CourtListener 10793882

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-FEB-2026
08:27 AM
Dkt. 67 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

SEAN KADING and THERESA KADING, Appellants-Appellants,
v.
MAUI COUNTY BOARD OF VARIANCES AND APPEALS,
JACKY TAKAKURA, in her official capacity as Acting Director of
the Department of Planning for the County of Maui,1 and
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, COUNTY OF MAUI,
Appellees-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)

This secondary appeal challenges two notices of
violations (NOVs) and fines imposed by Appellees-Appellees

1
Pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
43(c)(1), Jacky Takakura, the current Acting Director of the Department of
Planning for the County of Maui, is automatically substituted as
Appellee/Appellee herein in place of Michele Mclean.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Department of Planning, County of Maui (Department) and
sustained by the Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals
(BVA) (collectively, County), for advertising a short-term
rental home (STRH) without displaying a permit (Advertising NOV)
and operating a STRH without a valid permit (Operating NOV). We
affirm.
Appellants Sean Kading and Theresa Kading's
(collectively, Kadings) appeal from the Circuit Court of the
Second Circuit's2 (1) March 16, 2023 "Findings of Fact [(FOFs)],
Conclusions of Law [(COLs)], and Decision and Order" (Circuit
Court Order); and (2) April 19, 2023 "Final Judgment," affirming
the BVA's August 24, 2022 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Decision and Order," affirming the NOVs and fines (BVA
Order).
The Kadings raise five points of error (POEs),3
contending that the Circuit Court "erred as a matter of law" by:
(1) "failing to apply BVA Rule § 12-801-14 and [Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS)] § 91-13.5 and finding that the Department had
failed to issue its decision an order within 120 days of
receiving [the Kadings]' Appeal Application"; (2) "failing to
apply BVA Rules, § 12-801-10 and § 12-801-92, and HRS § 91-9.5
and finding that the Department had failed to provide [the
Kadings] proper notice before proceeding with the June 23
hearing"; (3) "failing to apply BVA Rules, § 12-801-112(b) and

2 The Honorable James R. Rouse presided.
3 The POEs do not cite the record identifying where the alleged
errors occurred and where the alleged errors were "brought to the attention
of the court or agency." See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii). While HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) provides that "[p]oints not
presented in accordance with this section will be disregarded," we will
address the POEs for which the remaining sections of the brief provide the
necessary information to identify the Kadings' arguments under the public
policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits. See Marvin v. Pflueger,
127 Hawaiʻi 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

finding that the Department had failed to render its final
decision and order within forty-five days from the close of oral
argument by the parties"; (4) "failing to find the BVA's
decision and order was improperly based on unverified statements
and without credible evidence"; and (5) "failing to find that
the BVA violated [the Kadings]' constitutional protections
pursuant to Hawaii Constitution, Article I, Section 12 by
upholding the punitive and oppressive fines issued against [the
Kadings]."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the
Kadings' contentions as follows, and affirm.
The Kadings own residential property (Property) in
Kā‘anapali Golf Estates (KGE), an R-3 residential zoning
district. Under the Maui County Code (MCC), a residential
property rented for compensation for a period of less than 180
days is classified as an STRH. MCC § 19.04.040. STRHs are
allowed to operate in residential districts, MCC § 19.08.020(K),
but only if the property owner obtains a permit. MCC §
19.65.080(E).4

