[kem]

I admit this is confusing to me, but the premise of this makes no sense to me. It seems that the sale should still require some vote on the part of the identified shareholders on whether or not to sell.

Isn't this basically saying that a ridiculously wealthy individual like Zuckerberg could force a family to sell their inherited lands to him at whatever price he wants to pay, as long as no one offers a higher price? Without meaning to be glib, how is this even constitutional? What does it matter how many owners there are? Don't they collectively have a say? If the family voted "no," it seems that vote should be respected.

[ChuckMcM]

All states can have different laws so it is hard to comment as a non-Hawaiian. That said, my wife helped settle the estate of her great uncle who held title to property with his deceased ex-wife. One option was a quiet title hearing where you try to contact everyone who might have an interest in the property, and then inform them of a court hearing. In Washington state if they show up and can prove they should have part owner ship, then the court creates a title which includes them as owner. If nobody shows up the court can update the title to make the person who is currently possessing the land the exclusive owner.

My understanding of what the article said, was that if these Hawaiians showed up and had proof of their ancestral ownership (probably ancestry records of some sort), then they would be added to the title and at that time Zuckerberg could negotiate with them for the sale of their ownership interest to him. Could be a big payday for some Hawaiians as you have a lot of leverage.

But if they don't know about the trial and/or don't show up, then they forfeit their interest.