Usually, when people fight about owning beachfront property, each party wants ownership for themselves. But here's a case where the opposite was true: each alleged the other party owned the seawall. In Gold Coast Neighborhood Association v. State, the Hawaii Supreme Court concluded among other things, that under the doctrine of implied dedication, the State of Hawaii had obtained an easement across a Waikiki seawall. This was important because whomever owned the seawall was also responsible for maintaining it.
The seawall in the Gold Coast case runs along what is known as Waikiki's Gold Coast, an area of condominiums and apartments located near Diamond Head at the end of Kalakaua Avenue. The seawall was constructed by private parties over eighty years ago and since about 1930, the seawall has been used by both residents and the public to access the ocean and traverse the coastline.
In addressing whether there was implied dedication, the court stated that an implied dedication requires an offer and an acceptance of dedication. Further, when there is no express offer, the offer may be implied under the circumstances and the acceptance may also be implied by the nature of the public use. For public use to effectuate an implied dedication, it must continue for a period longer t han the number of years required t o result in a prescriptive easement ( twenty years). Finally, the effect of a common law implied dedication i s the creation of an easement over t he relevant property in favor of the State.
T he court concluded that the f acts involved in the case were m ore than sufficient to raise a rebuttable presumption of implied dedication. For example, the p arties stipulated to extensive evidence regarding the State's repairs to the seawall in at least 1982, 1984, and 1993 and that local and state appropriations were made several times in contemplation of further repairs. The parties also agreed to the entry of documents into evidence in which representatives of the State asserted, among other things, that the State had the responsibility to maintain the public right of way over the seawall. In addition, testimony at trial demonstrated that members of the public have continuously and freely used the seawall for recreational use since at least 1952.
The court concluded that the State has the right and the duty to maintain the surface of the seawall over and across which it has an easement. However, the court went on to note that joint use of an easement and any improvements thereon may give rise to an obligation to contribute jointly to the costs reasonably incurred for repair and maintenance. Thus, the State in this case will be jointly responsible with the relevant property owners for the repair and maintenance of the surface of the seawall—over and across which the State has an easement—in accordance with equitable considerations relating to their relative use, enjoyment, and contributions to the seawall.
Therefore, although the State has an easement over the seawall pursuant to implied dedication, the supreme court left it to the trial court to sort out the exact apportionment of responsibility for the maintenance of the seawall between the residents and the State.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
