai‘i of 1978
(2 Proceedings), at 410 (1980)).
As a result, our state constitution now requires the
legislature to "make sufficient funds available" for four
specific purposes including, as relevant to this appeal, DHHL's
administration and operating budget:
4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The legislature shall make sufficient sums available for the following purposes: (1) development of home, agriculture, farm and ranch lots; (2) home, agriculture, aquaculture, farm and ranch loans; (3) rehabilitation projects to include, but not limited to, educational, economic, political, social and cultural processes by which the general welfare and conditions of native Hawaiians are thereby improved; (4) the administration and operating budget of the department of Hawaiian home lands; in furtherance of (1), (2), (3), and (4) herein, by appropriating the same in the manner provided by law.
Haw. Const. art. XII, § 1 (emphases added); Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i
at 189, 277 P.3d at 283. Our supreme court noted that despite
this constitutional mandate, "the State has failed, by any
reasonable measure, under the undisputed facts, to provide
sufficient funding to DHHL[.]" Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 205, 277
P.3d at 299.
B. Proceedings Related to Nelson I
1. The 2007 First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs' 2007 First Amended Complaint 5 sought
"redress for the failure of this State and agencies of the State
to live up to their solemn trust obligations pursuant to the
[HHCA] and Article XII § 1 of the Hawai‘i State Constitution."
Count 1 claimed in part that DHHL "does not currently
receive sufficient funds for . . . (4) the administration and
operating budget of the [DHHL.]" (Emphasis added.)
5 The 2007 First Amended Complaint included Counts 3 and 4, but the parties stipulated to dismiss Count 3 without prejudice and Count 4 with prejudice.
5 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Count 2, by realleging Count 1's allegations, claimed
in part that the "state administration fails to annually request
'sufficient sums' for the administration and operating budget of
the [DHHL] to assure that . . . all programs of the department
prescribed under Article XII, § 1 are adequately funded."
(Emphasis added.)
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory order, injunctive
relief, appointment of a special master, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief the circuit court deemed proper.
The State moved for summary judgment arguing "[a]ny
claim that the Hawai‘i Legislature has an obligation under
Article XII, Sections 1 & 2, of the [Hawai‘i] Constitution to
provide a certain level of money to DHHL is barred by the
Political Question Doctrine." 6 (Formatting altered.) The
circuit court granted the State's motion.
Plaintiffs appealed.
2. Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) Decision (2011)
In order to decide "whether the 1978 constitutional
amendment requiring sufficient funding of DHHL [was] a political
question," this court applied the six-factor test in Trustees of
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. 154, 737
6 The political question "doctrine is the result of the balance courts must strike in preserving separation of powers yet providing a check upon the other two branches of government." Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 194, 277 P.3d at 288.
6 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
P.2d 446 (1987), "to the intent of the delegates to the 1978
Constitutional Convention." Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n
(Nelson), 124 Hawai‘i 437, 442, 444, 246 P.3d 369, 374, 376
(App. 2011).
Ultimately, this court concluded that none of the six
factors indicating a political question were present and the
"question of the legislature making sufficient sums available to
the DHHL is justiciable and therefore not a political question."
Id. at 447, 246 P.3d at 379.
This court then vacated the circuit court's final
judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id.
The State filed an application for a writ of
certiorari.
3. Nelson I (2012) - Hawai‘i Supreme Court's Decision Regarding the Political Question Doctrine
On certiorari, the supreme court affirmed this court's
judgment but only as to "what constitutes 'sufficient sums' for
DHHL's administrative and operating expenses[,]" not the other
three purposes. Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 188, 206, 277 P.3d at
282, 300. In particular, the supreme court recounted the
delegates' detailed explanations "as to how administrative and
operating costs were allocated" and concluded that, "by the end
of the Committee on the Whole Debates, what was certain was that
the $1.3 to $1.6 [million] figure represented 'sufficient sums'
7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
for administrative and operating expenses only." Nelson I, 127
Hawai‘i at 200, 202–03, 277 P.3d at 294, 296–97.
