§478-3 On judgment. Interest at the
rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, shall be allowed on any judgment
recovered before any court in the State, in any civil suit. [CC 1859, §1481; am
L 1868, p 9; am L 1898, c 4, §2; RL 1925, §3586; RL 1935, §7051; am L 1935, c
18, §1; RL 1945, §8732; RL 1955, §191-2; HRS §478-2; am L 1979, c 211, §1; am L
1981, c 9, §2; ren L 1986, c 137, pt of §1]
Cross References
Eminent domain, see §§101-25, 101-33.
Commencement date of interest, see §636-16.
Case Notes
Right to prejudgment interest. 381 F.2d 965, 971, aff'g 245
F. Supp. 981.
Foreign judgment, interest on. 8 H. 335.
Rate provided by the eminent domain statute relates back to
date of judgment where payment delayed more than thirty days, this section
being inapplicable. 45 H. 650, 372 P.2d 348. Compare 30 H. 1, 10, where
applicability of this section during the thirty day period was not appealed.
Section does not preclude prejudgment interest. 51 H. 346,
461 P.2d 140.
Decree in mortgage foreclosure action which only orders sale
of mortgaged property is not a money judgment upon which statutory interest
accrues. 60 H. 413, 591 P.2d 104.
Interest accrues only on judgments for an in personam
liability for money on a determined amount. 60 H. 467, 591 P.2d 1060.
Not applicable to interest assessed by arbitrator as
compensation or penalty to prevent further damages. 66 H. 663, 675 P.2d 760.
Section cannot be interpreted to allow postjudgment interest
on §636-16 prejudgment interest. 74 H. 1, 837 P.2d 1273.
Court did not abuse its discretion under this section and
§636-16 in awarding appellee ten per cent interest per annum on appellee's back
pay. 74 H. 599, 851 P.2d 311.
Nothing in the language of §431:15-323 or this section
precluded an award of post-judgment interest to insurance commissioner upon
final judgment awarding commissioner the unpaid premiums from customer of
liquidated mutual benefit society. 99 H. 53, 52 P.3d 823.
Insofar as the State has not expressly and statutorily waived
its sovereign immunity from postjudgment interest in suits brought pursuant to
§661-1, the State is immune from awards of postjudgment interest under this
section in §661-1 actions; thus, the trial court erred in ordering that the
employees' retirement system pay statutory interest at the rate of ten per cent
per annum, pursuant to this section. 106 H. 416, 106 P.3d 339.
Request to appellate court to award interest on the portions
of the trial court judgment that were affirmed was not appropriate, where the
case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's
holdings and the judgment awarding money damages on remand would likely not be
in the amount initially awarded. 135 H. 128, 346 P.3d 197 (2015).
Section not retroactive. 3 H. App. 646, 658 P.2d 898.
Plaintiff ex-wife was entitled to post-judgment interest on
the child support arrearage ex-husband owed; family court erred in failing to
award interest on the principal. 97 H. 160 (App.), 34 P.3d 1059.
Where family court ordered husband to pay wife statutory
interest of ten per cent per annum on the sum of $594,805 from the date the
divorce decree was entered through the date of payment, husband's argument that
no judgment was entered was without merit because the divorce decree was a
judgment entitling wife to payment on account of the judgment. 134 H. 431
(App.), 341 P.3d 1231 (2014).
Cited: 35 H. 352, 366; 36 H. 107, 109.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case:
Chun v. Bd. of Trs., 106 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2005).
Chun v. Bd. of Trs., 106 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 24× “” 7 For the reasons discussed infi'a in section III, we hold: (1) that the State is immune from awards of HRS § 478-3 postjudgment interest in HRS § 661-1 (1993) 8 actions, such that the circuit court erred in awarding postjudgment interest to the Retirees; (2) that, based on…”
Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees' Benefit Ass'n, 52 P.3d 823 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 18× “11 plus post-judgment interest pursuant to HRS § 478-3 (1993) (discussed infra); (2) an order for VEBAH to pay any and all PGMA premium money in VEBAH’s possessión and control; and (3) denial of the Commissioner’s requests for pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees *57 on the…”
Taylor-Rice v. State, 94 P.3d 659 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 14× “Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion that HRS § 478-3, see supra note 1, should apply to a portion of the damages for which the State is liable, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) has observed that HRS § 478-3 does not apply to the State: [I]t is a general…”
Sussel v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 851 P.2d 311 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 17× “Conversely, Sussel maintains that the circuit court had ample authority, pursuant to HRS §§ 478-3 and 636-16, to grant him interest on his back pay.”
Larsen v. Pacesetter Sys., Inc., 837 P.2d 1273 (Haw. 1992).
· cites it 10× “After the jury returned its verdict, the court calculated prejudgment interest that had accrued to the date of that verdict, September 13, 1990. The court then imposed post-judgment interest at 10% per annum on total prejudgment interest as well as on the jury’s award of damages.”
Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees'ben. Ass'n, 52 P.3d 823 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 18× “11 plus post-judgment interest pursuant to HRS § 478-3 *827 (1993) (discussed infra ); (2) an order for VEBAH to pay any and all PGMA premium money in VEBAH's possession and control; and (3) denial of the Commissioner's requests for pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees on…”
Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 478-3 (1993) ("Interest at the rate of ten per cent a year, and no more, shall be allowed on any judgment recovered before any court in the State, in any civil suit.”
Jacoby v. Jacoby, 341 P.3d 1231 (Haw. App. 2014).
· cites it 9× “An appellate court reviews rulings on interest pursuant to HRS §§ 478-3 6 and 636-16 7 for abuse of discretion.”
Porter v. Hu, 169 P.3d 994 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “77 in favor of Hu, Wehr, Sehnitzer, and Clark and against Plaintiffs, pursuant to the November 14, 2003 “Clerk’s Taxation of Costs in Favor of [Hu], [Wehr], [Sehnitzer] and [Clark] and Against Plaintiffs”; and (5) interest at the rate set forth in HRS § 478-3 on all unpaid…”
Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.., 346 P.3d 197 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Gurrobat bases this request on the post judgment interest provisions of HRS § 478-3 (2000), which provides for 10% per annum interest on judgments, and on HRAP Rule 37, which provides: Unless otherwise provided by law, if a judgment for money in a civil case is affirmed,…”
Ditto v. McCurdy, 80 P.3d 974 (Haw. 2003).
“On January 7, 1998, this court entered notice and judgment on appeal, stating in pertinent part that interest at ten percent per year, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) *156 § 478-3 (1993), should be applied to the affirmed $1,045,606.”
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.