A five-week trial looking into whether the state has breached its trust obligations to Native Hawaiians wrapped up with closing arguments yesterday with both sides still disagreeing over the most basic points in the case.

Circuit Judge Eden Hifo said she will take the arguments in the non-jury case under advisement but did not say when she expects to make a ruling.

The class-action lawsuit Kalima v. State of Hawai'i was filed on behalf of more than 2,700 beneficiaries of the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. It alleges that DHHL did not provide homes in a timely and prompt manner as required by the Admission Act. State attorneys, however, argued that DHHL has done what it could with the money it was provided and that it should not be blamed for not providing homes and lots more quickly.

Attorney Carl Varady said the newly formed state of Hawai'i promised in 1959 that it would take on the responsibility of the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust.

The purpose of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 was to rehabilitate Hawaiians, "to place them on the land," Varady said. "The importance of that compact cannot be overstated ... Hawai'i could not become a state without signing the compact."

Varady said former DHHL Director Micah Kane agreed with that assessment during his testimony in the trial.

The plaintiffs' case also featured testimony from a string of mostly elderly Hawaiians who recounted how misinterpretations in the law by agency employees caused them to miss the chance to be awarded a lease. One woman, for instance, was told she would not be able to qualify for an award because her husband earned too much money.

But Deputy Attorney General Randy Slaton said the case turns on what legal remedies are available for the breaches alleged by the plaintiffs. "This case is not about whether people would have liked the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to be something other than what it is, nor what the federal government ... or state could've done given all the resources."

The 2,700 Native Hawaiians represented in the class action are those who went before a state-appointed review panel created in 1991 to resolve the claims for the period between Aug. 21, 1959, and June 30, 1988. That panel ran out of money before nearly all the claims were dealt with.

Slaton said the plaintiffs' case centers largely on speculation over what might have happened if the state had provided more resources to the agency in the years immediately after statehood. "It's speculation, and it's not legal evidence," he said.

Varady said it's not speculation because DHHL has in recent years been given more resources with which it has used to provide more housing for Hawaiians.

"There is no evidence establishing that it couldn't have been done earlier ... that the trust couldn't have been restored sooner," Varady said. "The idea that lack of funds is a defense is simply wrong."