Piezko v. County of Maui — Exclusive Tax Appeal Court Jurisdiction Over Real Property Tax Refund Claims Styled as Civil Actions

1. Introduction

Parties: Christopher Piezko and Janel Lee Piezko, as trustees and class representatives (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Piezkos”), sued the County of Maui. The Piezkos owned a Kīhei property used as a personal vacation home.

Background: In 2020, Maui enacted Ordinance 5160, expanding the “short-term rental” real property tax classification to include units in qualifying areas even when “occupied by the owner for personal use.” The ordinance increased tax rates for affected properties during the 2021 tax year. The ordinance was later repealed effective January 1, 2022 by Ordinance 5159, limiting Ordinance 5160’s practical effect to a single assessment year (2021).

Procedural posture and key issue: Plaintiffs paid the higher 2021 taxes but did not pursue the administrative appeal path required for real property tax assessments: appeal first to the Maui County Board of Review (“BOR”), then (if needed) to the Tax Appeal Court (“TAC”). Instead, in 2023 they filed a circuit court class action seeking money damages framed as unjust enrichment and due process violations, relying on an unrelated TAC appeal involving the same ordinance. The County moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi addressed whether the circuit court could hear what Plaintiffs labeled as civil claims for refund/damages, or whether the matter fell exclusively within the real property tax appeal framework assigned to the BOR and TAC.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held:

HRS § 632-1 (declaratory judgments) did not control because Plaintiffs did not seek declaratory relief.
The TAC has exclusive jurisdiction over real property tax assessment appeals, including challenges alleging illegality or unconstitutionality, and that exclusivity cannot be evaded by pleading alternative theories (e.g., unjust enrichment, due process) when the substance is a tax assessment dispute.
Plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the BOR appeal deadline for the relevant tax year had long passed (April 9, 2021), and Plaintiffs sued only in October 2023.
Because the case was jurisdictionally and procedurally barred, the court did not reach Plaintiffs’ issue-preclusion argument based on the unrelated TAC decision.
Plaintiffs’ due process theory failed because the existing BOR/TAC procedures provide post-deprivation remedies (including refunds) for illegal/unconstitutional assessments.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Ocean Resort Villas Vacation Owners Ass'n v. Cnty. of Maui (2020)

Ocean Resort served as the opinion’s principal structural precedent on jurisdiction in real property tax disputes. There, taxpayers sought declaratory relief to invalidate a real property tax regime; this court held the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because HRS chapter 232 and MCC chapter 3.48 supply the exclusive process for challenging real property tax assessments, including on legality/constitutionality grounds.

Influence here: Piezko extends Ocean Resort’s functional approach: even when plaintiffs avoid declaratory relief and style claims as damages (unjust enrichment/due process), the case still belongs exclusively in the BOR/TAC system if, in substance, it seeks a refund/adjustment of assessed taxes on grounds of illegality/unconstitutionality.

Grace Bus. Dev. Corp. v. Kamikawa (2000)

Grace Bus. Dev. Corp. articulated the “general matter” allocation of subject matter jurisdiction to the TAC for taxpayer assessment appeals under HRS chapter 232, taxes paid under protest under HRS § 40-35, and adverse rulings by the Director.

Influence here: The court used Grace Bus. Dev. Corp. to anchor the starting proposition that tax disputes of this kind are channeled into specialized tax procedures rather than general civil jurisdiction.

Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi v. State (2019)

Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi interpreted the declaratory-judgment tax bar in HRS § 632-1, recognizing that certain declaratory actions in tax matters may proceed when they do not interfere with assessment or collection.

Influence here: The court treated Tax Foundation of Hawaiʻi as relevant only in cases actually seeking declaratory relief. Because Plaintiffs here disclaimed declaratory relief, the court refused to make HRS § 632-1 the pivot point of jurisdiction.

Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle (2008)

Hawaii Insurers Council was cited as another example of a tax-related declaratory judgment action where HRS § 632-1 analysis made sense because declaratory relief was expressly requested.

Influence here: It supported the court’s doctrinal separation: HRS § 632-1 is a declaratory-judgment statute; it does not automatically govern every “tax controversy” when plaintiffs pursue non-declaratory relief.

Rodriguez v. Mauna Kea Resort LLC (2025)

Rodriguez supplied the court’s interpretive principle that courts should not “elevate form over substance.”

Influence here: This principle did the heavy lifting to prevent plaintiffs from re-labeling an assessment appeal as “unjust enrichment” or “due process” to enter circuit court. The court treated the functional nature of the claim—seeking a refund because taxes were imposed under an allegedly unconstitutional ordinance—as determinative.

Ching v. Case (2019) and Chambrella v. Rutledge (1987)

These cases were cited in discussing remedial authority and pleading/relief rules (including Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(c)).

Influence here: They clarified that the ability of a court to grant equitable or unpleaded relief presupposes jurisdiction—and jurisdiction was absent once the court classified the claim as a tax assessment appeal within TAC exclusivity.

Matter of Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc. (1994)

Matter of Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc. was cited to evaluate the sufficiency of due process remedies in the tax context when valid tax appeal procedures are available.

