Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 490
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301 (2026)

Person entitled to enforce instrument

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

PART 3.  ENFORCEMENT OF INSTRUMENTS

 

     §490:3-301  Person entitled to enforce instrument.  "Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 490:3-309 or 490:3-418(d).  A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. [L 1991, c 118, pt of §1]

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Now Where Did That Mortgage Note Go?  A Two-Act Play Under U.C.C. §3-301 And 11 U.S.C. §1141(c).  15 HBJ, no. 13, at 71 (2013).

 

Case Notes

 

  Where there was no evidence in the record showing that the blank indorsement on a promissory note occurred prior to the initiation of a foreclosure action, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to foreclose when it commenced proceedings.  139 H. 361, 390 P.3d 1248 (2017).

  A third party unrelated to a mortgage securitization pooling and servicing agreement, as evinced through mortgage documents deemed admissible through declaration as records of regularly conducted activity pursuant to rule 803(b)(6) of the Hawaii rules of evidence, lacks standing to enforce an alleged violation of its terms unless the violation renders the mortgage assignment void, rather than voidable, within the judicial foreclosure context.  140 H. 26, 398 P.3d 615 (2017).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2021 · leading case: Tyrell v. Bank of Am. (In re Tyrell), 528 B.R. 790 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tyrell v. Bank of Am. (In re Tyrell), 528 B.R. 790 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2015). “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301 . . Haw. Rev.”
Bessie Lee Pregana v. Citimortgage, Inc., 702 F. App'x 624 (9th Cir. 2017). “See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301 (holder of the instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument even if the person is not the owner of the instrument).”
Sanford Mohr v. Mlb, Sub I, LLC (9th Cir. 2021). “See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 490:3-301 , -309.1 Because the original 1 Section 490:3-309, which governs the “[e]nforcement of lost .”
Robertson v. Watson (D. Haw. 2020). “” Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 490:3-301 . A “holder” is further defined as being “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”
Mohr v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. as Tr. (D. Haw. 2020). “HRS § 490:3-301. In other words, when a person is not the original payee identified on the note, there are three ways for a person to establish that it is the “person entitled to enforce” the note: It can show that it is (1) a holder of the note, (2) a nonholder in possession of…”
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.