Blight of summons damages refers to “the indemnification due a eondemnee for the damages resulting from the government’s delay in paying the full cash equivalent of the property taken on the date of summons.” City & Cty. of Honolulu v. Mkt. Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226 , 235, 517 P.2d 7 , 15 (1973) [hereinafter “Market Place”]. Specifically, “the purpose of blight of summons damages is to compensate a eondemnee for the loss of use of the cash equivalent of the taken property[.]”

‘“[B]light of summons damages’ [is] a term which in general means the indemnification due a condemnee for the damages resulting from the government’s delay in paying the full cash equivalent of the property taken on the date of summons.” City & County of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226 , 235, 517 P.2d 7 , 15 (1973). Blight of summons damages are essentially a rate of “interest” to provide the condemnee with full just compensation.

Eminent domain proceedings are intended to award landowners "an amount of just compensation which as nearly as possible approximates the value which a free market would attach to the taken property." City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226, 242, 517 P.2d 7, 19 (1973). A standard valuation method in eminent domain cases calculates just compensation as the difference between the fair market value of condemned property immediately before the taking (i.e., the condition unaffected by the taking) and the fair market value of the remaining property after the taking.

Eminent domain proceedings are intended to award landowners "an amount of just compensation which as nearly as possible approximates the value which a free market would attach to the taken property." City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226, 242, 517 P.2d 7, 19 (1973). A standard valuation method in eminent domain cases calculates just compensation as the difference between the fair market value of condemned property immediately before the taking (i.e., the condition unaffected by the taking) and the fair market value of the remaining property after the taking.

Williams moved for reconsideration. In denying his motion for reconsideration, the circuit court found that "the condemnation clause in the lease is binding, and City and County of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226, 517 P.2d 7 (1973) makes clear that the State is only obligated to pay the fair market value of the unencumbered fee value.

In general, blight of summons damages represent the "indemnification due a condemnee for the damages resulting from the government's delay in paying the full cash equivalent of the property taken on the date of summons." City and County of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226, 235, 517 P.2d 7, 15 (1973); see also Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 69 Haw. 247, 249, 739 P.2d 248, 249 (1987) ("the condemning authority must pay interest, subject to set-off for rents received, so as to put the property owner in the same position as if payment had been made contemporaneously with the summons"). Their purpose "is to compensate a condemnee for the loss of use of the cash equivalent of the taken property[.

That which is "merely speculative" is excludable, of course, since it may be "unduly confusing to the jury." City County v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226, 242, 517 P.2d 7, 19 (1973). And we have been reluctant to disturb a trial judge's assessment of what are indicia of speculative or "remote values, unless a clear abuse of the discretion vested in him is apparent.

Id. ("The decision in Starzinger reflects the prevailing view that ‘where a lease provides for its termination at the lessor's option on condemnation of the property, the lessee has no right to compensation for the taking if the option is exercised.’ "(citation omitted) ); see also Petty , 327 U.S. at 376, 66 S.Ct. 596 ; Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Faber Enter., Inc ., 931 F.2d 438, 442 (7th Cir. 1991) ; U.S. v. Right to Use and Occupy 3.38 Acres of Land, More ... , 484 F.2d 1140 (4th Cir. 1973) ; Bajwa v. Sunoco, Inc ., 320 F.Supp.2d 454 (E.D. Va. 2004) ; Heir v. Delaware River Port Authority , 218 F.Supp.2d 627, 638 (U.S. District Court, New Jersey 2002) ; Vanek , 193 P.3d at 295 (Alaska) ; Capitol Monument Co. v. State Capitol Grounds Comm. ex rel. Murry , 220 Ark. 946, 251 S.W.2d 473 (1952) ; Kylberg , 799 P.2d 371 (Colorado) ; City and Cty. of Honolulu v. Mkt. Place, Ltd ., 55 Haw. 226, 517 P.2d 7 (1973) ; State v. Heslar , 257 Ind. 307, 274 N.E.2d 261 (1971) ; State v. Starzinger , 179 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1970) ; State v. LeBlanc , 319 So.2d 817 (La. Ct. App. 1975) ; Sparrow Chisholm Co. v. City of Boston , 327 Mass. 64, 97 N.E.2d 172 (1951) ; Metro. Airports Com'n v. Noble , 763 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. 2009) ; Bi-State Dev. Agency of Missouri-Illinois Metro. Dist. v. Nikodem , 859 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) ; Musser v. Bank of Am ., 114 Nev. 945, 964 P.2d 51, 53 (1998) ; Carroll Weir Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller, In re Appropriation of Easement for Highway Purposes , 2 Ohio St.2d 189, 207 N.E.2d 747 (1965) ; In re Dep't of Transp., of the Right of Way for State Route 0202, Section 701 , 871 A.2d 896 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) ; Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. McCrabb , 248 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App. 2007) ; Am. Creameries Co. v. Armour & Co. , 149 Wash. 690, 271 P. 896 (1928).

The Owners cite several cases which hold that the presence of an automatic termination provision in a lease constitutes a waiver of the Lessee's right to condemnation proceeds. See, e.g., United States v. Improved Premises Known as No. 46070, Mc.Lean Ave, 54 F. Supp. 469 (N.Y. 1944); United States v. Advertising Checking Bureau, Inc., 204 F.2d 770 (7th Cir. 1953); United States v. 96,900 Sq. Ft., 65 F. Supp. 833 (N Y 1946); Fiberglass Fabricators v. Kyleberg, 799 P.2d 371 (Co. 1990); City of Honolulu v. Market Place, Ltd., 517 P.2d 7 (Haw. 1973); Waesch v. Redevelopment Agency of New London, 229 A.2d 352 (Conn. 1967); In Re Site, 95 N.W. 112 (Minn.

"[T]he general aim of proceedings in eminent domain is to arrive at an amount of just compensation which as nearly as possible approximates the value which a free market would attach to the taken property." City County v. Market Place, Ltd., 55 Haw. 226, 242, 517 P.2d 7, 19 (1973). Value, according to a well-respected treatise, "is always a matter of opinion."