4 While the current appeal involves the NOVs related to advertising
and operating an unpermitted STRH, the Kadings' Opening Brief and record
contain references to the Kadings' involvement in additional STRH-related
litigation, as follows: (1) Tran v. Dep't of Plan. for Cnty. of Maui, No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL 892337, at *4 (Haw. App. Mar. 20, 2025) (SDO)
(vacating the 2021 dismissal of Sean Kading and Thinh Tran's 2021 complaint
challenging the application of the County's 2012 Ordinance 3941, requiring
STRH permits in residential districts, to Kading's and Tran's KGE properties,
and remanding for further proceedings); (2) an October 20, 2021 circuit court
order denying Sean Kading's appeal from the Maui Planning Commission's denial
of an STRH permit in 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX; and (3) the Kadings' October 2021
variance application to the Department requesting they be allowed to lease
their property for periods less than 180 days. The parties agree that the
variance application was not consolidated with the NOVs in this appeal.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The NOVs at issue arise out of February 2021
complaints that the Department received from neighbors that the
Kadings were advertising their Property for short-term rental
use. The complaints attached website links to the
advertisement. Zoning Inspector Shaina Hipolito (Inspector
Hipolito) investigated the complaints and verified that the
website links referenced in the complaints were active.
Inspector Hipolito confirmed that the Property's Residential
District classification did not allow short-term rental use
without a permit, the Property had no STRH permit, no permit
number was referenced in the advertisements, and the
advertisements demonstrated evidence of short-term or transient
vacation rental use.
On February 19, 2021, Inspector Hipolito mailed a
Notice of Warning to the Kadings, stating the Department
believed they were in violation of MCC § 19.65.040(A), which
requires STRH advertisements to include a valid permit number
and tax map key number, and MCC § 19.65.080(E), which prohibits
operating a STRH without a permit. The Notice of Warning
required the Kadings to correct the violations by February 26,
2021, which Inspector Hipolito subsequently extended to March
12, 2021.
After further investigation, Inspector Hipolito
determined the Kadings had not remedied the violations, and on
April 19, 2021 the Department issued the Operating NOV to the
Kadings. The Operating NOV required the Kadings to correct the
MCC § 19.65.080(E) violation by April 26, 2021; to pay an
initial fine of $20,000 by May 19, 2021; and to pay additional
fines of $10,000 per day if the violation was not corrected by
April 26, 2021.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On May 3, 2021, the Department issued the Advertising
NOV to the Kadings. The Advertising NOV required the Kadings to
correct the MCC § 19.65.080(D) violation by May 10, 2021; to pay
an initial fine of $1,000; and to pay additional fines of $1,000
per day if the violation was not corrected by May 10, 2021.
On May 15, 2021, the Kadings filed an apppeal of both
NOVs with the BVA.
The BVA issued a June 6, 2022 notice (Notice) to the
Kadings for a June 23, 2022 hearing on the Kadings' appeal of
the NOVs (BVA appeal hearing). The June 6, 2022 Notice was sent
via certified mail and was delivered on June 15, 2022. The
Notice informed the Kadings they could appear before the BVA in
person or join by online video conference, and provided a
meeting link. The Notice requested that any documents be
submitted by June 16, 2022.
The record reflects that the Kadings submitted three
filings dated June 15, 2022, which were received by the
Department on June 17, 2022. These June 15, 2022 submissions
included a "Motion to Close Hearing Due to Automatic Approval of
Appeal Application and Variance Application under Hawaii Law," a
"Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re Motion to
Close Hearing Due to Automatic Approval, Decision and Order,"
and a "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
Decision and Order[;] Objection to Evidence Not Produced or
Obtained Illegally; [and] Objection to Notice of Hearing."
(Brackets and underscoring omitted.) Each of the Kadings'
June 15, 2022 submissions indicated the BVA appeal hearing date
and time as "June 23, 2022" at "1:30 p.m." on the first page.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

At the June 23, 2022 BVA appeal hearing, the Kadings
failed to appear.5 The Department presented evidence in support
of the NOVs, including testimony from Inspector Hipolito and an
Administrative Planning Officer for the Department. For the
Advertising NOV, the Department sought a total $9,000 fine,
consisting of an initial fine of $1,000 and eight days of $1,000
per day fines. For the Operating NOV, the Department sought a
total $320,000 fine, consisting of an initial fine of $20,000
and thirty days of $10,000 per day fines, for a 24-day period
during May 2 to May 26, 2021; five-day period during June 21
to June 26, 2021; and a one-day period from July 16 to July 17,
2021. At the conclusion of the approximately 2.5-hour hearing,
six BVA members voted unanimously to deny the Kadings' appeal.
On August 24, 2022, the BVA issued its written BVA
Order denying the Kadings' appeal and approving the fines
requested by the Department totaling $329,000.
The Kadings appealed the BVA Order to the Circuit
Court, which denied the Kadings' appeal in the March 16, 2023