As a result, the supreme court held that "the 1978
Constitutional Convention history does provide judicially
discoverable and manageable standards that do not involve
initial policy determinations of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretion." Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 203, 277 P.3d at 297. "At
a minimum, funding at or above the $1.3 to $1.6 million
envisioned in 1978 would be required." Id. (footnote omitted).
But, the court explained, "this figure could be adjusted to
reflect the impact of factors such as inflation or increased
collective bargaining costs, both of which were acknowledged by
[a delegate] as factors that could appropriately be taken into
account in determining the required contribution." Nelson I,
127 Hawai‘i at 203 n.8, 277 P.3d at 297 n.8 (emphasis added).
In short, the supreme court affirmed this court's
judgment (which vacated the circuit court's judgment) "but only
on the narrower ground that the determination of what
constitutes 'sufficient sums' for administrative and operating
expenses under the Hawai‘i Constitution's Article XII, Section 1
[(adopting the HHCA)] is justiciable and not barred as a
political question." Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 206, 277 P.3d at
300.
8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In a footnote, the supreme court explained that only
Count 1 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint was at issue because
DHHL did not apply for a writ of certiorari as to Count 2.
Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 191 n.4, 277 P.3d at 285 n.4. "As a
practical matter, however, the ICA's judgment vacated the entire
circuit court judgment and remanded the entire case for a
decision on the merits, which reopened all the Counts." Id.
C. Nelson II (2013) - Hawai‘i Supreme Court's Decision Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Briefly, in Nelson II, the supreme court considered
whether Plaintiffs were entitled to an award of attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine as
they prevailed in Nelson I. Nelson II, 130 Hawai‘i at 165, 307
P.3d at 145. Although the supreme court denied the request for
attorneys' fees (without prejudice), the supreme court clarified
that Plaintiffs prevailed in Nelson I because their claim(s)
against the State survived. Nelson II, 130 Hawai‘i at 166, 307
P.3d at 146.
D. Proceedings Related to Nelson III
1. On Remand to Circuit Court (2014-2016)
On remand, the circuit court held a bench trial on
Counts 1 and 2 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint. The circuit
court heard testimony from nine witnesses and received 239
exhibits into evidence.
9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In its November 27, 2015 Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Order, the circuit court found that the State
appropriated less funds than requested:
In each fiscal year since 1992, the State has appropriated to DHHL less in general funds than what DHHL requested to be appropriated for its administrative and operating costs:
Amount Amount of General Funds Requested: Appropriated:
1991-92: 5,111,453 4,278,706 1992-93: 5,079,006 3,850,727 1993-94: 5,569,607 3,251,162 1994-95: 5,609,683 3,251,162 1995-96: 6,178,421 2,565,951 1996-97: 6,222,903 1,569,838 1997-98: 6,944,784 1,493,016 1998-99: 7,710,784 1,347,684 1999-00: 7,120,905 1,298,554 2000-01: 7,120,905 1,298,554 2001-02: 7,373,104 1,359,546 2002-03: 7,373,104 1,196,452 2003-04: 8,890,352 1,297,007 2004-05: 8,947,595 1,277,007 2005-06: 9,129,838 817,559 2006-07: 9,129,838 1,067,559 2007-08: 10,966,821 1,169,174 2008-09: 11,522,092 883,669 2009-10: 19,603,754 0 2010-11: 19,603,754 0 2011-12: 20,122,220 0 2012-13: 20,122,220 0 2013-14: 25,727,315 9,632,000 2014-15: 27,122,825 9,632,000 2015-16: 28,478,966 9,632,000
And "between and including fiscal years 1992 and 2013," DHHL's
"own funding requests to the legislature were for less than DHHL
determined that it needed." The circuit court also found that
"[s]ince 1978, the legislature has not appropriated enough
general funds to pay for DHHL's administrative and operating
expense[s]."
