Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation

Real Estate & Property Law

: inversecondemnation

An Interesting Footnote To Judge King's Career

By Robert Thomas

<blockquote>Senior U.S. District Judge <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pailthorpe_King" target="_self">Samuel P. King</a> -- an iconic figure in Hawaii's legal circles -- passed away last week, sparking an <a href="http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/hawaiinews/20101209_Saving_of_small_bird_made_biggest_impact_on_Judge_Sam_King.html" target="_self">outpouring</a> of praise, reminiscence, and love. While many remember him for his relatively recent role as one of the authors of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Trust-Mismanagement-Manipulation-Charitable/dp/0824830148" target="_self"><em>Broken Trust</em></a><em></em>, the book that sparked the reformation of the Bishop Estate trustees, his long service on the state and federal benches mean that his impact was much broader.</blockquote> <blockquote>We can't add much to how Judge King is being fondly remembered by <a href="http://www.staradvertiser.com/columnists/20101210_Judge_King_gracefully_kept_Hawaiis_patterns_of_doing_right.html" target="_self">others</a>, except to note this one nearly forgotten snippet that resulted in a published opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court that's certainly not more than a footnote in Judge King's life, but it is an interesting peek into local politics, how those politics can seem to creep over into judicial decision making, and how there's often much more lurking beneath the surface of a seemingly routine case.  <br /></blockquote> <blockquote>The opinion is<em> <a href="http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac./SAC/HI/1972/19720525_0040057.HI.htm/qx" target="_self">In re Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd</a></em><a href="http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac./SAC/HI/1972/19720525_0040057.HI.htm/qx" target="_self">.</a>, 53 Haw. 496, 497 P.2d 549 (1972), a case that on the surface involved the rather mundane issue of  Pioneer Mill's application to register land in Hawaii's <a href="http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2010/04/land-court-schmand-court-state-disregards-torrens-title-claiming-unstated-preexisting-rights.html" target="_self">Land Court</a>.</blockquote> <blockquote>There was a trial after which the Land Court judge entered an "informal oral opinon ... and the judge expressly stated that the decision would be effective only when signed." The case remained dormant for over two years, at which time Pioneer Mill submitted proposed its findings of fact which was signed and filed.<br /></blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote>The formal decision that was filed was signed by both the Land Court judge and by the "Second Judge of the Land Court." The latter had heard none of the evidence in the case and had not participated in the trial in any way. In addition, in a curious order dated March 13, 1970 the second judge of the Land Court appointed the first Land Court judge a "master" to report findings made in the trial held three years earlier.<br /></blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote><em>Id</em>. at 497-98, 497 P.2d at 551 (footnote omitted).</blockquote> <blockquote>The judgment was eventually appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, with the appellant arguing that the "issues had not been framed within a certain time."</blockquote> <blockquote>We're not sure what exactly that means, but in the end it didn't matter, because the Hawaii Supreme Court <em>sua sponte</em> decided the Land Court judge wasn't really a Land Court judge at the time he signed the judgment, because he had automatically forfeited his judgeship when he earlier announced he was the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor. <br /></blockquote> <blockquote>The Land Court judge who automatically lost his office when he became a candidate for Lieutenant Governor? None other than Samuel P. King.</blockquote> <blockquote>As the court noted, King had publicly announced his candidacy a month before signing the judgment. The court took "judicial notice of the fact that on February 3, 1970, the Land Court judge, in his newly opened campaign headquarters, made an announcement concerning his candidacy for public office." <em>Id</em>. at 497-98 n.1, 497 P.2d at 551 n.1. At that time, the Hawaii Constitution in a section that has since been repealed, provided "[a]ny justice or judge who shall become a candidate for an elective office shall thereby forfeit his office." Haw. Const. art. V, 3 (the requirement was eliminated in 1978 when article V was amended and redesignated as article IV).</blockquote> <blockquote>In its 3-2 decision authored by Justice Kazuhisa Abe and joined by Chief Justice William Richardson (a former Democratic Lieutenant Governor and future Bishop Estate trustee) and Justice Bernard Levinson, the court concluded that Judge King "became a candidate" when he publicly announced his candidacy, not when he took out nomination papers (which occured several months after he signed the judgment). While acknowledging that the requirement that a judge forfeit office upon becoming a candidate might be a "rather silly provision," the <em></em>majority concluded "the Land Court judge had become a candidate for public office at the time he rendered the decision below, and that under the Hawaii Constitution, he had forfeited his judgeship. The case must be remanded for a new trial." <em>Pioneer Mill</em>, 53 Haw. at 498, 497 P.2d at 551.</blockquote> <blockquote>In one fell swoop, the judgment was vacated and Judge King was off the bench (although by that time, the issue was moot since he had stepped down "a little more than a month after his announcment of candidacy." <em>DeJetley v. Kahoohalahala</em>, 122 Haw. 251, 263 n.28, 226 P.3d 421, 433 n.28 (2010)).</blockquote> <blockquote>But as we know, even though he was off the bench, it was only temporary. After losing the election Judge King returned briefly to private practice, and in 1972, President Nixon appointed him to the federal bench.</blockquote> <blockquote>One final note: the <em>Pioneer Mill</em> court's conclusion that a person becomes a candidate for elective office at the time she announces her candidacy was distinguished by a unanimous Hawaii Supreme Court in <em><a href="http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2010/05/hawaiis-resign-to-run-law-when-must-a-candidate-resign.html" target="_self">Blair v. Harris</a></em>, <em></em>98 Haw. 176, 45 P.3d 798 (2002). In that opinion, the court concluded that under <a href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch0001-0042F/05-Const/CONST_0002-0007.htm" style="text-decoration: underline; color: #003366;">Haw. Const. art. II, 7</a>, a person is "eligible as a candidate" for the purposes of the resign-to-run requirement only after she takes out nomination papers, not before. The <em>Blair</em> court distinguished <em>Pioneer Mill</em> on the grounds that the language of the repealed constitutional provision in that case differed from article II. More about <em>Blair</em> <a href="http://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2010/05/hawaiis-resign-to-run-law-when-must-a-candidate-resign.html" target="_self">here</a>.<br /></blockquote>

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on December 15, 2010 (boomark / email).