Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 502-83 (2026)

Effect of not recording deeds, leases, etc

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§502-83 Effect of not recording deeds, leases, etc. All deeds, leases for a term of more than one year, mortgages of any interest in real estate, or other conveyances of real estate within the State, shall be recorded in the bureau of conveyances. Every such conveyance not so recorded is void as against any subsequent purchaser, lessee, or mortgagee, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, not having actual notice of the conveyance of the same real estate, or any portion thereof, or interest therein, whose conveyance is first duly recorded. [CC 1859, §1262; RL 1925, §3170; RL 1935, §5156; RL 1945, §12756; RL 1955, §343-49; am L 1963, c 83, §6; HRS §502-83]

Law Journals and Reviews

Later mortgagee having actual notice of earlier mortgage is not entitled to priority merely because earlier mortgage omitted page and book references required by §§502-33 and 506-4. Haw Supp, IV HBJ, no. 3, at 30 (1966).

Case Notes

Under early law, time for recording was limited. See 1 H. 67 (114) (single justice) (1852); 1 H. 229 (409) (single justice) (1856).

Subsequent deed or lease, though recorded, will not prevail against unrecorded deed or lease of which there was actual notice. 2 H. 166 (single justice) (1859); 3 H. 274 (1871); 4 H. 384 (1881). But will prevail where no actual notice. 4 H. 675 (1876).

Actual possession under unrecorded deed is constructive notice; subsequent purchase not in good faith. 5 H. 298 (1885); 25 H. 494, 505 (1920); 26 H. 342, 349 (1922). See 19 H. 602, 611 (1909).

Assignment of lease good against creditors though levy made before recording of assignment. 16 H. 731 (1905). Compare 26 H. 342 (1922).

Mortgage of a leasehold must be recorded under this section. 23 H. 706, 709 (1917).

Recording is notice to one bound to search the records, otherwise not. 26 H. 809, 820 (1923).

Subsequent purchaser not protected, though in good faith, unless purchaser records first. 32 H. 323, 326 (1932); 32 H. 883, 895 (1933).

Knowledge of negotiations for a sale of no significance and such notice does not defeat mortgage. 32 H. 883 (1933).

Cited: 911 F. Supp. 2d 916 (2012); 6 H. 114 (single justice) (1873).

Mentioned: 920 F. Supp. 1080 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Markham v. Markham, 909 P.2d 602 (Haw. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Markham v. Markham, 909 P.2d 602 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “If the party contesting the proof of an instrument makes it appear that the proof was taken upon the oath of an interested or incompetent witness, neither the instrument nor the record thereof shall be received in evidence until established by other competent proof.”

Swartz v. City Mortg., Inc., 911 F. Supp. 2d 916 (D. Haw. 2012). · cites it 5× “] Even if the recording of an assignment of Plaintiffs’ mortgage to CMI were required, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 502-83 provides that the effect of the failure to record an assignment is to render the assignment void against subsequent purchasers, lessees, or mortgagees who acted in good…”

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Wilkerson, 420 B.R. 18 (D. Haw. 2009). · cites it 4× “Defendants further suggest that the first mortgage is void pursuant to HRS § 502-83 because "[w]hen [Plaintiff] sold the loan, any recordation or transfer of the mortgage is considered void.”

Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Chan., 456 P.3d 167 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 2× “” HHFDC’s SAE interest was a “lien[] and encumbrance[] of record” required to be paid upon foreclosure under HRS § 201E-221(c), and because HHFDC’s lien was filed before the Association’s liens, HHFDC’s lien had priority under the “first in time, first in right” principle.”

Shaw v. Santa Monica Bank, 920 F. Supp. 1080 (D. Haw. 1996). · cites it 3× “”) § 502-83. The underlining purpose of a recording statute is the element of notice to third parties.”

So-Cal Capital, Inc. v. 2270 Pac. Heights Road LLC, 558 P.3d 250 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “HRS § 502-83 establishes a "race-notice jurisdiction" and "lien priority is determined according to the common law principle of 'first in time, first in right.”

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.