5 Both the Circuit Court Order and the County's Answering Brief
reference a waiver provision based on an appellant's failure to
appear for a BVA appeal hearing, set forth in BVA Rule § 12-801-95. This
rule provides:

§12-801-95 Failure of appellant to appear. In the
event of the appellant's failure to appear before the
board after proper notice has been served upon the
appellant, or when the appellant or the appellant's
representative leaves the hearing while the hearing is in
progress, the board may proceed with such hearing without
the presence of the appellant. Failure of the appellant
or the appellant's representative to appear before the
board after proper notice has been served, or when the
appellant or the appellant's representative leaves while
the hearing is in progress, shall constitute waiver of
appellant's right to be heard in person or through
counsel and of appellant's right to present evidence and
argument.

(Emphases added.)

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit Court Order. The Circuit Court entered judgment in
favor of the County for $329,000, from which the Kadings timely
appealed.
Our review of a circuit court's decision on an HRS §
91-14 agency appeal is a secondary appeal, in which we determine
whether the circuit court was right or wrong by applying the
standards of HRS § 91–14(g) to the BVA's decision and order.
Flores v. Bd. of Land & Nat. Res., 143 Hawaiʻi 114, 120, 424 P.3d
469, 475 (2018). HRS § 91–14(g) (2012 & Supp. 2021) provides
for reversal or modification of an agency's decision if the
substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced
because "the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or
orders are":
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative,
and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

(1) The Kadings argue the Circuit Court "erred as a
matter of law by failing to apply BVA Rule § 12-801-14 and HRS §
91-13.5 and finding that the Department had failed to issue its
decision and order within 120 days of receiving Appellants'
Appeal Application" (120-day deadline argument). They claim
that because the written BVA Order was not timely issued, their
appeal should have been granted, citing the "automatic approval"
provision in HRS § 91-13.5, which applies to applications "for a
business or department-related permit, license, or approval."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Kadings' 120-day deadline argument under BVA Rule
§ 12-801-14 lacks merit. This NOV appeal is governed by BVA
Rule § 12-801-112(b) in Subchapter 10, which provides that
decisions and orders in appeals be "rendered within forty-five
calendar days from the close of oral argument by the parties."
BVA Rule § 12-801-14(d) applies to an "application" and not an
appeal, and provides that "all final decisions and orders shall
be issued in writing within one hundred twenty days from the
date the application is deemed complete by the director."
(Emphasis added.) An "[a]pplicant" is defined in BVA Rule
§ 12-801-5 as "a person who seeks permission or authorization
which the board may grant under statute or ordinance; and a
person seeking relief not otherwise designated in these rules
and regulations." Here, the Kadings are appellants pursuing an
appeal from NOVs under BVA Rule § 12-801-112(b). Thus, the 120-
day deadline under BVA Rule 12-801-14 for an "application" does
not apply.
As the Circuit Court correctly concluded, the
"automatic approval" provision in HRS § 91-13.5(c) applies to
"issuing agencies" reviewing "any application for a business or
development-related permit, license, or approval." In hearing
the Kadings' appeal, the BVA was not acting as an agency issuing
any permit, license, or approval to an "applicant," but was
rather presiding in an appeal of an NOV brought by an appellant.
The Circuit Court correctly found an appeal of an NOV is not an
"application for a business or development-related permit,
license or approval" subject to HRS § 91-13.5(g). See Yoshikawa
v. City & County of Honolulu, 542 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1116 (D. Haw.
2021) (holding that an appeal to the Honolulu Board of Building
Appeals from an adverse order of the Department of Planning and
Permitting was not an "application for a business or

