In re: Petition of Kenneth S. Church

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-DEC-2025
07:53 AM
Dkt. 98 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

In the Matter of
THE PETITION OF KENNETH S. CHURCH and JOAN E. HILDAL
For Boundary Interpretation of Certain Land Consisting of
Approximately 3.4 Acres situated at 29-3792 Hawaii Belt Road,
Contiguous Tax Map Key(s) (3) 2-9-003; 029, 060, Wailea,
County of Hawai#i, State of Hawai#i.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit1/ (Circuit Court)
dismissed an agency appeal – from a decision by Appellee-Appellee
State of Hawai#i Land Use Commission (LUC) – that should have
been filed directly in the Hawai#i Supreme Court. Self-
represented Appellants-Appellants Kenneth S. Church and Joan E.
Hildal (Appellants) appeal from the Circuit Court's: (1) June 1,
2023 "Order Granting [LUC's] Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Denying Appellants' Motion to
Transfer Appeal to the Hawai#i Supreme Court Nunc Pro Tunc"
(Dismissal Order); and (2) August 23, 2023 Final Judgment. See
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(2).
Appellants also appear to challenge the Circuit Court's August 4,
2023 "Order Denying [153] Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration

1/
The Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Filed June 13, 2023" (Order Denying Reconsideration).
Appellants own land within the state conservation
district (Property). On June 17, 2021, they filed a petition
with the LUC pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-8 and
related Hawai#i Administrative Rules (HAR), including HAR
§ 15-15-22(f). They sought a declaratory order that the Property
was incorrectly labeled conservation and should have been zoned
agricultural.
On March 15, 2022, the LUC issued an Order Denying
Petition for Declaratory Order, and Reimbursement and Waiver of
Fees (LUC Denial Order). The LUC concluded that Appellants had
not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property
was incorrectly placed in the conservation district. On
September 2, 2022, the LUC also denied Appellants' motion for
reconsideration (LUC Reconsideration Order).
On September 29, 2022, Appellants appealed from the LUC
Denial Order and the LUC Reconsideration Order to the Circuit
Court (the Agency Appeal). On February 27, 2023, Appellants
filed their Opening Brief.
On April 4, 2023, the LUC filed a motion to dismiss the
Agency Appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Motion to
Dismiss). In apparent opposition, on April 25, 2023, Appellants
filed a motion to transfer the Agency Appeal to the Hawai#i
Supreme Court nunc pro tunc (Transfer Motion). Following a
hearing on May 15, 2023, the Circuit Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and denied the Transfer Motion, concluding it did not
have jurisdiction to transfer the case to the supreme court.
The court entered the Dismissal Order on June 1, 2023.
On June 13, 2023, Appellants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Dismissal Order. The Circuit Court denied
the motion for reconsideration in a July 13, 2023 Minute Order
and the later August 4, 2023 Order Denying Reconsideration.
The Final Judgment was entered on August 23, 2023.
On appeal, Appellants appear to contend, among other
things, that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) granting the LUC's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
denying Appellant's motion to transfer the appeal to the supreme

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

court; and (2) denying Appellants' motion for reconsideration.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Appellants' contentions as follows, and vacate.
The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that
we review de novo. Dailey v. Dept. Land and Nat. Resources, 155
Hawai#i 348, 564 P.3d 1147 (2025) (citing Dupree v. Hiraga, 121
Hawai#i 297, 312, 219 P.3d 1084, 1099 (2009)).
In In re Kanahele, 152 Hawai#i 501, 526 P.3d 478
(2023), the supreme court held that LUC declaratory orders (or
orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings) have the
same status for judicial review as contested case orders. Id. at
512, 526 P.3d at 489. As a result, appeals from LUC declaratory
orders, like appeals from contested case orders, were required to
be filed directly with the supreme court under HRS § 183C-9,
enacted in 2016 by Act 48, § 2.2/ See id. at 511-12, 526 P.3d at
488-89; Dailey, 155 Hawai#i at 350, 564 P.3d at 1149.
After Kanahele, the supreme court decided Honoipu
Hideaway, LLC v. Land Use Comm'n, 154 Hawai#i 372, 550 P.3d 1230
(2024), and Rosehill v. Land Use Comm'n, 155 Hawai#i 41, 556 P.3d
387 (2024). In Honoipu, the court held that a circuit court has
the inherent and statutory authority to transfer a timely-filed
appeal nunc pro tunc, or "backdated to the appropriate time[,]"
to the supreme court. 154 Hawai#i at 374, 376, 550 P.3d at 1232,
1234. In Rosehill, after accepting transfer of an appeal to this
court, the supreme court held that the appeal could be considered