10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The circuit court then contemplated "DHHL's actual
administrative and operating budget expenses" and DHHL's
projections for then-current fiscal year 2015-2016. In total,
the court determined DHHL needed more than $28 million for its
fiscal year 2015-2016 administrative and operating budget.
In its "Order Amending Order Issued November 27,
2015[,]" the circuit court determined that "the amount of
general funds appropriated to DHHL for its administrative and
operating budget for fiscal year 2015-16 ($9,632,000) [was] not
sufficient."
The circuit court entered the May 31, 2016 First
Amended Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against the
State as to Count 1 and in favor of Plaintiffs and against DHHL
as to Count 2.
The State appealed, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed.
DHHL applied for transfer to the supreme court, which was
accepted.
2. Nelson III (2018) - Hawai‘i Supreme Court's Decision Regarding Actual Needs
The supreme court vacated the circuit court's decision
because it exceeded Nelson I's mandate by determining DHHL's
actual need for its administrative and operating expenses.
Nelson III, 141 Hawai‘i at 413, 412 P.3d at 919.
11 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
More specifically, the supreme court held "the circuit
court erred by engaging in a comprehensive inquiry into the
amount DHHL actually needed for its administrative and operating
expenses." Nelson III, 141 Hawai‘i at 412, 412 P.3d at 918.
Rather, "[u]nder Nelson I, the only judicially discoverable and
manageable standard for determining 'sufficient sums' for DHHL's
administrative and operating budget was established by the
delegates of the 1978 Constitutional Convention as $1.3 to 1.6
million, adjusted for inflation." Id. (citation omitted).
The supreme court announced in three different places
in its opinion that it vacated the circuit court's judgments and
underlying orders and remanded the case for further proceedings
and to determine sufficient sums for fiscal year 2015-2016:
• "we vacate the circuit court's First Amended Final Judgment, Final Judgment, and underlying orders, and remand this case to the circuit court to determine the current value of $1.3 to 1.6 million (in 1978 dollars), adjusted for inflation[,]" Id. at 413, 412 P.3d at 919; • "we vacate the circuit court's First Amended Final Judgment, Final Judgment, and underlying orders. This case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. On remand, the circuit court shall determine whether the State Defendants have provided 'sufficient sums' for DHHL's administrative and operating budget using the only judicially discoverable and
12 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
manageable standard identified in Nelson I: the 1978 baseline of $1.3 to 1.6 million, adjusted for inflation[,]" Id. at 422, 412 P.3d at 928; and • "the circuit court's First Amended Final Judgment, Final Judgment, and underlying orders are vacated, and this case is remanded to the circuit court to determine whether the State Defendants have provided 'sufficient sums' for DHHL's administrative and operating budget for the 2015-2016 fiscal year using the only judicially discoverable and manageable standard identified in Nelson I: the 1978 baseline of $1.3 to 1.6 million, adjusted for inflation." Id.
The supreme court then entered its judgment, vacating
the circuit court's judgments and underlying order and remanding
the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion:
• "the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's ('circuit court') First Amended Final Judgment, Final Judgment, and underlying order are vacated, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion." E. Proceedings Related to This Appeal
1. Pre-Hearing Motions
On remand to the circuit court, the State moved for
summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. DHHL moved to
13 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
set the inflation rate at eight percent annually, or
alternatively, to hold an evidentiary hearing; the circuit court
granted DHHL's motion to the extent it requested an evidentiary
hearing.
And Plaintiffs moved the court for "a final
determination to resolve count 1 of [P]laintiffs' Complaint
filed in 2007." Plaintiffs reiterated that their 2007 First
Amended Complaint "did not ask for a determination as to exactly
how much money would be sufficient for the Department[.]"
Instead, they "specifically asked for 'a Declaratory Order that
. . . [t]he State of Hawai‘i has failed to provide sufficient
funds to the Department . . . in violation of [its]
constitutional duty to do so[.]" (Emphasis omitted.)