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

development-related permit, license, or approval" subject to HRS
§ 91-13.5), vacated on other grounds, Yoshikawa v. Seguirant,
74 F.4th 1042 (9th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the "automatic
approval" provision in HRS § 91-13.5 and the 120-day deadline
running from an "application" under HAR § 12-801-14 do not apply
to the Kadings' appeal.
(2) The Kadings argue the Circuit Court "erred as a
matter of law by failing to apply BVA Rules, § 12-801-10 and
§ 12-801-92, and HRS § 91-9.5 and finding that the Department
had . . . provide[d] [the Kadings] proper notice" of their June
23, 2022 BVA appeal hearing. The Kadings assert that "[p]roper
notice according to HRS § 91-9.5 is receipt of the written
notice at least fifteen days prior to the hearing."
The Kadings do not challenge the Circuit Court's
pertinent COLs in this POE. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(C)
(requiring the point of error to identify or quote the
challenged FOFs or COLs). Here, the Circuit Court concluded
that the BVA Rules requirement of 15-days notice of the hearing,
calculated from the time of mailing of the Notice and not from
its receipt, was met in this case, as follows:
10. The Board's procedure for in [sic] noticing and
hearing appeals related to notices of violation is outlined
in Subsection 10 of the BVA Rules.
11. BVA Rule § 12-801-92 requires:
The board shall give written notice of hearing
to all parties at their last recorded address,
by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, at least fifteen days before the
hearing. The notice shall include the
information required by section 91-9(b).
12. "Service by mail shall be regarded as complete
when deposited in the United States mail properly addressed
and stamped." BVA Rule § 12-8-1-19(e).
13. The remote hearing was scheduled for June 23,
2022. ROA 85. The hearing notice was mailed on June 6,
2022. ROA 85-91. Fifteen days from June 6, 2022 is June 21,
2022. The notice provided two additional days from the date

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of mailing. The Court finds service was timely under the
rules of the BVA.
14. Appellants also had actual notice as of May 23,
2022 and June 8, 2022 when the Department and Board emailed
Appellant Kading regarding the June 23, 2022 hearing
date. . . .
. . . .
17. Appellants had actual notice and proper legal
notice, and notice in this case was not deficient.

The Circuit Court concluded the Kadings had both "actual notice
and proper legal notice[.]" COL 17.
The Kadings' argument does not mention or challenge
these COLs. The Circuit Court's COLs applied the correct law
set forth in the notice requirement under BVA Rule § 12-801-92.
The Circuit Court was correct. See Flores, 143 Hawaiʻi at 120,
424 P.3d at 475.
(3) The Kadings argue that the Circuit Court "erred as
a matter of law by failing to apply BVA Rules, § 12-801-112(b)
and finding that the Department had [not] failed to render its
final decision and order within forty-five days from the close of
oral argument by the parties" (45-day deadline argument). The
Kadings raised multiple deadline-based arguments in twelve
"Points of Error" in their Circuit Court Opening Brief, and none
concerned this 45-day deadline argument. This argument is
waived. See County of Hawaiʻi v. UNIDEV, LLC, 129 Hawaiʻi 378,
387, 301 P.3d 588, 597 (2013) ("It is axiomatic that where a
party fails to raise an argument before the courts below, that
argument may be deemed waived for purposes of appeal." (citation
omitted)).
(4) The Kadings argue the Circuit Court "erred as a
matter of law by failing to find" the BVA Order "was improperly
based on unverified statements and without credible evidence."
The Circuit Court rejected the Kadings' evidentiary challenge,

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

inter alia, on the grounds of waiver, applying BVA Rule § 12-
801-95 for an appellant's failure to appear, as follows:
58. Appellants were the parties initiating the
proceeding before the BVA and bore the burden of
establishing the Department's issuance of NOV 2021/0019 and
NOV 2021/0026 were in error. HRS §91-10(5) ("[e]xcept as
otherwise provided by law, the party initiating the
proceeding shall have the burden of proof, including the
burden of producing evidence as well as the burden of
persuasion. The degree or quantum of proof shall be a
preponderance of the evidence.")

