‘Quiet title’ law not good enough for Hawaiians
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Pilaa Beach is owned by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg who last month dropped lawsuits seeking to buy out Native Hawaiians who own small parcels of land within his 700-acre Kauai estate. HB 860 aims to amend Hawaii’s quiet title law, to give descendants more of a fighting chance to retain their land entitlements if they so choose.
A mere month after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg inadvertently rained attention onto the conundrum of kuleana land ownership, the Legislature is taking some needed, overdue steps toward aiding Native Hawaiians and others against the forced sales of such legacy lands.
House Bill 860 aims to amend Hawaii’s quiet title law, which allows lawsuits that ask a court to determine rightful owners of lands, including kuleana lands that were passed down through generations without recorded documents. Over history, lack of such documentation has worked against Native Hawaiians; culturally, land ownership was conferred via spiritual and caretaking connections, not paper deeds and titles.
Over generations, though, ownership rights grew increasingly complicated since one parcel could be fractured among dozens or even hundreds of relatives. Under quiet title law, an action called “partition” allows a property stake-owner to ask a judge to compel auctioning the land to a single high bidder if it can’t be physically divided among all owners. That stake-owner can be a relative, but sometimes — as in Zuckerberg’s recent case on Kauai — it’s a wealthy outsider who’s acquired a family member’s share in order to force a sale by all owners.
That’s where HB 860 is needed, to counter the forcing of such land auctions and to give descendants more of a fighting chance to retain their land entitlements if they so choose. The bill would mandate mediation between plaintiffs and defendants, and seeks to lessen the financial burden on land descendents who opt to fight the forced sale.
Such changes to the law would at least give blood-line land title-holders more say in the process, and disallow plaintiffs from recovering much of their attorney fees and costs from defendants, which is the deterring situation now. Both changes are important to buttress indigenous rights when going up against a monied, quiet-title claims plaintiff. HB 860 has cleared one committee and moves to the House Judiciary Committee.
Quiet title and partition is not uncommon in Hawaii, but the optics for billionaire Zuckerberg were unseemly when he filed several lawsuits in December to try to gain clear title of 14 kuleana land parcels embedded within his 700 acres on Kauai bought two years ago for $100 million. To his credit, Zuckerberg vowed to drop his lawsuits after last month’s highly publicized backlash and after learning more of the dark side of Hawaii land history.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Ironically, thanks to his global celebrity, people near and far are learning about kuleana lands — the complicated history, undocumented tracts, generations of dormant ownership and current entanglements. Under the Kuleana Land Act of 1850, Hawaii residents were awarded land by Hawaiian government officials; over generations, some descendents weren’t even aware of their sliver of claim and in some cases, savvy major landowners overtook unclaimed parcels.
While some lineal descendents have no qualms about selling their fractious stake to land they never even knew they had, some Native Hawaiian descendants have embraced their newfound inheritance as well as newfound kin. The connection to land and heritage can be strong — once discovered.
For those land-title owners who choose to sell, it’s a fair transaction. But for others who feel strongly about keeping the land in the family, however diluted the interest, HB 860 offers valuable tools to fight for retaining their stake — particularly as more wealthy outsiders covet their own private piece of a Hawaiian paradise.
19 responses to “‘Quiet title’ law not good enough for Hawaiians”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
NOT a fast nor a simple ‘fix’.
The article implies some wrong doing by Westerners. yet the Land Law of 1850 was passed by the Hawaiian legislature and signed by King Kamehameha III. It was a Hawaiian-passed and enforced law. Yes, many of the Hawaiian royalty were advantaged by the law and the masses of commoners were less advantaged. But that had been true throughout time.
Wether it’s a forced sale or hostile take over it will cost family to defend themselves or loose their percentage/ownership of the property in question. People may not be aware of ownership or have the resources to oppose said challenges. But leave it to the flat tire legislators they will make changes to the law before any request for comment by the people.
Actually, the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation will defend Native Hawaiian kuleana owners and fractional owners in court for free if they have limited resources.
Editorial headline says “‘Quiet title’ law not good enough for Hawaiians.” Yes, we all know that. We know that nothing is good enough for Hawaiians. They are entitled to far more of everything than can ever be given to them at everyone else’s expense. How much is enough? There will never be enough.
Something for nothing. it’s the Hawaiian way.
It depends on what island. Hawaiians on Oahu could care less.
You actually right….. Keep country country…… I see the same signs on the mainland driving through small towns. My son an MPD officer that went UH Hilo, told me the movement is on the outer Islands too much peering eyes, too much white people.
Meant to say white thinking.
Whoa, speak for yourself!
Quiet title laws have been on the books for a long time. Why haven’t Hawaiians said or done anything up to now? There are Hawaiian attorneys and Hawaiian real estate professionals. THEY knew about the laws. So why all the noise only now? It’s like a little child who has a toy that she cares nothing about and never plays with – until another child shows interest in it and wants it. Suddenly the toy becomes valuable. Many (not all) Hawaiians believe that they have been wronged, are entitled to more than the average citizen, and will not put any effort or work towards getting ahead. They want others to do it for them. Is it because they’re not smart enough, or is it because they’re just lazy? Or maybe it’s neither and they just want non-Hawaiians to do all the work for them as payback for what they perceive as “stealing”their stuff.
Hawaiians like $$$$$ as much as anyone and they are savvy capitalists. Can’t blame them for getting what they can out of others.
Yes we can. All greedy people are bad.
Remember Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, any action elicites an equal but opposite reaction? My paraphrase. Might even be mistaken, too. But here’s how it applies. The law benefits one side of the arguement, and pushes the costs – mainly mediation – on the other side. Is this spreading fairness or justice, or is it just giving an advantage to one side with legit claims over another side with just as legit claims. The assumption is that the side that’s being told has to pay for mediation has money. But what if it doesn’t? What if it’s just one side of the family with no money wanting to get their fair share of the land by selling it? Is this pono? This is the reality of the situation that the laws should address. Sure it feels good to write a law that looks like you’re helping the poor against the rich, but how many times in the future will the world’s richest pull a stunt like this? And how many times will a family in Hawaii come to blows over their share of their tutu’s land? Do the math. And you forgot to mention that the law just changed to do exactly what the editorial says to do – it changed on 1 January this year – which is why Zuckerberg’s lawyers rushed to file the suit – knowing that the law in place last year made it easier to do what they wanted. So now you have a new law out, and already the leg wants to change it again, to make it even more easy… to fight a Zuckerberg. But it makes it harder for one side of the family to deal with the other side of the family. More expensive too. I’m for balance here. And the editorial writer and Rep Ing need to explain how their law corrects a current injustice… because the big event – Zuckerberg’s lawyers charging full speed ahead to quiet the title in a very public and ugly way – happened under the old regulations.
Actually, I think it is Newton’s Third Law of Motion.
It’s what makes a rocket move.
But I appreciate your informative intelligent article.
Well said, cheapseats.
The bigotry in the comments so far is quite dismaying. // Newton’s last law of motion was, “You always need a bigger hammer.” // If the leg and the StarAdvertiser like the bill, it’s probably not strong enough to protect kuleana rights in the long term.
No change in the law is needed.
I will stake my like on my 1/4 sq inch of land and my descendants will own 1/16 sq inch.
This is a ridiculous law. As land law, it begs to be changed. No other land is treated this way. Inheritance laws should be enforced equally.