Background
Sean and Theresa Kading sought review of a decision involving the Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals and the County of Maui’s Department of Planning. The dispute made its way through the lower courts, with the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) issuing a ruling in case CAAP-23-0000349, stemming from a circuit court proceeding (2CCV-22-0000226). The Kadings then sought further review by the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court by filing an Application for Writ of Certiorari on May 18, 2026.
The case involves the County of Maui’s planning and zoning authority, with the Board of Variances and Appeals and the Department of Planning named as respondents. Jacky Takakura was substituted as a party in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Planning, replacing former Director Michele McLean, pursuant to HRAP Rule 43(c)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Kadings’ Application for Writ of Certiorari. The amended order, issued July 8, 2026, was signed by Chief Justice Devens and Justices McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, along with Circuit Judge Char sitting by assignment due to a court vacancy.
By rejecting certiorari, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case, leaving the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision as the final appellate ruling. The amended order corrected a clerical error in a prior July 6, 2026 order, updating the filing date of the application from May 19 to May 18, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court rejected the Kadings’ certiorari petition, meaning the ICA’s decision stands as the final word on the merits of the dispute.
- The court issued an amended order solely to correct a one-day clerical error in the stated filing date of the certiorari application — no substantive change was made.
- The substitution of the current Planning Director as a named party was automatic under HRAP Rule 43(c)(1), a routine procedural step when a government official changes during pending litigation.
Why It Matters
While the Supreme Court’s rejection of certiorari is a procedural disposition without a written opinion on the merits, it signals that the court found no basis to disturb the ICA’s ruling in this Maui County zoning and variance dispute. Property owners challenging local planning decisions face a high bar to obtain discretionary Supreme Court review in Hawaiʻi.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that certiorari rejections in Hawaiʻi carry no precedential weight on the underlying substantive questions — the ICA opinion governs — but they do mark the end of the appellate road absent extraordinary circumstances.