The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Maui County Board of Variances and Appeals (BVA) in a case involving the revocation of a bed and breakfast (B&B) permit held by Stewart Norrie. The court's decision, issued on October 14, 2026, clarifies the interpretation of procedural rules regarding the timing of agency decisions, which has implications for future appeals and administrative procedures.
This ruling affects Norrie, who had his B&B permit revoked and was subjected to a two-year ban on future applications after complaints from neighbors. The decision is significant as it addresses how procedural rules are interpreted and enforced in administrative hearings.
Background
Stewart Norrie, the respondent in this case, operated a bed and breakfast on Maui since 2015. His permit was last renewed in 2018, set to expire in 2023. However, in early 2020, complaints arose regarding his compliance with the permit conditions, particularly concerning noise and his presence on the property during guest stays.
In August 2020, following multiple complaints and a warning from the Department of Planning, Norrie's B&B permit was revoked, and he was banned from applying for a new permit for two years. Norrie appealed this decision to the BVA, which initially struggled to reach a decision due to a lack of majority votes among its members. After several hearings and delays, the BVA upheld the revocation on November 24, 2021, but did not file the required findings of fact and conclusions of law (FOF/COL) until January 31, 2022.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the 45-day deadline for the BVA to issue its FOF/COL, as outlined in the BVA Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP) § 12-801-60, is directory rather than mandatory. This means that while the BVA should aim to comply with the timeline, failing to do so does not automatically invalidate its decisions if no substantial rights are prejudiced.
The court stated, "We hold that the deadline in the rule is directory, not mandatory, and that there was no actual prejudice to appellant’s substantial rights."
The court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) judgment, which had reversed the BVA's decision based on the late filing of the FOF/COL. The ruling reinstated the circuit court's decision, which had affirmed the BVA's actions.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for administrative law in Hawaii. It clarifies that procedural deadlines set by agencies, like the BVA, do not necessarily invalidate decisions if the agency has acted in good faith and no substantial rights have been harmed. This could lead to more flexibility in administrative procedures and reduce the likelihood of successful appeals based solely on procedural missteps.
The decision also reinforces the idea that the courts will look for actual prejudice to a party's rights before overturning administrative decisions, which may encourage agencies to enforce rules more rigorously without fear of automatic reversals for minor infractions.
What's Next
While the decision is final in this case, the BVA and other administrative bodies may need to review their procedures to ensure compliance with the ruling. There is no indication of a related case pending, but the implications of this ruling may influence future appeals involving procedural issues in administrative law.