Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 101
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-31 (2026)

  Payment of estimated compensation; effect thereof

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §101-31  Payment of estimated compensation; effect thereof.  Upon the application of the parties entitled thereto the court may order that the amount of the estimated compensation or damages stated in the motion and paid to the clerk of the court, or any part thereof, be paid forthwith for or on account of the just compensation to be awarded in the proceedings.  If an additional deposit of money has been paid to the clerk of the court pursuant to section 101-28 the amount of the additional deposit or of any portion thereof, shall not, without the consent of the plaintiff, be paid to the party.  A payment to any party as aforesaid shall be held to constitute an abandonment by the party of all defenses interposed by the party, excepting the party's claim for greater compensation or damages.  If the compensation or damages finally awarded in respect of the land or any parcel thereof exceeds the amount of the money so received by any person entitled, the court shall enter judgment for the amount of the deficiency.  The unexpended moneys and any additional security so deposited with the clerk of the court shall be available for, or for enforcement of, the payment of any final judgment awarded by the court. [L 1937, c 184, pt of §5; RL 1945, §319, pt of subs 1; am L 1947, c 200, pt of §1(d); am L 1951, c 12, pt of §1(l); RL 1955, §8-29; HRS §101-31; gen ch 1985]

 

Case Notes

 

  Where estimate of compensation deposited to obtain immediate possession is in excess of final award, condemnee must make restitution with interest.  54 H. 385, 507 P.2d 1084.

  The court in an eminent domain proceeding has the discretion to permit a governmental entity to withdraw a portion of a deposit of estimated just compensation when the deposit has not been disbursed to the landowner, the government acted in good faith in seeking to adjust the estimate to accurately reflect the value of the property on the date of the summons, and the adjustment will not impair the substantial rights of any party in interest.  139 H. 511, 394 P.3d 741 (2017).

  Where the plaintiff county of Kauai ("county") sought to withdraw a portion of the estimated just compensation that had been deposited with the court following eminent domain proceedings, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the county to withdraw a portion of the amount deposited.  The estimated just compensation had not been dispersed to the landowners when the county, which appeared to have acted in good faith, sought to adjust the estimate to accurately reflect the value of the property on the date of summons, and the adjustment did not impair the substantial rights of the landowners.  137 H. 471 (App.), 375 P.3d 250 (2016).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1973–2017 · leading case: Cnty. of Kauai v. Hanalei River Holdings Ltd.., 394 P.3d 741 (Haw. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cnty. of Kauai v. Hanalei River Holdings Ltd.., 394 P.3d 741 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 30× “On March 11, 2013, the defendants filed an application for payment of estimated compensation pursuant to HRS §§ 101-31 and - 37. The memorandum in support of the motion asserted that Sheehan was the legal owner of Parcel 49 and that HRH was the legal owner of Parcels 33 and 34,…”
Cnty. of Kaua'i v. Hanalei River Holdings Ltd., 375 P.3d 250 (Haw. App. 2016). · cites it 17× “89 million), minus the required taxes, penalties and interest, pursuant to HRS § 101-31 (2012). On March 19, 2013, Patricia Sheehan filed a statement of no position regarding the Shee-han Defendants’ application for payment of estimated compensation.”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Mkt. Place, Ltd., 517 P.2d 7 (Haw. 1973). · cites it 12× “While the deposit was held by the court pending its "further order or orders," this was standard practice in the course of which the condemnees at any time could have moved for the withdrawal of the deposited sum under HRS § 101-31. [5] There was, of course, a hiatus of 13 days…”
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. BONDED INVEST. CO., LTD., 507 P.2d 1084 (Haw. 1973). · cites it 4× “THE CITY'S APPEAL Excess Deposit We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict and awarding to the condemnees the City's deposit of estimated just compensation and damages for parcel 63.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.