Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 516-23 (2026)

Exercise of power of eminent domain

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§516-23 Exercise of power of eminent domain. Within twelve months after the designation of all or part of the development tract for acquisition, the Hawaii housing finance and development corporation shall acquire through voluntary action of the parties, or institute eminent domain proceedings to acquire the leased fee interest in the tract or portion so designated; provided that negotiations for acquisition by voluntary transaction shall not be required before the institution of eminent domain proceedings. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the corporation shall exercise its power of eminent domain in the same manner as provided in chapter 101. If the development tract or applicable portion thereof, as the case may be, is not acquired or eminent domain proceedings are not instituted within the twelve-month period, the corporation shall reimburse the fee owner, the lessor, and the legal and equitable owners of the land so designated for actual out-of-pocket expenses of appraisal, survey, and attorney fees as the owner, the lessor, and the legal and equitable owners may have incurred as a result of the designation; provided that, if the development tract or an applicable portion thereof is not acquired or eminent domain proceedings are not instituted within the twelve-month period as a result of the lessee's dismissal, discontinuance, or withdrawal from the eminent domain proceedings or failure to purchase the leased fee interest condemned because of the lessee's inability, failure, or refusal to comply with any provision under chapter 516 or to purchase the leased fee interest condemned, then such lessee and not the corporation shall be solely responsible to reimburse the fee owner, the lessor, and the legal and equitable owners of the land so designated or condemned, for their respective prorated costs, as described above, which the fee owner, the lessor, and the legal and equitable owners may have incurred as a result of the designation and condemnation. [L 1967, c 307, §12; HRS §516-23; am L 1975, c 184, §2(7); am L 1987, c 337, §16; am L 1988, c 104, §2; am L 1997, c 350, §14; am L 2001, c 38, §2; am L 2005, c 196, §26(b); am L 2006, c 180, §16]

Law Journals and Reviews

Hawaii's Land Reform Act: Is it Constitutional? 6 HBJ, no. 2, at 31 (1969).

Case Notes

Section requires the housing finance and development corporation to acquire and dispose of the leased fee interests in no less than that portion of the development tract represented by the statutory minimum number of applicants designated pursuant to §516-22. 82 H. 172, 921 P.2d 92 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2002 · leading case: Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Takabuki, 921 P.2d 92 (Haw. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Takabuki, 921 P.2d 92 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 54× “" See HRS § 516-23. Because the HFDC's public purpose determination is made in consideration of at least the statutory minimum number of applicants, it follows that the agency's designation and acquisition decisions can only fulfill the avowed public purposes of HRS chapter 516…”

Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Lyman, 704 P.2d 888 (Haw. 1985). · cites it 4× “HRS §§ 516-23, -25 (1976). In either case, compensation must equal the fair market value of the owner’s leased fee interest.”

Midkiff v. Comm'r, 96 T.C. 724 (Tax Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “" To support their argument, petitioners contend that the law of Hawaii governing general condemnation proceedings "is that condemned property is presumed to have been taken on its date of valuation" and that "an obligation to pay the condemned party just compensation arises on…”

City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Ing, 58 P.3d 1229 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 13 Yet, the Lessees acknowledge that HRS § 516-23 (1993), part of the legislation governing lease-to-fee conversion through the instrumentality of the state, expressly provides in relevant part that “the [state] shall exercise its power of eminent domain in the same manner as…”

Midkiff v. Tom, 471 F. Supp. 871 (D. Haw. 1979). · cites it 4× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 516-23 (1976) provides in part that “the authority shall exercise its power of eminent domain in the same manner as provided in chapter 101.”

Hous. Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Harold K.L. Castle Found., 901 P.2d 1300 (Haw. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “HRS § 516-23 (1985). Plaintiff, an agency of the State, sought to acquire the leased fee interests of seventy-five lots owned by Defendant in Kailua, Hawaii.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.