Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Deadlines and Keeps Cultural-Compliance Dispute Alive

In Mālama Kakanilua v. Director of the Department of Public Works, County of Maui, SCWC-19-0000107 (Sept. 30, 2025), the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court issued a decision that matters to both lawyers navigating post-judgment procedures and project proponents working on lands with historic and cultural resources. 

Appellate Procedure: Rule 60(b)(6) Motions Toll the Appeal Deadline 

The Court held that a motion for relief under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(6)—the catch-all provision for “any other reason justifying relief from judgment”—tolls the time to file an appeal under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(3).  

Previously, the Intermediate Court of Appeals had dismissed Mālama Kakanilua’s appeal as untimely, reasoning that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion did not extend the deadline. 

The Supreme Court disagreed. It explained that so long as the motion is filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, the time to appeal is suspended until the trial court resolves that motion.  

For lawyers, this clarification provides a safety net. A timely filed Rule 60(b)(6) motion preserves appellate rights, ensuring parties can seek reconsideration of a judgment without forfeiting their opportunity for review. 

Substantive Context: Grading Permit Renewal and Cultural Resource Protections 

The underlying dispute arose from Maui Lani Partners’ grading permit for a residential subdivision in Wailuku. Petitioners argued that the County’s Department of Public Works unlawfully renewed the grading permit without consulting the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), as required under HRS § 6E-42 and corresponding provisions of the Maui County Code. 

They also claimed the County failed to make findings of “good cause” for the permit’s extension. 

The circuit court dismissed the claims, and the ICA affirmed—on procedural grounds. By reversing that dismissal, the Supreme Court revived the appeal and sent the case back to the ICA to decide the merits of the cultural-preservation claims. 

Practical Implications for Project Proponents and Agencies 

While the Court did not reach the underlying environmental and cultural-resource issues, the decision signals that permit renewals and extensions will continue to face close judicial scrutiny when historic-preservation procedures are in question. Project proponents should: 

• Document SHPD consultation under HRS Chapter 6E even when seeking permit extensions rather than new permits. 
• Ensure “good cause” findings are explicit in county records when permits are renewed.  
• Anticipate litigation risks if cultural consultation steps are overlooked, particularly in areas known to contain burials or archaeological sites. 

For government agencies, the decision underscores the importance of clear administrative records and transparent decision-making that demonstrate compliance with both state and local cultural-resource laws. 

Key Takeaway 

The Court’s holding restores an appeal that might otherwise have been lost to a technical deadline—and keeps alive a broader debate about how Hawaiʻi’s permitting systems protect cultural heritage. 

For practitioners, Mālama Kakanilua is a reminder that procedural precision and substantive diligence go hand in hand: the first preserves your client’s right to be heard, and the second ensures that development decisions respect Hawaiʻi’s historical and cultural foundations.