The circuit court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a
determination as to Count 1. The circuit court explained it
understood Plaintiffs' "argument that Count 1 was never about a
single year and [that] this court should therefore determine and
add up amounts for the administrative and operating budgets for
all the years at issue and find that Plaintiffs prevailed[.]"
The circuit court, however, noted "the remand order specifically
direct[ed] [it] to determine the administrative and operating
budget for the 2015-2016 fiscal year by using the 1978 baseline
of $1.3 to $1.6 million, adjusted for inflation." The court
explained it was "first [going to] follow the remand order[,]"
14 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
and the "form of any Final Judgment issued by [the] court
[would] be determined at the end of the remanded proceedings[.]"
2. Evidentiary Hearing
The evidentiary hearing focused on the inflation index
the circuit court should apply to adjust $1.3 to $1.6 million in
1978 dollars to 2015-2016 dollars.
Two threshold matters shaped the court's analysis.
First, the court distinguished "between inflation (price changes
over time for the same or similar goods and services) versus
growth of costs (adding services and employees over time
increases the budget baseline, which in turn changes over time
due to inflation)." Because the court understood Nelson III's
instruction as precluding "any evidence of cost increases above
the 1978 baseline(s) resulting from growth as opposed to
inflation[,]" it "focused on determining inflation based on the
same or similar costs, and not determining inflation to include
growth of goods and services."
Second, the court declined to "determine what
inflation rate or index the ConCon estimated and applied in 1978
and then apply it for the period 1978 to [fiscal year] 2016."
Although "the court agree[d] there is reason to believe the
ConCon was referring to the [Consumer Price Index or] CPI[,]" it
noted "the remand order does not require that only the CPI be
used to adjust for inflation from 1978 to FY 2016." Instead,
15 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the court interpreted its task as "a fact-based economics and
math exercise" in which it was to "make a factual determination
of what a 1978 budget actually costs in 2016 due to inflation"
using the best available tool. It said it was "not aware of any
applicable law precluding it from using all available and
admissible evidence to solve this exercise as accurately as
possible."
Over two days, the circuit court heard testimony from
three expert witnesses "in the field of economics, including how
to adjust for inflation." Although the experts generally agreed
"adjusting for inflation involves tracking changes in prices
over time[,]" they each testified to "different ways to adjust
for inflation."
First, the State's expert testified the U.S.
Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index was the best method
to adjust the 1978 baseline for inflation because it "is the
most widely used method to track inflation, particularly for
economic analysis and policy-making." The CPI "measures changes
in the prices of goods and services for consumers: namely, goods
and services bought and consumed by individuals, families, and
households." (Emphasis omitted.) The Honolulu CPI, for
example, tracks "categories includ[ing] food, cars, gas,
housing, furniture, medical costs, education, travel,
electricity, and other consumer-oriented items." Moreover, the
16 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
State inferred that the "excerpts from the 1978 Constitutional
Convention which referred to an 8% inflation" may have been
referring to the CPI because eight percent was "approximately
the inflation rate per the CPI then."
Next, the Department's expert testified the court
should apply the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment
Cost Index for State and Local Government (ECI) because it
"tracks the compensation of state and local government employees
over time" and DHHL's largest expense continues to be "personnel
costs, including salaries and fringe benefits."
Last, Plaintiffs' expert testified the court should
apply the State and Local Government Consumption Expenditures
Price Index (SLGC) which "tracks price changes for government
goods and services and specifically adjusts for increased costs
due to government growth" by separating "out these quantitative
effects of the increase in the size of government from any price
effects." "Unlike the ECI, the SLGC also includes moneys that
state and local governments spend for office equipment,
materials, supplies, and services, including salaries."
3. Findings and Conclusions
In its December 18, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Order, the circuit court found the SLGC was the
"better tool" to measure inflation. The court explained that
"the SLGC [was] better than a CPI (both U.S. and Honolulu)
17 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
because . . . the two CPI indexes focus on consumer costs, which
simply do not reflect the costs of government agencies." It
also found "the SLGC [was] better than ECI, which [was] limited
to employee salaries and benefits."
