§521-71 Termination of tenancy; landlord's
remedies for holdover tenants. (a) When the tenancy is month-to-month,
the landlord may terminate the rental agreement by notifying the tenant, in
writing, at least forty-five days in advance of the anticipated termination.
When the landlord provides notification of termination, the tenant may vacate
at any time within the last forty-five days of the period between the
notification and the termination date, but the tenant shall notify the landlord
of the date the tenant will vacate the dwelling unit and shall pay a prorated
rent for that period of occupation.
(b) When the tenancy is month-to-month the
tenant may terminate the rental agreement by notifying the landlord, in
writing, at least twenty-eight days in advance of the anticipated termination.
When the tenant provides notice of termination, the tenant shall be responsible
for the payment of rent through the twenty-eighth day.
(c) Before a landlord terminates a
month-to-month tenancy where the landlord contemplates voluntary demolition of
the dwelling units, conversion to a condominium property regime under chapter
514B, or changing the use of the building to transient vacation rentals, the
landlord shall provide notice to the tenant at least one hundred twenty days in
advance of the anticipated demolition or anticipated termination. If notice is
revoked or amended and reissued, the notice period shall begin from the date it
was reissued or amended. Any notice provided, revoked, or amended and reissued
shall be in writing. When the landlord provides notification of termination
pursuant to this subsection, the tenant may vacate at any time within the
one-hundred-twenty-day period between the notification and the termination
date, but the tenant shall notify the landlord of the date the tenant will
vacate the dwelling unit and shall pay a prorated rent for that period of
occupation.
(d) When the tenancy is less than
month-to-month, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the rental agreement
by notifying the other at least ten days before the anticipated termination.
(e) Whenever the term of the rental agreement
expires, whether by passage of time, by mutual agreement, by the giving of
notice as provided in subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) or by the exercise by
the landlord of a right to terminate given under this chapter, if the tenant
continues in possession after the date of termination without the landlord's
consent, the tenant may be liable to the landlord for a sum not to exceed twice
the monthly rent under the previous rental agreement, computed and prorated on
a daily basis, for each day the tenant remains in possession. The landlord may
bring a summary proceeding for recovery of the possession of the dwelling unit
at any time during the first sixty days of holdover. Should the landlord fail
to commence summary possession proceedings within the first sixty days of the
holdover, in the absence of a rental agreement, a month-to-month tenancy at the
monthly rent stipulated in the previous rental agreement shall prevail
beginning at the end of the first sixty days of holdover.
(f) Any notice of termination initiated for
the purposes of evading the obligations of the landlord under subsections
521-21(d) or (e) shall be void. [L 1972, c 132, pt of §1; am L 1975, c 104, §3;
am L 1978, c 124, §2; am L 1979, c 95, §1; am L 1980, c 189, §4; am L 1982, c
211, §2; am L 1985, c 164, §5; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 29, §1; am L 1988, c
65, §2 and c 307, §4; am L 1989, c 169, §2; am L 1990, c 57, §2; am L 1991, c
194, §1; am L 1995, c 41, §1; am L 1996, c 221, §1; am L 2004, c 164, §25; am L
2008, c 28, §19; am L 2017, c 181, §39]
Cross References
Effect of acceptance of rent during litigation, see §666-5.
Summary possession proceedings, see §666-6.
Case Notes
Timeliness of notice. 61 H. 144, 598 P.2d 161 (1979).
"Voluntary demolition". 61 H. 156, 598 P.2d 168
(1979).
Sufficiency of notice under subsection (a) which has been
amended and reissued. 63 H. 110, 621 P.2d 971 (1980).
Where trial court's award of unpaid rent damages to landlord
for the period of time that tenants continued to occupy the property after the
termination date for the oral rental agreement complied with subsection (e),
tenants' claim that the award for unpaid rent was illegal was meritless. 112
H. 302 (App.), 145 P.3d 845 (2006).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Kiehm v. Adams, 126 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2006).
Kiehm v. Adams, 126 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2006).
· cites it 126× “However, as a general matter the Code sets out methods by which a tenancy may be terminated, see HRS § 521-71, and, hence, has displaced such a right with respect to rental agreements.”
Lau v. Bautista, 598 P.2d 161 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 16× “Whether appellees complied with the notice requirements of HRS § 521-71(a) (1974 Supp.). II. Whether appellants may assert breach of an implied warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense in the action for summary possession.”
City & Cty. of Honolulu v. Toyama, 598 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 14× “WHETHER APPELLANTS RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE UNDER HRS § 521-71(a) (1976). Appellants contend that appellee failed to comply with the notice requirements of HRS § 521-71(a) (1976) and of the regulations 2 promulgated under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property…”
Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc. v. DeSantos, 621 P.2d 971 (Haw. 1980).
