What the lawsuit is about
A dispute between private owners — not the PHCA
This case concerns whether the Princeville Makai (Woods Course) golf course land must remain a golf course after February 28, 2026, or whether the owner (Starwood / 1 Hotel) may redevelop it. Plaintiffs (Mull/White) argue that restrictions continue indefinitely through the community governing documents, while the owner argues the restriction expires on a fixed date and development may proceed.
This case is a legal dispute between two private property owners: Mull/White, who own homes adjacent to the golf course, and Starwood / SOF-XI, which owns the golf course property. The Princeville at Hanalei Community Association (PHCA) is not a party to the lawsuit. The case does not directly determine PHCA rights or obligations, although both sides have framed their arguments in ways that may influence community views and future governance discussions.
Position of SOS HUI
The SOS HUI is a group of Princeville property owners who have organized around concerns about the future of the golf course lands. Their position focuses on preserving the community’s open space character and visual quality, while raising concerns about potential increases in density, traffic, and environmental impacts. They generally support legal and planning interpretations that would limit or prevent redevelopment of the golf course property. The group represents a segment of the community, but it does not represent all owners and has no formal governance authority.
“Open space” — clarification of a common misconception
The golf course is often described as “open space,” but that label needs to be used carefully. From a zoning and planning perspective, the land does function as open space within the Princeville master plan. However, in practical terms, the property is privately owned and has always operated as a paid golf facility. Residents and visitors do not have general access rights to the land. As a result, the issue is not about preserving a public park, but about determining the future use of private property that has historically been maintained as golf open space.
Does PHCA have oversight responsibility over the golf course?
Based on the governing documents and the court record, the CC&Rs apply only to land that was explicitly included in, or later annexed into, Princeville at Hanalei. The golf course land has historically been treated as separate and outside of PHCA control. The record shows that PHCA has not enforced its rules on the golf course, has not assessed the golf course owner, and has not treated the owner as a member of the association.
The trial court reached a different conclusion by linking the golf course dedication to the CC&Rs and finding that the restrictions could extend through the association framework. However, that ruling is currently under appeal and is not final. As things stand today, PHCA does not exercise operational oversight over the golf course.
Starwood (1 Hotel) appellate position
In its appeal, Starwood argues that the trial court decision is legally flawed on two main grounds:
1. Title / land use restriction
On the title and land use issue, Starwood argues that the governing dedication document is clear and unambiguous: it sets a fixed expiration date of February 28, 2026. The company maintains that the golf course land is not subject to the Princeville CC&Rs and therefore cannot be automatically renewed through those provisions. In its view, the trial court departed from the plain language of the recorded documents by relying on extrinsic and inadmissible evidence to reinterpret the restriction. Starwood further contends that extending the restriction indefinitely would create uncertainty around property rights and weaken the reliability of recorded land instruments in Hawai‘i.
2. Anthrax / nuisance claim
On the anthrax and nuisance claim, Starwood argues that the alleged risk is speculative and not supported by evidence. The company notes that no viable spores have been identified, no actual health risk has been demonstrated, and no anthrax cases have occurred in the area for over a century. It further contends that the court improperly shifted the burden of proof and issued a broad and unclear injunction that effectively blocks all development without a factual basis. As a result, Starwood is asking the appellate court to reverse the ruling, lift the injunction, confirm that the golf course restriction expires in 2026, and allow any future development to proceed through standard regulatory review.
Bottom line
The trial court ruled in favor of Mull/White, extending the golf course restrictions and blocking development. That decision is now on appeal and is not final. The case raises fundamental questions about property rights, community expectations, and the future of large private land holdings in Princeville. The outcome will have a direct impact on long-term land use, but remains unresolved as of April 2026.
***