Applying the SLGC index for inflation, the court
adopted $5,810,065.00 and $7,150,850.00 in fiscal year 2015-2016
dollars as the adjusted amounts for the 1978 baseline of $1.3
and $1.6 million, respectively.
It then found there was "no dispute that the
Legislature appropriated over $17 million in general funds for
DHHL's administrative and operating budget for fiscal year
2016[.]" In fact, the "actual appropriation of over $17 million
exceeds by far every expert opinion offered post-remand[.]" "No
matter which inflation index this court may have selected from
the experts and evidence presented, a single conclusion is
required: 'sufficient sums' were provided." 7
The court thus determined "that by appropriating over
$17 million for FY 2016, the State Defendants provided
'sufficient sums' for DHHL's administrative and operating budget
for the 2015-2016 fiscal year[.]"
7 We note the parties do not appeal from the circuit court's determination that sufficient sums were provided for fiscal year 2015-2016.
18 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment as to Count 1,
arguing they were "entitled to summary judgment and a
declaratory order that the State of Hawai‘i failed to provide
sufficient funds to the [DHHL] in violation of its
constitutional duty to do so pursuant to Article XII § 1
[(adopting the HHCA)] of the state constitution." Plaintiffs
argued that "Count 1 was never confined to any one particular
year" and "certainly not to fiscal year 2016." Plaintiffs
pointed out that "[w]ithout even considering inflation, it is
obvious that the legislature failed to provide the [DHHL] with
sufficient sums in fiscal years 2000-2013."
5. Final Judgment
As to Count 1 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint, the
circuit court entered judgment in favor of the State and against
Plaintiffs based on its findings for fiscal year 2015-2016.
As to Count 2 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint, the
circuit court entered judgment in favor of DHHL and against
The circuit court elaborated on its judgment regarding
Counts 1 and 2 in its "Analysis and Conclusions Regarding Entry
of Final Judgment[.]" (Formatting altered.) As relevant to
this appeal, the court explained "[t]he only remaining issue in
this court's view [is] the prior years, before FY 2015-2016. On
19 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
that issue, [the] court will practice strict abeyance to what it
concludes is the express limit of the remand instructions --
determine sufficient sums for one year, FY 2015-2016."
Then, in a minute order, the circuit court removed
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment from the calendar
because it was "moot in light of the Final Judgment entered
5/25/21. Although the [motion] was filed before the Final
Judgment was entered, the court conclude[d] the issues presented
were fully aired in the previous filings and arguments[.]"
(Formatting altered.)
DHHL appealed, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed. The
parties did not apply to transfer this case to the supreme
court.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Appellate courts review findings of fact under the
clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law under the
right/wrong standard. Kalima v. State, 148 Hawai‘i 129, 143, 468
P.3d 143, 157 (2020); Ching v. Case, 145 Hawai‘i 148, 165, 449
P.3d 1146, 1163 (2019). But conclusions of law presenting mixed
questions of fact and law are reviewed "under the clearly
erroneous standard because the court's conclusions are dependent
upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case." Chun
v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of State of Hawai‘i, 106
Hawai‘i 416, 430, 106 P.3d 339, 353 (2005) (cleaned up).
20 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Interpretation of a court order is reviewed de novo.
State v. Guyton, 135 Hawai‘i 372, 377, 351 P.3d 1138, 1143
(2015).
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, DHHL challenges the circuit court's
selection and application of the SLGC inflation index. 8 Both
DHHL and Plaintiffs challenge the circuit court's judgment in
favor of the State on Count 1. Plaintiffs additionally
challenge the circuit court's judgment in favor of DHHL on
Count 2. 9 Again, the circuit court did not err in selecting and
applying the SLGC index, but erred in entering judgment in favor
of the State on Count 1 and DHHL on Count 2 as pled in the 2007
First Amended Complaint.
