Piezko: A Constitutional Refund Theory Could Not Bypass Hawaii’s Tax-Appeal Procedure

A constitutional label could not move a Maui real property assessment dispute into a general civil court. In Piezko v. County of Maui, No. SCAP-24-0000393 (Haw. Dec. 30, 2025), the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a class action seeking refunds of taxes imposed under an allegedly unconstitutional classification ordinance. The statutory tax-appeal route governed both the forum and the timing. The court did not decide the ordinance’s substantive constitutionality.

Justice Eddins authored the opinion for a court consisting of Acting Chief Justice McKenna, Justices Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, and Circuit Judge Kawashima, assigned because of a vacancy. Piezko, slip op. at 1.

The Temporary Classification and the Owners’ Claim

The plaintiffs owned vacation property in Kīhei, Maui. Ordinance 5160 expanded the short-term-rental condominium tax classification to include specified vacant and owner-occupied vacation units in areas permitting transient vacation rentals. County officials projected that the change would affect 1,428 properties and increase revenue by approximately $9.1 million; those were projections, not the court’s finding of actual collections. The amendment applied to the 2021 assessment year and was repealed effective January 1, 2022. Piezko, slip op. at 2–4.

The owners received their assessment notice in January 2021 and paid the higher taxes. They did not appeal to the Maui Board of Review within the prescribed period. In October 2023, they instead brought a circuit-court class action seeking refunds through unjust-enrichment and due-process claims. They relied on another taxpayer’s successful challenge to the same ordinance after following the statutory appeal route. Id. at 4–6, 13–14.

The Circuit Court Dismissal and the Declaratory-Relief Question

The County argued that the tax-appeal statutes and county code foreclosed circuit-court jurisdiction, and also invoked the statutory restriction on declaratory relief in tax controversies. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court accepted transfer of the appeal. Id. at 5–7.

The plaintiffs expressly disclaimed declaratory relief and requested money. The Supreme Court declined to reconstruct their suit as a declaratory-judgment action, so HRS section 632-1 did not apply. That analysis did not affect the result because the separate tax-appeal framework controlled jurisdiction. A court must have jurisdiction before granting equitable or monetary relief. The separate tax-appeal framework remained controlling. Id. at 7–8.

The Statutory Route Included Constitutional Objections

The opinion read HRS chapter 232 with Maui County Code chapter 3.48. The Tax Appeal Court’s subject matter includes assessment challenges based on overvaluation, inequality, exemption denials, and illegality, including unconstitutionality. Where the county code requires prior administrative review, a taxpayer must obtain that decision before proceeding to the Tax Appeal Court. Maui required an initial appeal to the county Board of Review. Id. at 9–10.

The Board could decide questions of fact and law except those involving the Constitution or laws of the United States. That limitation did not permit bypassing the Board. Federal constitutional objections needed to be raised in the administrative appeal to preserve them for the Tax Appeal Court, which could determine constitutional questions within the tax appeal. The court thus distinguished the Board’s decisional authority from the taxpayer’s obligation to use the prescribed sequence. Id. at 10–11.

Substance Controlled Over the Civil Complaint’s Labels

The plaintiffs argued that they were pursuing due process and unjust enrichment rather than a direct tax appeal. But their requested refund or adjustment depended on an allegedly unconstitutional ordinance that produced the higher assessment. In substance, they were challenging the assessment’s legality. That placed the dispute within the Tax Appeal Court’s exclusive jurisdiction and outside the circuit court’s general jurisdiction. Id. at 11–13.

This is why the distinction between declaratory relief and monetary relief did not change the result. The court accepted the owners’ description of their requested remedy, but examined the tax determination underlying it. A different remedy label did not create a different subject matter.

Filing in the Correct Forum Would Still Have Been Too Late

The court separately held the claims untimely. The applicable Maui provision required the Board appeal by April 9 preceding the assessment year. For this 2021 assessment, that meant April 9, 2021. The owners’ October 2023 circuit-court suit came more than two and a half years later. The court stated that even a filing in the proper forum at that time would have been late. Id. at 13–14.

The owners challenged the adequacy of the appeal period. The court rejected that argument, pointing to the time between the ordinance’s December 2020 passage and the appeal deadline, public explanatory information, and another taxpayer’s successful use of the same process. The other taxpayer’s refund demonstrated an available route; it did not reopen the plaintiffs’ deadline. Id. at 14–15.

Due Process and the Issue the Court Did Not Reach

The court rejected the demand for pre- and post-deprivation relief outside the existing assessment-appeal framework. Taxpayers using that framework could obtain refunds when an assessment was reduced on grounds including illegality or unconstitutionality. Given that available post-deprivation relief, the plaintiffs’ failure to use it did not establish the asserted due-process violation. Id. at 15.

Because jurisdiction and timeliness disposed of the appeal, the court did not reach the plaintiffs’ issue-preclusion argument. It did not determine whether Ordinance 5160 was constitutional or resolve unjust-enrichment liability on the merits. The separate taxpayer’s result was not a merits ruling for these plaintiffs. Id. at 14–16.

Disposition and Practical Limits

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The opinion concerns the identified Hawaii and Maui assessment procedures and a temporary ordinance applied to 2021. It is not a current Maui tax-rate schedule, a present deadline announcement, or a California tax-appeal rule. Id. at 13, 16.

The companion Maui assessment appeal guide explains the documents needed to identify the year, decision, forum, and deadline. For the firm’s practice scope, see our tax services.