Summary
The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that HRS § 40-35 provided the exclusive avenue for recovering disputed ocean recreation management area permit fees paid to the State, including fees later determined to be an unconstitutional duty of tonnage. Because that statutory remedy was available, the plaintiff's tort claims were barred under HRS § 662-15(3), and the permit was a revocable license rather than a contract subject to HRS § 661-1. The court also held that any claim under HRS § 40-35 was untimely and affirmed the circuit court's judgment for the defendants.
Holdings
- HRS § 40-35 encompasses the ocean recreation management area permit fees because the statute's reference to moneys representing a claim in favor of the State includes fees as well as taxes.
- Because HRS § 40-35 provides an alternative remedy for recovery of the disputed fees, HRS § 662-15(3) bars Captain Andy's tort claims.
- HRS § 661-1 does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction because the ocean recreation management area permit was a revocable governmental license, not a contract.
- Captain Andy's was time-barred from seeking relief under HRS § 40-35 because it did not commence an action within thirty days after the last permit-fee payment and did not establish that it made the required written and signed protest.
Questions Presented
- Whether Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 40-35 applies to disputed ocean recreation management area permit fees and provides the required avenue for recovery.
- Whether the availability of the remedy under Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 40-35 bars Captain Andy's tort claims under Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 662-15(3).
- Whether Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 661-1 provides subject matter jurisdiction over Captain Andy's claims on the theory that the ocean recreation management area permit was a contract.
- Whether Captain Andy's claim under Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 40-35 was timely filed.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (17)
- Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Johns, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Haw. 2001)(followed)
- Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 604 P.2d 1198 (1979)(considered)
- Yamagata v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 107 Hawai'i 227, 112 P.3d 713 (2005)(followed)
- Hawai'i Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Hawai'i 213, 11 P.3d 1 (2000)(followed)
- Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai'i 48, 109 P.3d 689 (2005)(followed)
- Orthopedic Associates of Hawai'i, Inc. v. Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Co., Ltd., 109 Hawai'i 185, 124 P.3d 930 (2005)(followed)
- Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai'i 238, 942 P.2d 502 (1997)(followed)
- 808 Development, LLC v. Murakami, 111 Hawai'i 349, 141 P.3d 996 (2006)(followed)
- Application of Rice, 68 Haw. 334, 713 P.2d 426 (1986)(followed)
- Territory v. Fung, 34 Haw. 52 (1936)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…