8 DHHL also challenges the circuit court's failure to provide a prospective method of calculating inflation. DHHL fails to point to where in the record it brought this issue to the circuit court's attention and, thus, this challenge is waived. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4).
Even if this challenge was not waived, the 2007 First Amended Complaint did not request, and the prior appellate dispositions did not direct, that the circuit court set an inflation index for prospective use. Nelson, 124 Hawai‘i at 447, 246 P.3d at 379; Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 206, 277 P.3d at 300; Nelson II, 130 Hawai‘i at 173-74, 307 P.3d at 153-54; Nelson III, 141 Hawai‘i at 422, 412 P.3d at 928. Thus, we cannot say that the circuit court erred when it did not identify a particular inflation index to be used prospectively. 9 Plaintiffs also challenge the circuit court's "effective[] den[ial]" of their motion for summary judgment. Based on our decision, we need not reach this issue.
21 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
A. The Circuit Court Did Not Err in Selecting and Applying the SLGC Index
On appeal, DHHL contends "the [c]ircuit [c]ourt erred
in concluding that the best inflation rate was the SLGC,
disregarding the words of the delegates at the 1978
Constitutional Convention and the legislature's authorization
for positions at the DHHL." 10 "Instead, the [c]ircuit [c]ourt
should have adopted the 8-percent inflation rate set by the
Delegates at the Debates or adopted the ECI and taken into
account the increase in DHHL's staff size."
DHHL relies on the following excerpt from the debate
to support its argument:
"From [the $1.3 million] budget, $750,000 goes toward staff salaries for 66 percent of the staff. Even this figure will rise as this portion of the staff is civil service and subject to an 8-percent annual inflation rate."
10 Appearing to challenge DHHL's standing, the State argues DHHL's appeal should be dismissed as it "is confusingly attempting to appeal from the judgment that the circuit court entered against Plaintiffs below" and that "[t]here is no legitimate legal basis for DHHL's appeal because DHHL is not a 'party aggrieved' by the judgment of a circuit court."
An aggrieved party is "one who is affected or prejudiced by the appealable order." Leone v. Cnty. of Maui, 141 Hawai‘i 68, 89, 404 P.3d 1257, 1278 (2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The circuit court's selection of an inflation index affects the calculation of sufficient sums and, thus, affects DHHL's administrative and operating budget. Montalvo v. Chang, 64 Haw. 345, 351, 641 P.2d 1321, 1326 (1982) (holding that, although the orders did not subject the State to further liability, the State was aggrieved "since its interests may well be jeopardized if the fees in question were improper") (overruled on other grounds by Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of State of Hawai‘i, 92 Hawaiʻi 432, 992 P.2d 127 (2000)). We therefore address DHHL's point of error.
22 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Debates in the Committee of the Whole on Hawaiian Affairs Comm.
Prop. No. 11, in 2 Proceedings, at 414.
This excerpt does not support the proposition that the
delegates set an inflation rate at eight percent for the entire
administrative and operating budget. The "8-percent annual
inflation rate" referenced only a portion of the $1.3 million
budget - the civil servant salaries. And the debates did not
explain why civil servant salaries would be subject to an eight
percent annual increase – by, for example, citing to a
collective bargaining agreement – or tether the eight percent to
any identifiable index.
In the alternative, DHHL contends that, "[i]f the
[c]ircuit [c]ourt did not err in refusing to adopt the 8-percent
inflation rate discussed in the Debates," the court should have
applied the ECI.
Because "[t]here is no universally agreed formula to
apply to all inflation adjustments[,]" the circuit court
reviewed each proposed inflation adjustment method and made
"findings as to which method the court decided to apply in this
case, and why." The circuit court found that the SLGC index was
the "better tool" to adjust for inflation because it "tracks how
the average price of goods, services, and labor purchased by a
government agency changes" and "tracks inflation for a
23 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
government agency's major costs of employee salaries and
benefits as well as other government agency administrative and
operating costs." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Substantial evidence in the form of expert witness testimony
supports the circuit court's finding. See Leslie v. Est. of
Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999)
(explaining findings are "clearly erroneous when 'the record
lacks substantial evidence to support the finding'" (citations
omitted)).
