§478-2 Legal rate; computation. When
there is no express written contract fixing a different rate of interest,
interest shall be allowed at the rate of ten per cent a year, except that, with
respect to obligations of the State, interest shall be allowed at the prime
rate for each calendar quarter but in no event shall exceed ten per cent a
year, as follows:
(1) For money due on any bond, bill, promissory note,
or other instrument of writing, or for money lent, after it becomes due;
(2) For money due on the settlement of accounts, from
the day on which the balance is ascertained;
(3) For money received to the use of another, from
the date of a demand made; and
(4) For money upon an open account, after sixty days
from the date of the last item or transaction.
As used in this section, "prime rate"
means the prime rate as posted in the Wall Street Journal on the first business
day of the month preceding the calendar quarter. [CC 1859, §1480; am L 1868, p
9; am L 1898, c 4, §1; am L 1905, c 51, §1; RL 1925, §3585; RL 1935, §7050; am
L 1935, c 19, §1; RL 1945, §8731; am L 1955, c 245, §1; RL 1955, §191-1; HRS
§478-1; am L 1982, c 288, §1; ren L 1986, c 137, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 179,
§1]
Case Notes
Interest not interrupted by debtor's death. 3 H. 397.
Statutory rate applies to balance due on an account stated
when no written agreement for higher rate. 3 H. 397.
Foreign judgment carries interest. 8 H. 335.
Statutory rate applies to legacy not paid. 9 H. 492.
Written agreement for payment of rent is "instrument of
writing", and rent carries interest from the due date. 19 H. 446.
Bank deposit is "money lent". 36 H. 571; 43 H. 1.
In computing blight damages where property was condemned,
held legal rate applied in absence of evidence of normal commercial rate, where
no special statutory rate. 45 H. 650, 372 P.2d 348.
In absence of specific agreement, obligation to pay becomes
"due" within reasonable time. 48 H. 349, 402 P.2d 683.
Running of interest when stopped by garnishment. 48 H. 349,
402 P.2d 683.
Delinquent rentals carry interest. 61 H. 483, 605 P.2d 925.
Written agreement for payment of rent is "instrument of
writing" and rent carries interest from the due date. 66 H. 431, 667 P.2d
251.
Prejudgment interest properly awarded under §636-16 from date
of breach of contract at rate of ten per cent as provided in paragraph (1) for
money due on settlement agreement between parties. 86 H. 21, 946 P.2d 1317.
No interest allowable where judgment for "lost rental
income" not "delinquent rentals". 5 H. App. 603, 705 P.2d 67.
Not applicable to judgments against the State. 6 H. App. 70,
708 P.2d 829, aff'd, 68 H. 220, 708 P.2d 824.
Where no interest rate was set forth in order confirming sale
of property to successful bidder at a judicial foreclosure sale, interest
damages for mortgagee bank when bidder defaulted on payment should have been
calculated at the ten per cent interest rate allowed by this section, not the
rate of interest the original mortgagor had agreed to pay bank under the
original mortgagor's adjustable rate promissory note. 96 H. 348 (App.), 31
P.3d 205.
As §661-8 disallows prejudgment interest on claims against
the State, except in certain, identified instances, the State did not waive its
sovereign immunity from an award of prejudgment interest under §661-8, and this
section did not contradict or supersede the limitation of the State's
obligation to pay prejudgment interest only upon a "contract expressly
stipulating for the payment of interest", the circuit court did not err
when it denied plaintiffs' request for prejudgment interest. 122 H. 150 (App.),
223 P.3d 215 (2009).
Cited: 35 H. 352, 366; 36 H. 107, 109.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case:
McKeague v. Talbert, 658 P.2d 898 (Haw. App. 1983).
McKeague v. Talbert, 658 P.2d 898 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 12× “The court ordered interest at 8% under HRS § 478-2, as amended, and commencing on the date of the injury under HRS § 636-16.”
Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng'g & Erection, Inc., 951 P.2d 487 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 6× “, in the principal amount of $312,000, together with interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as specified by Haw.Rev.Stat. § 478-2(4) (Supp.1992), from September 4, 1992 until paid.”
Taylor-Rice v. State, 94 P.3d 659 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 6× “However, HRS § 478-2 (Supp.1984) was renumbered as HRS § 478-3 in 1986, and, therefore, the ICA's holding that HRS § 478-2 (Supp.”
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Makahuena Corp., 675 P.2d 760 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 8× “We also conclude as the circuit court did that the other claims of computational error advanced by the contractor do not fall within the purview of HRS § 658-10 and that the award was not vitiated by the arbitrator’s allowance of “post-judgment interest in excess of that…”
Kamaole Resort Twenty-One v. Ficke Hawaiian Investments, Inc., 591 P.2d 104 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 12× “that interest on said sum accrued at the contract rate of 6% over the prime rate from December 21,1973 to January 1, 1974; that interest accrued on said sum at the default rate of 15% from January 2, 1974 to November 1, 1974; and that interest was and would be owed by the first…”
Garner v. State, Dep't of Educ., 223 P.3d 215 (Haw. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “The Circuit Court erred when it determined that the DOE was immune from ■liability for pre-judgment interest under HRS § 478-2; 4. The Circuit Court erred when it denied the Substitute Teachers’ request to amend the definition of the class and sub-class to include all part-time…”
Sussel v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 851 P.2d 311 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 6× “5 Sussel erroneously refers to HRS §478-2 in his brief. HRS§478-2 was renumbered HRS § 478-3 in 1986.”
Larsen v. Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 837 P.2d 1273 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 3× “In Lucas, this court interpreted § 478-3 (then HRS § 478-2) as authorizing a court to award interest commencing prior to the time of judgment.”
Littleton v. State, 708 P.2d 829 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 7× “Littleton argues that HRS § 478-2 (Supp. 1984) 3 covers the whole subject of interest on judgments and upon its amendment in 1979 and 1981 4 impliedly repealed § 662-8, which was enacted in 1975.”
Gadd v. Kelley, 667 P.2d 251 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Petitioners’ final claim for increased post-judgment interest arises from the amendment of HRS § 478-2 which raised post-judgment interest from 8% to 10% per year, effective April 16,1981.”
Ditto v. McCurdy, 947 P.2d 961 (Haw. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “But we direct the trial court to recalculate the award using the ten percent rate of interest dictated by HRS § 478-2 (1993). [23] Further, we reverse that portion of the prejudgment interest awarded on punitive damages and vacate that portion of the prejudgment interest awarded…”
Kawashima v. State, Dep't of Educ.., 398 P.3d 728 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 6× “that: (1) pursuant to HRS § 661-1, 6 the *145 substitute teachers’ claim for breach of contract damages was not barred by sovereign immunity; (2) HRS § 302A-624(e), as a pay mandating statute, provided an alternative basis for invoking jurisdiction under the “founded upon any…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2(1) — 2 cases
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2(3) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2(4) — 1 case
Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng'g & Erection, Inc., 951 P.2d 487 (Haw. 1998).
“, in the principal amount of $312,000, together with interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as specified by Haw.Rev.Stat. § 478-2(4) (Supp.1992), from September 4, 1992 until paid.”
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.