Forcing kamaaina families to sell their ancestral lands has been a provocative issue in Hawaii for more than a century, and that’s not changing just because the billionaire leader of Facebook has quit his litigation to acquire such land on Kauai.

The recently aborted attempt by Mark Zuckerberg to acquire several parcels of kuleana land within 700 acres he bought on the Garden Isle two years ago has renewed calls to amend Hawaii’s quiet-title law that allows a court to order such sales even when owners of the land — sometimes property that’s been in one family for generations — don’t want to sell.

State lawmakers recently introduced two bills that aim to help defendants in these lawsuits retain their land.

The two bills follow several that fizzled at the Legislature in recent years, along with one last year that attracted little public interest but became law and added potent new protections for owners of land largely shared by multiple family members who inherited their interests from relatives.

The ordeal with Zuckerberg, CEO and co-founder of Facebook, created more exposure for kuleana land dispossession and an opportunity to have an open dialogue on the issue, said Rep. Nadine Nakamura (D, Hanalei-Princeville-Kapaa).

“The issue of kuleana lands is not something that is new and it is not just a Zuckerberg issue,” Naka­mura said in a statement. “It is a complicated matter that has been around for a long time.”

Kuleana lands were among the first pieces of privately owned real estate in Hawaii, and were originally awarded by Hawaiian government officials under the Kuleana Act of 1850 to commoners who farmed the land. Such land often was passed to heirs of the first owner and then further through generations of descendants often in absence of a will or deed, and thus have a cloudy or “noisy” ownership title that sometimes is shared by dozens or hundreds of fractional owners.

Hawaii’s quiet-title law can be used to establish legal title by presenting research to a judge who can confirm owners. A judge can also order that land be sold as one piece at auction if dividing the land among owners isn’t feasible.

One other key aspect to quiet-title law is a provision called adverse possession in which someone can seek to be recognized as the owner of kuleana land because they continuously used it openly and without objection from a legal owner for at least 20 years, or 10 years prior to 1973.

Adverse possession had a history of abuse, particularly by large landowners including sugar cane plantations and ranches that sometimes blocked access to kuleana lands, and in 1983 the law was changed so that someone claiming adverse possession had to have a reasonable belief that they owned an interest in the property based on an inheritance, written conveyance or court order.

Zuckerberg, in seven of his eight quiet-title lawsuits, claimed that land was adversely possessed by prior owners of nine kuleana parcels that Zuckerberg now claims to own.

A ‘hurtful’ practice

Michelle Kauhane, president and CEO of the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, called adverse possession an antiquated legal doctrine that serves the convenience of capitalism and runs counter to communal land use that Native Hawaiians had for thousands of years up through today via kuleana lands.

“It’s striking that the Western world sees nothing but hopelessness in having hundreds of heirs, whereas there is nothing wrong with that situation, especially if the use of the land is for an entire ohana for gathering and access rights,” Kauhane said in an email. “The pain of adverse possession is focused on our Kauai families, but every Hawaiian on every island is one degree away from the hurtful ways of decades of this approach to the dispossession of our lands.”

Rep. Kaniela Ing (D, South Maui) said he intends to hold hearings on the two bills as chairman of the House Committee on Ocean, Marine Resources and Hawaiian Affairs.

“Now that the Zuckerberg case has brought quiet-title claims to the fore, I will continue to pursue legislation that will solve this issue once and for all,” he said in a statement.

One pending bill, House Bill 860, would mandate mediation between quiet-title plaintiffs and defendants; bar plaintiffs from having defendants share quiet-title case expenses; and preserve a kuleana landowner’s access to the property for cultural or traditional practices even if a sale is forced.

The other bill, House Bill 1450, bars anyone from filing a quiet-title lawsuit unless they own more than a 50 percent interest in the kuleana land.

Ducking new law

There have been prior attempts to reform Hawaii’s quiet-title statute that fell flat at the Legislature, including four bills in 2008 and one in 2009 that proposed abolishing adverse possession of kuleana lands. None of the bills in 2008 got a hearing, and the bill in 2009 passed one Senate committee but died after failing to be heard by a second committee.

Last year, however, lawmakers passed a bill that dramatically strengthened protections for kuleana landowners in a move that didn’t apply to Zuckerberg’s eight lawsuits because he filed them two days before the new law took effect.

Moses Haia III, an attorney with the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., speculates that attorneys representing Zuckerberg filed the cases Dec. 30 to avoid provisions of the new law.

The provisions that took effect Jan. 1 allow defendants in quiet-title cases to buy out the interest in the land held by the plaintiff. Also, a defendant wishing to buy out a plaintiff can act alone or band together with other defendants.

Another new element in the law requires that fair market value for a property is established by an independent appraisal or by agreement, and allows a sale to be by auction, sealed bid or by using a real estate broker.

These new provisions apply to real estate inherited by owners who are related and represent at least 20 percent of the interest in a property.

Though Zuckerberg dropped his lawsuits, one case that he filed in partnership with another plaintiff, Carlos Andrade, is still proceeding and is subject to the old version of quiet-title law.

Andrade is solely pursuing the case to force a sale of four kuleana parcels totaling 2 acres within Zuckerberg’s 700-acre estate.

The two acres were bought in 1894 by Manuel Rapozo, an immigrant Portuguese sugar cane plantation worker and the great-grandfather of Andrade. More than 200 living descendants of Rapozo have been identified as fractional owners of the 2 acres, according to the lawsuit.

Andrade holds a 14 percent stake acquired from several relatives many years ago, while Zuckerberg acquired a 24 percent stake by recently purchasing the interests of several other Rapozo descendants, the lawsuit said.

Andrade, 72, previously said he partnered with Zuckerberg on the quiet-title action because he couldn’t afford to litigate such a large case, which could cost around $100,000 or $200,000, and that he wanted to avoid losing the property, on which he lived from 1977 until recently, to the county if no one takes his place paying property taxes that totaled about $6,500 in 2015.

If Andrade’s suit is successful, the 2 acres would be sold at public auction to the highest bidder. Zuckerberg, as part of announcing his decision to drop his legal actions, said Andrade wants to acquire the whole property and pass it on to his children.