Influence here: It supported the conclusion that where established post-deprivation remedies exist (BOR/TAC review with refund potential), due process is not violated merely because a taxpayer seeks an alternative, untethered route to relief.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

(a) The court declined to recharacterize the complaint as a declaratory judgment action

The opinion begins by narrowing the role of HRS § 632-1: because Plaintiffs did not request declaratory relief, the statutory bar on declaratory relief “in any controversy with respect to taxes” was not dispositive. The court acknowledged the County’s argument that declaratory relief might be implicit, but ultimately refused to reframe the lawsuit as something it was not pleaded to be.

(b) The core jurisdictional holding: exclusive BOR/TAC channeling for real property tax assessment appeals

The court then analyzed the dedicated tax appeal scheme:

HRS § 232-3 places within TAC’s ambit assessment appeals grounded in overvaluation, lack of uniformity, denial of exemptions, and illegality (including unconstitutionality).
HRS § 232-16 authorizes direct TAC appeals only if the taxpayer first obtains an administrative decision when county ordinances require that step.
MCC § 3.48.595 requires taxpayers in real property tax appeals to first appeal to the County BOR.
MCC § 3.48.605 and related provisions permit BOR appeals on the same general grounds, including illegality/unconstitutionality (with constitutional objections preserved for TAC).

Against that statutory backdrop, the court characterized Plaintiffs’ suit as “definitionally” a tax assessment appeal: Plaintiffs sought a “refund or adjustment” of taxes paid due to the “unconstitutional Ordinance 5160.” Even though Plaintiffs avoided directly pleading unconstitutionality as a cause of action and instead pleaded unjust enrichment and due process, the requested relief and asserted wrong depended on the illegality/unconstitutionality of the assessment classification.

The court’s key move was to treat substance as jurisdictionally controlling. If litigants could repackage assessment appeals as general civil causes of action, the carefully delineated BOR/TAC review structure—deadlines, preservation rules, refund mechanics, and specialized jurisdiction—would be undermined.

(c) Timeliness as an independent barrier

The court further held that even if Plaintiffs had filed in the right forum, the appeal was untimely. Under MCC § 3.48.595, BOR appeals must be filed “on or before April 9 preceding the tax year.” Since Ordinance 5160 applied to the 2021 tax year, the deadline was April 9, 2021. Plaintiffs sued in October 2023.

Notably, the court rejected arguments that the window was unreasonably short, pointing to: (1) the ordinance’s December 2020 enactment, (2) County public guidance (FAQ webpage), and (3) the fact that another taxpayer, under the same ordinance and timeline, successfully navigated BOR/TAC and obtained a refund.

(d) Due process analysis: adequate post-deprivation remedies existed

Plaintiffs alleged the County failed to provide adequate pre- and post-deprivation remedies. The court responded that the tax appeal scheme itself provides post-deprivation relief: taxpayers can challenge illegality/unconstitutionality through BOR/TAC and obtain refunds when over-assessments are lowered. Because Plaintiffs had access to that framework but did not use it, their due process theory “lacks merit.”

3.3. Impact

Practical rule for litigants: A taxpayer cannot bypass the BOR/TAC framework by re-labeling an assessment challenge as unjust enrichment, damages, or due process when the substance seeks a refund/adjustment of a real property tax assessment tied to illegality/unconstitutionality.

Doctrinal clarification: The opinion separates two jurisdictional “gates” that are sometimes conflated:

HRS § 632-1 matters when a plaintiff seeks declaratory relief; it is not automatically the organizing statute when no declaration is requested.
HRS chapter 232 and MCC chapter 3.48 independently channel real property tax assessment disputes into BOR/TAC, including constitutional challenges and refund claims.

Systemic effect: The decision reinforces administrative exhaustion, preservation, and deadlines in tax disputes, protecting the finality and predictability of municipal revenue systems. It also discourages class-action “refund” litigation in circuit court where the claims are, at bottom, untimely tax appeals.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Subject matter jurisdiction: A court’s power to hear a category of case. If the legislature assigns a category exclusively to a specialized tribunal (here, TAC), the circuit court cannot decide it—even if the complaint is framed as a common-law or constitutional claim.
Exhaustion / exclusive remedial scheme: When the law provides a specific path to challenge government action (BOR → TAC), parties generally must use it before seeking other relief. This is especially strict where the statutory scheme is designed to handle the exact type of dispute (tax assessments, including legality/constitutionality).
“Form over substance”: Courts look past labels. Calling a refund request “unjust enrichment” does not change the underlying nature of the dispute if success depends on proving the tax assessment was illegal.
Time-barred: Even a valid claim can be lost if not brought within the required deadline. Here, the BOR appeal deadline governed; missing it foreclosed later attempts to recover the taxes via other suits.
Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel): A doctrine that can sometimes bind parties to issues already decided in earlier litigation. The court did not reach it because jurisdiction and timeliness resolved the case.

5. Conclusion

Piezko v. County of Maui cements a functional, substance-driven jurisdictional rule in Hawaiʻi real property tax litigation: when a taxpayer seeks a refund or adjustment of assessed property taxes based on alleged illegality or unconstitutionality, the claim lies within the exclusive BOR/TAC process under HRS chapter 232 and MCC chapter 3.48, regardless of how the complaint is styled. The decision also underscores that missing BOR deadlines is fatal, and that due process is satisfied where established post-deprivation remedies (BOR/TAC review and refunds) are available but unused.