What do you all think about Land Court Deregistration? How do you think new descriptions be written? Stop at the previous Land Court Title? Go back to the original (historic) land titles given at the time of the Great Mahele? Maybe a hybrid of both??? Sound off, lets discuss...
Hawaii Land Laws are based on the ancient Hawaiian Land Tenure system. Land title has evolved and been clarified throughout the history of Hawaii as evidenced by the many types of title. Each type of land title spoke to the history and needs of the times. Land Court was instituted in the earlier part of the 20th century as a legal tool to simplify titles that were owned in common, generally by large land owners, and particularly as a tool for development.
And, deregistration is now a current tool for development. I think it ruly needs to be considered in all its complexities and looked at from multiple perspectives as it matures. These are some of the questions that come to my mind, though none of them specifically involve 'writing descriptions.' I believe to accurately write a description of deregistered land these questions need to be considered. Our legal counterparts are not all in agreement on these questions, never mind the answers to them.
What title remains with the land after deregistration?
Does/should there be a requirement to identify and map the original title as a condition of deregistration?
(I was taught and believe, that original, undisputed land title, is inalienable to the land.) And that is part of our responsibility as surveyors, to identify and delineate boundaries, not only of ownership, but of title.
If those rights imbued by title are indeed inalienable, then the titles need to be demarcated and mapped as they should be. What happens to the intended water/access/gathering rights that were attached to the original title? Deregistration should not be used as a tool to alienate these rights.
These thoughts are in no specific order, and I hope others will chime in.
I have mixed feelings. I would like to have original (historic) titles shown. So far I've shown the Land Court Title and the original title....but I've never come across one that was really "messy". Ours was pretty straight forward.
Then I think what if we just stop at the previous land title will it be more practical? Maybe if the person needs the original land titles they can just refer to Map 1?
I've been writing descriptions for awhile, but descriptions for deregistered lots...I haven't really touched upon.
I think it should be voted upon by the members. Majority rules. It's either A or B. I don't think we can persuade everyone to be on the same page. We just put it out there, show them examples...have them chime in on a discussion and then vote.
For now, I think there are at least 4 things to consider in deciding the matter: 1. How are the existing Land Court maps going to be updated with the limited space available on some of the maps? 2. How will the fringes of Land Court lands be handled when consolidated with regular or deregistered lands? 3. What will the current title companies insure to? 4. What are the simplest steps necessary to make it easiest for our successors to retrace the history of deregistered lands.
For now, my guess is that the labeling of deregistered lands on the original Land Court Maps will dictate the path of where this needs to go next.
Thank you ladies for taking the first steps to getting opinions out in the open. This is a significant event in our land history and we as Surveyors are responsible for making the transition as smooth as possible for future generations.
I feel further consideration by the members is a good idea. I've spoken to some "old timers" and some "younger generation" surveyors and there seems to be a split. If we could have a general membership meeting with a good turnout I think that we could get a better idea of where each (side?) has concerns. I can see the reasoning for both ways, however, as Russell has mentioned this is a significant issue which needs serious consideration. Once we have a consensus of the the majority, we could then present it to the attorney general and the title companies so they will at least know how professional surveyors will be handling the deregistered lot descriptions. It would have to be at a large venue to accommodate it, preferably with air conditioning. )
We could do a vote by ballot also, but it would probably be good to have a meeting first.
For our purposes at HECO the description includes: 1.The original land title (in this case it was not ambiguous) 2. The Lot and subdivision map reference from approved DPP subdivision map 3. The deregistration information
That certain parcel of land situated off Lauwiliwili Street at Honouliuli, Ewa, Oahu, Hawaii, affecting portion of R.P. 6971, L.C. Aw. 11216, Ap.8 to M. Kekauonohi, being Lot 14, as shown on the subdivision map dated February 9, 2015 by Wayne M. Teruya, Hawaii Licensed Professional Land Surveyor 6297 and approved by the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting on February 20, 2015 (DPP File No. 2013/Sub-11), being portion of Lot 8035-A (Map 907) Land Court Application 1069, now deregistered from Land Court by Deregistration of Certificate of Title No. 1,076,480 being recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii on July 9, 2014 as Document No. A-53030734, said easement being containing an area of 534 square feet as shown on HECO R/W Map 2014-060A, dated September 22, 2016, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Sorry the other references, such as the approved subdivision map are too large to add.
I too am not sure if legislating description format specifically for land court is needed.
I would like a state wide working group represented by 1. the state survey office 2. stakeholders with Hawaiian land mattes 3. legal profession dealing with land tiles 4. the title companies 5. the survey profession
to weigh in on the ramifications of this matter.
