Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-309 (2026)

Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§490:3-309 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument. (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in rightful possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, section 490:3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means. [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).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2022 · leading case: Mohr v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. as Tr. (D. Haw. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mohr v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. as Tr. (D. Haw. 2020). · cites it 6× “Here, MLB’s standing arguments hinge on it being either or both a “holder” of the note and a person not in possession of the instrument but entitled to enforce it under HRS § 490:3-309, which governs enforcement of “lost, destroyed, or stolen” instruments.”

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Garcia, 538 P.3d 89 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 11-3-309 (West 1996); Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 490:3-309 (West 1991); Idaho Code Ann.”

Sanford Mohr v. Mlb, Sub I, LLC (9th Cir. 2021). “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-309 (a). 3 567.2 The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reasoned that the affidavit and blank indorsement were “sufficient to replace the original [n]ote” because the blank indorsement makes the note a “bearer instrument .”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-309(a) — 1 case

Mohr v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. as Tr. (D. Haw. 2020). “Here, MLB’s standing arguments hinge on it being either or both a “holder” of the note and a person not in possession of the instrument but entitled to enforce it under HRS § 490:3-309, which governs enforcement of “lost, destroyed, or stolen” instruments.”

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.