2/
HRS § 183C-9 (Supp. 2019) provides, in relevant part:

(a) . . . Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding,
including chapter 91, any contested case under this chapter
shall be appealed from a final decision and order or a
preliminary ruling that is of the nature defined by section
91-14(a) upon the record directly to the supreme court for
final decision, except for those appeals heard pursuant to
this chapter arising in whole or in part from part III of
chapter 205A or arising in whole or in part from chapter
115. . . .
HRS Chapter 183C concerns the conservation district. Part III of
HRS Chapter 205A concerns shoreline setbacks, and HRS Chapter 115 concerns
public access to coastal and inland recreational areas. The exceptions to HRS
§ 183C-9(a) do not apply to this appeal.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

note 3), as Kanahele had not yet been published. Under Honoipu
and Rosehill, the Circuit Court had the inherent power to
transfer the appeal to the supreme court. In any event, under
Dailey, the appeal should have been transferred to the supreme
court, which in turn had authority to determine whether the
transfer was properly made. Id. at 358, 564 P.3d at 1157.
Given our disposition, we need not reach Appellants'
remaining contentions.
For the reasons discussed above, we vacate the Circuit
Court of the Third Circuit's: (1) June 1, 2023 "Order Granting
Appellee State of Hawai#i Land Use Commission's Motion to Dismiss
Appeal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Denying
Appellants' Motion to Transfer Appeal to the Hawai#i Supreme
Court Nunc Pro Tunc"; (2) August 4, 2023 "Order Denying [153]
Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration Filed June 13, 2023"; and
(3) August 23, 2023 Final Judgment. The case is remanded to the
Circuit Court with instructions to transfer the appeal to the
supreme court nunc pro tunc to the date of its September 29, 2022
filing as soon as this court's judgment on appeal has been
entered.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 19, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Kenneth S. Church and Presiding Judge
Joan E. Hildal,
Self-represented Appellants- /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellants. Associate Judge

Julie H. China and /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Melissa D. Goldman, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Appellee-Appellee.

5

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-DEC-2025
07:53 AM
Dkt. 98 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

In the Matter of
THE PETITION OF KENNETH S. CHURCH and JOAN E. HILDAL
For Boundary Interpretation of Certain Land Consisting of
Approximately 3.4 Acres situated at 29-3792 Hawaii Belt Road,
Contiguous Tax Map Key(s) (3) 2-9-003; 029, 060, Wailea,
County of Hawai#i, State of Hawai#i.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit1/ (Circuit Court)
dismissed an agency appeal – from a decision by Appellee-Appellee
State of Hawai#i Land Use Commission (LUC) – that should have
been filed directly in the Hawai#i Supreme Court. Self-
represented Appellants-Appellants Kenneth S. Church and Joan E.
Hildal (Appellants) appeal from the Circuit Court's: (1) June 1,
2023 "Order Granting [LUC's] Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Denying Appellants' Motion to
Transfer Appeal to the Hawai#i Supreme Court Nunc Pro Tunc"
(Dismissal Order); and (2) August 23, 2023 Final Judgment. See
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(2).
Appellants also appear to challenge the Circuit Court's August 4,
2023 "Order Denying [153] Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration

1/
The Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Filed June 13, 2023" (Order Denying Reconsideration).
Appellants own land within the state conservation
district (Property). On June 17, 2021, they filed a petition
with the LUC pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-8 and
related Hawai#i Administrative Rules (HAR), including HAR
§ 15-15-22(f). They sought a declaratory order that the Property
was incorrectly labeled conservation and should have been zoned
agricultural.
On March 15, 2022, the LUC issued an Order Denying
Petition for Declaratory Order, and Reimbursement and Waiver of
Fees (LUC Denial Order). The LUC concluded that Appellants had
not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property
was incorrectly placed in the conservation district. On
September 2, 2022, the LUC also denied Appellants' motion for
reconsideration (LUC Reconsideration Order).
On September 29, 2022, Appellants appealed from the LUC
Denial Order and the LUC Reconsideration Order to the Circuit
Court (the Agency Appeal). On February 27, 2023, Appellants
filed their Opening Brief.
On April 4, 2023, the LUC filed a motion to dismiss the
Agency Appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Motion to
Dismiss). In apparent opposition, on April 25, 2023, Appellants
filed a motion to transfer the Agency Appeal to the Hawai#i
Supreme Court nunc pro tunc (Transfer Motion). Following a
hearing on May 15, 2023, the Circuit Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and denied the Transfer Motion, concluding it did not
have jurisdiction to transfer the case to the supreme court.
The court entered the Dismissal Order on June 1, 2023.
On June 13, 2023, Appellants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Dismissal Order. The Circuit Court denied
the motion for reconsideration in a July 13, 2023 Minute Order
and the later August 4, 2023 Order Denying Reconsideration.
The Final Judgment was entered on August 23, 2023.
On appeal, Appellants appear to contend, among other
things, that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) granting the LUC's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
denying Appellant's motion to transfer the appeal to the supreme

