§521-63 Tenant's remedy of termination at
any time; unlawful removal or exclusion. (a) If any condition within the
premises deprives the tenant of a substantial part of the benefit and enjoyment
of the tenant's bargain under the rental agreement, the tenant may notify the
landlord in writing of the situation and, if the landlord does not remedy the
situation within one week, terminate the rental agreement. The notice need not
be given when the condition renders the dwelling unit uninhabitable or poses an
imminent threat to the health or safety of any occupant. The tenant may not
terminate for a condition caused by the want of due care by the tenant, a
member of the tenant's family, or other person on the premises with the tenant's
consent.
(b) If the condition referred to in subsection
(a) was caused wilfully or negligently by the landlord, the tenant may recover
any damages sustained as a result of the condition.
(c) If the landlord removes or excludes the
tenant from the premises overnight without cause or without court order so
authorizing, the tenant may recover possession or terminate the rental
agreement and, in either case, recover an amount equal to two months rent or
free occupancy for two months, and the cost of suit, including reasonable
attorney's fees. If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall
comply with section 521-44(c). The court may also order any injunctive or
other equitable relief it deems proper. If the court determines that the
removal or exclusion by the landlord was with cause or was authorized by court
order, the court may award the landlord the cost of suit, including reasonable
attorney's fees if the attorney is not a salaried employee of the landlord or
the landlord's assignee. [L 1972, c 132, pt of §1; am L 1981, c 235, §2; gen ch
1985]
Rules of Court
Injunctions, see HRCP rule 65.
Case Notes
No discretion to deny damages upon breach. 67 H. 549, 696
P.2d 839 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Kaiama v. Aguilar, 696 P.2d 839 (Haw. 1985).
Kaiama v. Aguilar, 696 P.2d 839 (Haw. 1985).
· cites it 18× “Aguilar “removed or excluded [Charlene Kaiama and John Jarnesky] from [their] dwelling unit overnight without cause or without a court order so authorizing [and the tenants] are entitled to the remedies and penalties set out in HRS § 521-63.” But it held “such relief is not…”
Coon v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 47 P.3d 348 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2d 839, 843 (1985) (holding that trial court had no discretion whether to award statutory recovery prescribed by HRS § 521-63(e) to tenants who were locked out of their apartment without cause or court order).”
Ryan v. Herzog., 418 P.3d 619 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Second, retaliatory actions are prohibited if they occur after the department of health or any other governmental agency "has filed a notice of complaint of a violation of a health law or regulation of any provision" of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code. HRS § 521-74(a)(2).”
Windward Partners v. Delos Santos, 577 P.2d 326 (Haw. 1978).
“of conditions in or affecting his dwelling unit which constitutes a violation of a health law or regulation or of any provision of this chapter; or (2) The department of health or other governmental agency has filed a notice or complaint of a violation of a health law or…”
Bentley v. Hickam Communities LLC (D. Haw. 2025).
· cites it 6× “This Court concludes the alleged violation of § 521-10 is actionable pursuant to § 521-63, and therefore denies the Motion as to the portion of Amended Count III based on § 521- 10.”
Takayama v. Zera, 226 P.3d 522 (Haw. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “In granting count I of Zera's counterclaim, the district court properly awarded Zera reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to HRS § 521-63 (c) (1993). [4] In count I of Zera's counterclaim, Zera alleged unlawful recovery of possession in violation of the Residential…”
Brewer v. CLAES, 187 P.3d 593 (Haw. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “" There is nothing on the face of this statute nor in its legislative history to suggest that HRS 521-63 applies when a tenant is unable to remove personal property from the leased premises.”
Wakefield v. Bardellini, 476 P.3d 773 (Haw. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “(5) & (6) Appellants contend that the District Court ignored evidence showing that Wakefield unlawfully evicted them without first obtaining a writ of possession in violation of HRS § 521-63 (2018) and changed the locks without notice, prior to evicting them.”
Camp (D. Haw. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Section 521-63 addresses remedies, and it states, in pertinent part: (a) If any condition within the premises deprives the tenant of a substantial part of the benefit and enjoyment of the tenant’s bargain under the rental agreement, the tenant may notify the landlord in writing…”
Grant (D. Haw. 2026).
“ditions in or affecting the tenant’s dwelling unit which constitutes a violation of a health law or regulation or of any provision of this chapter; or (2) The department of health or other governmental agency has filed a notice or complaint of a violation of a health law or…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-63(a) — 1 case
Bentley v. Hickam Communities LLC (D. Haw. 2025).
“This Court concludes the alleged violation of § 521-10 is actionable pursuant to § 521-63, and therefore denies the Motion as to the portion of Amended Count III based on § 521- 10.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-63(c) — 2 cases
Kaiama v. Aguilar, 696 P.2d 839 (Haw. 1985).
“Aguilar “removed or excluded [Charlene Kaiama and John Jarnesky] from [their] dwelling unit overnight without cause or without a court order so authorizing [and the tenants] are entitled to the remedies and penalties set out in HRS § 521-63.” But it held “such relief is not…”
Brewer v. CLAES, 187 P.3d 593 (Haw. App. 2007).
“" There is nothing on the face of this statute nor in its legislative history to suggest that HRS 521-63 applies when a tenant is unable to remove personal property from the leased premises.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-63(e) — 1 case
Coon v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 47 P.3d 348 (Haw. 2002).
“2d 839, 843 (1985) (holding that trial court had no discretion whether to award statutory recovery prescribed by HRS § 521-63(e) to tenants who were locked out of their apartment without cause or court order).”
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.