From my readings Land Court was used as a development tool, generally by large landowners with agricultural holdings. It simplified title and had its purpose. And likewise Deregistration is also a development tool. Logically it seems like the deregistration process should require the original land title to be restored in title and accordingly mapped. Deregistration should not be a de facto method for 'clearing' title.
If the description format is legislated, all the Counties will need be included in the work group because all Counties will be required to adhere to this State requirement. Maui County deals with all types of land transactions which includes subdivisions, dedications, purchases and sales. Possibly, mapping of new subdivisions will need to mirror the legislated description format for deregistered lands.
Who would enforce the legislated format, the Bureau of Conveyances? If yes, will the clerk at the Bureau be qualified to make the determination that the description of the land is, or is not deregistered land? Maybe DLNR Recordation Section need also be included in the work group?
What would be the cost for title insurance on deregistered lands? Is the cost for insurance going to sky rocket because the State is no longer warrantying the bounds of the title?
DESCRIPTION Lot 1 Hoakalei Area VI Access Road, Phase 1
Real property situate at Honouliuli, Ewa, Oahu, Hawaii
Being a portion of Royal Patent 6971, Land Commission Award 11216, Apana 8 to M. Kekauonohi, and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly corner of this parcel of land, being also the most westerly corner of Lot A-1-A as shown on DPP File No. 2014/SUB-94 and on the southerly side of Keoneula Boulevard, being former Lot 18887 of Land Court Application 1069 as shown on Map 1504, said Lot 18887 having been deregistered from the Land Court System by recordation of Certificate of Title No. 1,014,994 in the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii on December 22, 2011, as Regular System Document No. A-43731083, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station “KAPUAI NEW” being 23,514.88 feet South and 13,324.41 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South:
So far, the above mentioned is something I've been working on. It's not a messy lot where it abuts various deregistered land. I think it seems to work...I would like to see other examples. Of course I am bias because I need to write my descriptions in our company format that way we as a company look unified. But if there is going to be some kind of standard I would definitely like to see what it looks like before making a choice.
I've finally had a chance to catch up....This thread is really interesting.
I'm learning a ton just from the variations. I'd like to contribute something That i've personally worked on.
All that certain piece or parcel of land formerly being portions of Lot 69-B, as shown on Map 12, Lot 69-A-1, as shown on Map 22 of Land Court Application 1515 and Lot 69-C, as shown on Map 18, Land Court Application 709, Deregistered in the Bureau of Conveyances, Document No. A-59610494, Dated: April 27, 2016, being portions of Grant 1290 to William Miller, Grant 2341 to William Miller and Grant 2790 to L. Kamehameha.
Situate at Kewalo, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.
Beginning at south corner of this parcel of land the same being the west corner of Lot 2, remainder Grant 2790 to L. Kamehameha and on the northerly side of Kapiolani Boulevard, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Triangulation Station “PUNCHBOWL” being 7,000.38 feet south and 2,496.01 feet east and thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South:
What is the Consolidation name that created Lot 1? What is the subdivision name of Lot 2 at POB? What are the subdivision names/numbers that created "portions" of deregistered Lots 69-B, 69-A-1, 69-C? What is the need for the deregistration dates and document numbers in the description?
For your first 3 questions: there is no cons/subd name. this is part of a cons & resubd that has just been submitted. I should add the DPP Sub number. The attorneys involved had us write some descriptions before a DPP Subdivison file number could even be added for a "pony show" to clients. I just find that this format was interesting. This is the format that our company has been using. I should probably update that now that we have a Subd number for correctness... Thanks for the eagle eye russell. The Document No and date given were given for tracing back to the derigistration. Do you feel this is too much?
All the lots in the descriptions weren't fully described. I first assumed that the deregistered lots were whole lots, but the description describes the lots to be "portions of". This meant the deregistered lots had gone through a subdivision process after deregistration, however the subdivision name(s) didn't follow.
Lot 1 didn't have a subdivision name, a hint that Lot 1 didn't go through a consolidation process.
For now, I don't understand the necessity for document numbers and dates for deregistration. If there's no good reason for this information, my guess is that this information will eventually be left to slide after the hype dies down.
Hmm I had that same question Russell about the including deregistration numbers, which I have been. Just following suit in multiple deregistered descriptions I put it in, but I was copy catting the legal folks. For me that would be a legal weigh in, I see no real value.
BTW lot of our unregistered lots in Honolulu don't have subdivision names, just Lot #, especially small subdivisions done a while ago.
Yes, some lots on Maui that were created before Maui's subdivision ordinance do not contain a subdivision name, just lot numbers.. I was talking with an attorney yesterday, she agreed that some documents created by attorneys do get overly wordy