· cites it 8× “This section provides: § 521-71 Termination of tenancy; landlord’s remedies for holdover *113 tenants, (a) When the tenancy is month to month, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the rental agreement upon his notifying the other at least twenty-eight days in advance of the…”
Kiehm v. Adams, 125 P.3d 499 (Haw. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “[[Image here]] § 521-71 Termination of tenancy; landlord’s remedies for holdover tenants.”
Cedillos v. Masumoto., 363 P.3d 278 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 7× “Did the ICA commit grave error of law and fact by determining that despite the harmless error, the grant of summary possession was still correct because Petitioner did not set forth any evidence or establish retaliatory eviction in accordance with the provisions and restrictions…”
Ryan v. Herzog., 418 P.3d 619 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 521-71(a) ("When the tenancy is month-to-month, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement by notifying the tenant, in writing, at least forty-five days in advance of the anticipated termination.”
Chambers v. Leavey, 587 P.2d 807 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Further, HRS § 521-71, in pertinent parts, provides: (a) When the tenancy is month to month, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the rental agreement upon his notifying the other at least twenty-eight days in advance of the anticipated termination. .”
Pai 'Ohana v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 680 (D. Haw. 1995).
· cites it 4× “First, the court notes that Pai ‘Ohana has withdrawn any claims based upon the Hawaii *699 Landlord-Tenant Code, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 521-71. Second, because the court finds that Pai ‘Ohana has no aboriginal title in ‘Ai'opio, the only possible property interest that Pai ‘Ohana might…”
Windward Partners v. Delos Santos, 577 P.2d 326 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 521-71 provides the following: Termination of tenancy; landlord’s remedies for holdover tenants, (a) When the tenancy is month to month, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the rental agreement upon his notifying the other at least twenty-eight days in advance of the…”
Fernandez v. Marks, 642 P.2d 542 (Haw. App. 1982).
“Even had appellee been immediately informed thereof and thereupon elected to terminate the tenancy, she would have had to have given 28 days notice thereof under § 521-71, HRS. Thus, the tenancy would still have been in existence when the two dog-biting incidents, which gave…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(1) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(a) — 15 cases
Kiehm v. Adams, 126 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2006).
“However, as a general matter the Code sets out methods by which a tenancy may be terminated, see HRS § 521-71, and, hence, has displaced such a right with respect to rental agreements.”
Lau v. Bautista, 598 P.2d 161 (Haw. 1979).
“Whether appellees complied with the notice requirements of HRS § 521-71(a) (1974 Supp.). II. Whether appellants may assert breach of an implied warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense in the action for summary possession.”
City & Cty. of Honolulu v. Toyama, 598 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1979).
“WHETHER APPELLANTS RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE UNDER HRS § 521-71(a) (1976). Appellants contend that appellee failed to comply with the notice requirements of HRS § 521-71(a) (1976) and of the regulations 2 promulgated under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property…”
Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc. v. DeSantos, 621 P.2d 971 (Haw. 1980).
“This section provides: § 521-71 Termination of tenancy; landlord’s remedies for holdover *113 tenants, (a) When the tenancy is month to month, the landlord or the tenant may terminate the rental agreement upon his notifying the other at least twenty-eight days in advance of the…”
Kiehm v. Adams, 125 P.3d 499 (Haw. App. 2004).
“[[Image here]] § 521-71 Termination of tenancy; landlord’s remedies for holdover tenants.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(a)(1976) — 1 case
City & Cty. of Honolulu v. Toyama, 598 P.2d 168 (Haw. 1979).
“WHETHER APPELLANTS RECEIVED TIMELY NOTICE UNDER HRS § 521-71(a) (1976). Appellants contend that appellee failed to comply with the notice requirements of HRS § 521-71(a) (1976) and of the regulations 2 promulgated under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(a)(2018) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(b) — 2 cases
Kiehm v. Adams, 126 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2006).
“However, as a general matter the Code sets out methods by which a tenancy may be terminated, see HRS § 521-71, and, hence, has displaced such a right with respect to rental agreements.”
Kiehm v. Adams, 125 P.3d 499 (Haw. App. 2004).
“[[Image here]] § 521-71 Termination of tenancy; landlord’s remedies for holdover tenants.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(c) — 4 cases
Lau v. Bautista, 598 P.2d 161 (Haw. 1979).
“Whether appellees complied with the notice requirements of HRS § 521-71(a) (1974 Supp.). II. Whether appellants may assert breach of an implied warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense in the action for summary possession.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(e) — 5 cases
Kiehm v. Adams, 126 P.3d 339 (Haw. 2006).
“However, as a general matter the Code sets out methods by which a tenancy may be terminated, see HRS § 521-71, and, hence, has displaced such a right with respect to rental agreements.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 521-71(f) — 2 cases
Cedillos v. Masumoto., 363 P.3d 278 (Haw. 2015).
“Did the ICA commit grave error of law and fact by determining that despite the harmless error, the grant of summary possession was still correct because Petitioner did not set forth any evidence or establish retaliatory eviction in accordance with the provisions and restrictions…”
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.