Thus, the circuit court's finding that the SLGC was a
"better tool" than the ECI or CPI to adjust the 1978 budget
baselines for inflation was not clearly erroneous, and the
circuit court did not err in selecting and applying the SLGC
inflation index.
B. The Circuit Court Erred by Not Resolving Counts 1 and 2 as Pled in the 2007 First Amended Complaint
Next, Plaintiffs and DHHL challenge the circuit
court's entry of judgment on Count 1 of the 2007 First Amended
Complaint in favor of the State and against Plaintiffs based on
its fiscal year 2015-2016 findings. 11 Plaintiffs additionally
11 The State again appears to challenge DHHL's standing to appeal, arguing that "DHHL appears to be improperly stepping into Plaintiffs' shoes" and that "DHHL is a stranger to Count 1 - there are no claims against DHHL under Count 1[.]"
Count 1 required a determination as to whether the State provided sufficient sums to DHHL, which affects DHHL's administrative and operating budget. See supra note 10 and accompanying text. In any event, Plaintiffs raise the same issue.
24 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
challenge the circuit court's judgment in favor of DHHL on
Count 2.
To resolve these challenges, we must first interpret
Nelson III's instructions to the circuit court.
1. Nelson III's Instructions
"When a reviewing court remands a matter with specific
instructions, the trial court is powerless to undertake any
proceedings beyond those specified therein." Standard Mgmt.,
Inc. v. Kekona, 99 Hawai‘i 125, 137, 53 P.3d 264, 276 (App. 2001)
(citation omitted). But "[t]he 'true intent and meaning' of a
reviewing court's mandate is not to be found in a solitary word
or decontextualized phrase, but rather in the opinion, as a
whole, read in conjunction with the judgment and interpreted in
light of the case's procedural history and context." In re
Hawai‘i Elec. Light Co., 149 Hawaiʻi 239, 241, 487 P.3d 708, 710
(2021).
In Nelson III, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court vacated the
circuit court's judgments and underlying orders, reopening
Counts 1 and 2 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint. Nelson III,
141 Hawai‘i at 422, 412 P.3d at 928; see Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at
191 n.4, 277 P.3d at 285 n.4 (explaining that, although the
circuit court's decision as to Count 2 was not appealed, the ICA
"remanded the entire case for a decision on the merits, which
reopened all the Counts").
25 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In addition, the supreme court remanded the case to
the circuit court "for further proceedings" and "to determine
whether the State Defendants have provided 'sufficient sums' for
DHHL's administrative and operating budget for the 2015-2016
fiscal year using the only judicially discoverable and
manageable standard identified in Nelson I: the 1978 baseline of
$1.3 to 1.6 million, adjusted for inflation." Nelson III, 141
Hawai‘i at 422, 412 P.3d at 928.
Based on Nelson III's opinion and judgment and this
case's procedural history, the circuit court's task was twofold
- it was required to (1) determine the sufficient sums question
for fiscal year 2015-2016 and (2) resolve Counts 1 and 2 of the
2007 First Amended Complaint. Nelson III, 141 Hawai‘i at 422,
412 P.3d at 928; see Nelson I, 127 Hawai‘i at 191 n.4, 277 P.3d
at 285 n.4. To interpret Nelson III otherwise would leave
undecided Plaintiff's claims as pled in the 2007 First Amended
Complaint.
Thus, the circuit court erred by narrowly interpreting
Nelson III's mandate.
Because Counts 1 and 2 were reopened, we look at the
2007 First Amended Complaint to determine the scope of
Plaintiffs' claims.