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

court; and (2) denying Appellants' motion for reconsideration.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Appellants' contentions as follows, and vacate.
The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that
we review de novo. Dailey v. Dept. Land and Nat. Resources, 155
Hawai#i 348, 564 P.3d 1147 (2025) (citing Dupree v. Hiraga, 121
Hawai#i 297, 312, 219 P.3d 1084, 1099 (2009)).
In In re Kanahele, 152 Hawai#i 501, 526 P.3d 478
(2023), the supreme court held that LUC declaratory orders (or
orders disposing of petitions for declaratory rulings) have the
same status for judicial review as contested case orders. Id. at
512, 526 P.3d at 489. As a result, appeals from LUC declaratory
orders, like appeals from contested case orders, were required to
be filed directly with the supreme court under HRS § 183C-9,
enacted in 2016 by Act 48, § 2.2/ See id. at 511-12, 526 P.3d at
488-89; Dailey, 155 Hawai#i at 350, 564 P.3d at 1149.
After Kanahele, the supreme court decided Honoipu
Hideaway, LLC v. Land Use Comm'n, 154 Hawai#i 372, 550 P.3d 1230
(2024), and Rosehill v. Land Use Comm'n, 155 Hawai#i 41, 556 P.3d
387 (2024). In Honoipu, the court held that a circuit court has
the inherent and statutory authority to transfer a timely-filed
appeal nunc pro tunc, or "backdated to the appropriate time[,]"
to the supreme court. 154 Hawai#i at 374, 376, 550 P.3d at 1232,
1234. In Rosehill, after accepting transfer of an appeal to this
court, the supreme court held that the appeal could be considered

2/
HRS § 183C-9 (Supp. 2019) provides, in relevant part:
(a) . . . Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding,
including chapter 91, any contested case under this chapter
shall be appealed from a final decision and order or a
preliminary ruling that is of the nature defined by section
91-14(a) upon the record directly to the supreme court for
final decision, except for those appeals heard pursuant to
this chapter arising in whole or in part from part III of
chapter 205A or arising in whole or in part from chapter
115. . . .

HRS Chapter 183C concerns the conservation district. Part III of
HRS Chapter 205A concerns shoreline setbacks, and HRS Chapter 115 concerns
public access to coastal and inland recreational areas. The exceptions to HRS
§ 183C-9(a) do not apply to this appeal.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

note 3), as Kanahele had not yet been published. Under Honoipu
and Rosehill, the Circuit Court had the inherent power to
transfer the appeal to the supreme court. In any event, under
Dailey, the appeal should have been transferred to the supreme
court, which in turn had authority to determine whether the
transfer was properly made. Id. at 358, 564 P.3d at 1157.
Given our disposition, we need not reach Appellants'
remaining contentions.
For the reasons discussed above, we vacate the Circuit
Court of the Third Circuit's: (1) June 1, 2023 "Order Granting
Appellee State of Hawai#i Land Use Commission's Motion to Dismiss
Appeal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Denying
Appellants' Motion to Transfer Appeal to the Hawai#i Supreme
Court Nunc Pro Tunc"; (2) August 4, 2023 "Order Denying [153]
Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration Filed June 13, 2023"; and
(3) August 23, 2023 Final Judgment. The case is remanded to the
Circuit Court with instructions to transfer the appeal to the
supreme court nunc pro tunc to the date of its September 29, 2022
filing as soon as this court's judgment on appeal has been
entered.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 19, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Kenneth S. Church and Presiding Judge
Joan E. Hildal,
Self-represented Appellants- /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellants. Associate Judge

Julie H. China and /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Melissa D. Goldman, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Appellee-Appellee.

5