59. Appellants made it clear that they did not intend
to appear at the hearing, and by failing to do so presented
no evidence to establish their substantial rights had been
prejudiced by issuance of either NOV. ROA 354-406.

60. Under BVA § 12-801-95, where an Appellant or
Appellants refuse or otherwise fail to appear,

[T]he board may proceed with such hearing
without the presence of the appellant. Failure
of the appellant or the appellant's
representative to appear before the board after
proper notice has been served, or when the
appellant or the appellant's representative
leaves while the hearing is in progress, shall
constitute waiver of appellant's right to be
heard in person or through counsel and of
appellant's right to present evidence and
argument. (emphasis added).

61. Appellants waived any right to appear and present
any additional documents or evidence to the Board, and
therefore this Court. BVA § 12-801-95.

COLs 58-61 (brackets in original).
In their Opening Brief, the Kadings do not mention or
challenge the above COLs or the Circuit Court's application of
BVA Rule § 12-801-95 to their evidentiary challenge. See HRAP
Rule 28(b)(4)(C). We conclude that COLs 58-61 are not wrong.
See Flores, 143 Hawaiʻi at 120, 424 P.3d at 475. Further, the
Kadings' argument involves the credibility and weight of the
evidence presented at the BVA appeal hearing. Appellate courts
do not consider "the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether
it weighs in favor of the administrative findings, or review
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the agency's findings of fact by passing upon the credibility of
witnesses or conflicts in testimony[.]" Pave v. Prod.
Processing, Inc., 152 Hawai‘i 164, 172, 524 P.3d 355, 363 (App.
2022) (citation omitted).
(5) The Kadings argue the Circuit Court "erred as a
matter of law by failing to find that the BVA violated [their]
constitutional protections pursuant to Hawaii Constitution,
Article I, Section 12 by upholding the punitive and oppressive
fines issued against [them]."
Here, the record reflects that the Circuit Court
concluded the fines were "not excessive given the circumstances
presented," relying on an unchallenged factual finding that the
Kadings charged "$30,000 to $165,000 per month" for the
unpermitted short-term rental, as follows:

78. Alternatively, the Court does not find that the
fines are excessive. "An administrative agency's fine does
not violate the Eighth Amendment - no matter how excessive
the fine may appear - if it does not exceed the limits
prescribed by the statute authorizing it." Cripps v.
Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry, 819 F.3d 221,
235 (5th Cir. 2016) cert. denied, Cripps v. Louisiana Dept.
of Agriculture and Forestry, 127 S.Ct. 305 (2016).

79. The fines do not exceed the statute or the County
charter, which are adopted by the County electorate, and
are the results of a policy determination set by the
legislature and through the administrative process.

80. Moreover, the amount charged per month for
Appellants' short-term rental of the subject property
ranged between $30,000 to $165,000 per month. ROA 228-258.
The fines imposed are proportional to the violation
occurring and not excessive given the circumstances
presented.

COLs 78-80 (emphasis added). The Kadings do not present
argument specifically challenging the Circuit Court's reasoning
in its mixed findings and conclusions, which were supported by

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.6 See HRS §
91-14(g).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the March 16,
2023 Circuit Court Order and April 19, 2023 Final Judgment, both
entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 13, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Amanda L. Dutcher,
Chief Judge
for Appellants-Appellants.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Kristin K. Tarnstrom,
Associate Judge
Deputy Corporation Counsel,
County of Maui,
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Appellees-Appellees.
Associate Judge

6 The Kadings present further argument in subsection "F" of the
Opening Brief, and argue that the Circuit Court "disregard[ed] the approvals
granted to the KGE developer for the benefit of successor owners like [the
Kadings] under 19.32 and 19.37.010 and protections by Hawaii and U.S. Law."
The Kadings do not raise this argument as a separate point of error, and the
argument is without citation to any alleged error by the Circuit Court or
BVA. Thus, the arguments in subsection "F" are waived. See HRAP Rule
28(b)(4) and (b)(7).