"Hawaii's rules of notice pleading require that a
complaint set forth a short and plain statement of the claim
26 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
that provides defendant with fair notice of what the plaintiff's
claim is and the grounds upon which the claim rests. Pleadings
must be construed liberally." Adams v. Dole Food Co., 132
Hawaiʻi 478, 488, 323 P.3d 122, 132 (App. 2014) (cleaned up).
To satisfy Hawai‘i Rule[s] of Civil Procedure [Rule] 8(a)(1), "the complaint must contain either direct allegations on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery on any legal theory, even though it may not be the theory suggested or intended by the pleader, or contain allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial."
Kawakami v. Kahala Hotel Invs., LLC, 142 Hawaiʻi 507, 517, 421
P.3d 1277, 1287 (2018) (cleaned up).
2. Resolution of Count 1
Count 1 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint alleged
the State violated its constitutional duty to sufficiently fund
DHHL. Although Count 1 broadly addressed all of HHCA's
purposes, the supreme court in Nelson I narrowed the scope of
what the circuit court could address to DHHL's administrative
and operating expenses. 127 Hawai‘i at 203, 206, 277 P.3d at
297, 300.
Though Plaintiffs argue their 2007 First Amended
Complaint "was not focused on a single fiscal year[,]" Count 1
alleged that DHHL "does not currently receive sufficient funds
for . . . the administration and operating budget[.]" (Some
emphasis added.) Even when liberally construing the complaint
and considering the factual allegations raised, Count 1's use of
27 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"currently" indicates reference to the year the First Amended
Complaint was filed - 2007, which could encompass fiscal years
2006-2007 and 2007-2008. See Adams, 132 Hawaiʻi at 488-89, 323
P.3d at 132-33 (explaining all pleadings must be "construed
liberally" so "as to do substantial justice" (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Here, the circuit court entered its May 25, 2021 Final
Judgment in favor of the State and against Plaintiffs on Count 1
of the 2007 First Amended Complaint based on its finding of
sufficient sums in fiscal year 2015-2016. The circuit court
made no findings regarding the amounts the legislature allocated
to DHHL's administrative and operating budget as related to
2007. The circuit court also made no findings as to the value
of $1.3 and $1.6 million 1978 dollars adjusted for inflation to
2007 dollars. Absent these findings, the circuit court could
not render a judgment on Count 1 as pled in the 2007 First
Amended Complaint.
Thus, the circuit court erred in entering judgment in
favor of the State and against Plaintiffs on Count 1 of the 2007
First Amended Complaint by relying on its findings for fiscal
year 2015-2016.
3. Resolution of Count 2
Count 2 of the 2007 First Amended Complaint realleged
and incorporated all allegations preceding it, which included an
28 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
allegation that the State "administration fails to annually
request 'sufficient sums' for the administration and operating
budget of the [DHHL] to assure that . . . all programs of the
department prescribed under Article XII, § 1 are adequately
funded." (Emphasis added.)
The circuit court made no findings regarding the
amount of funding DHHL requested annually for its administrative
and operating budget prior to the filing of the 2007 First
Amended Complaint (or for fiscal year 2015-2016). Without
findings as to the amount of funding DHHL requested, the circuit
court could not render judgment on Count 2 as pled in the 2007
favor of DHHL and against Plaintiffs on Count 2 of the 2007
First Amended Complaint by relying on its findings for fiscal
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, to the extent the circuit
court made determinations regarding Counts 1 and 2 of the 2007
First Amended Complaint based solely on its fiscal year 2015-
2016 findings, we vacate those portions of the circuit court's
May 25, 2021 Final Judgment and December 18, 2020 Findings of
29 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; we otherwise affirm. We
remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Melvyn M. Miyagi, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka John E. Dubiel, Presiding Judge (Watanabe Ing), for Defendants- /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Appellants/Cross Appellees. Associate Judge
David Kimo Frankel /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen and Associate Judge David Kauila Kopper, Kirsha K.M. Durante, (Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation), for Plaintiffs- Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Kimberly T. Guidry, Solicitor General, Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes, Deputy Solicitor General, for Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellees.