Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof in Land Use Boundary Interpretation Cases

On August 28, 2025, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued an opinion in Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State of Hawaiʻi Land Use Commission, SCOT-24-0000498, addressing how the Land Use Commission (LUC) must evaluate petitions for district boundary interpretation under Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (HAR) § 15-15-22. 

The Court vacated the LUC’s denial of a landowner’s petition and clarified that the correct burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not a heightened standard.

Background 

Honoipu Hideaway, LLC owns 17.5 acres of littoral property in North Kohala, Hawaiʻi Island. Roughly 4.8 acres of the parcel lie within the Conservation District, as shown on the 1974 LUC district boundary map. 

The owner argued that the map contained a mistake: it followed the alignment of an old dirt road rather than a new road built in 1961, prior to the creation of the first LUC maps. According to the owner, correcting the boundary to reflect the road’s true location would shift 1.8 acres from the Conservation District to the Agricultural District. 

Honoipu petitioned the LUC for a declaratory order under HAR § 15-15-22, which allows boundary interpretation where uncertainty exists in a map. The LUC denied the petition, concluding that the evidence was not “conclusive” or “compelling” enough to prove a mapping error. Commissioners emphasized the high bar for moving land out of the Conservation District and suggested that a formal district boundary amendment would be the proper path. 

The Court’s Decision 

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that the LUC applied the wrong burden of proof. The Court reasoned:  

• Boundary interpretation is not a reclassification; it is a limited tool to resolve uncertainty in maps. Where uncertainty exists, the LUC may determine the correct location of district lines.  
• Under HAR § 15-15-59, the petitioner bears the burden of proof in LUC proceedings. 
• In administrative hearings, unless otherwise specified, the appropriate standard is preponderance of the evidence—meaning the petitioner must show it is more likely than not that their interpretation is correct. 
• The LUC erred by requiring “conclusive” or “compelling” proof, which is a higher standard not authorized by statute or rule. 
• Because the LUC’s use of a heightened standard prejudiced the petitioner’s rights, the Court vacated the order and remanded for new findings under the correct standard. 

Key Takeaways 

1. Preponderance standard governs: Absent rulemaking to the contrary, the LUC must evaluate evidence in boundary interpretation cases using the civil preponderance standard.  
2. Boundary interpretation vs. amendment: Interpretation is only available to resolve uncertainties or mapping errors; broader policy changes must go through the statutory boundary amendment process under HRS § 205-4.  
3. Practical impact: Landowners seeking to correct map errors face a lower evidentiary hurdle than previously suggested by the LUC. However, they still must provide persuasive evidence that an error exists. 
4. Agency discretion limited by law: Agencies cannot unilaterally impose heightened burdens without adopting rules through formal rulemaking.

By requiring the LUC to apply the preponderance standard, the Court ensures that landowners can pursue legitimate corrections to district maps without facing insurmountable evidentiary barriers. At the same time, the opinion reaffirms that genuine reclassifications of Conservation land must proceed through the rigorous boundary amendment process.