Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 572
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-22 (2026)

  Contracts

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

     §572-22  Contracts.  (a)  A married person may make contracts, oral and written, sealed and unsealed, with the married person's spouse, or any other person, in the same manner as if the married person were sole.

     (b)  An agreement between spouses providing for periodic payments for the support and maintenance of one spouse by the other, or for the support, maintenance, and education of children of the parties, when the agreement is made in contemplation of divorce or judicial separation, is valid; provided that:

     (1)  The agreement shall be subject to approval by the court in any subsequent proceeding for divorce or judicial separation; and

     (2)  Future payments under an approved agreement shall nevertheless be subject to increase, decrease, or termination from time to time upon application and a showing of circumstances justifying a modification thereof.

     (c)  All contracts made between spouses, whenever made, whether before or after June 6, 1987, and not otherwise invalid because of any other law, shall be valid. [L 1888, c 11, §2; RL 1925, §2994; am L 1931, c 146, §1; RL 1935, §4645; am L 1939, c 17, §1; RL 1945, §12366; am L 1945, c 5, §1; RL 1955, §325-2; HRS §573-2; am L 1969, c 222, §1; am L 1976, c 200, pt of §1; ren and am L 1984, c 79, §2; am L 1987, c 194, §1; am L 2019, c 111, §40]

 

Revision Note

 

  "June 6, 1987" substituted for "the effective date of this Act".

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  Agreement for alimony and settling property rights in contemplation of divorce or separation; effect thereof; enforceability by contempt proceedings.  Haw. Supp, 4 HBJ, no. 4, at 18 (1967).

 

Case Notes

 

  Before June 23, 1888:  Contract of wife for personal service voidable at instance of husband, not void.  1 H. 467 (1856).  Separated wife domiciled in foreign country could contract with husband domiciled in Hawaii.  10 H. 138, 144 (1895); 10 H. 614, 622 (1897).

  After June 23, 1888:  Wife may be surety for husband.  20 H. 47 (1910).  Or agent for husband.  17 H. 481 (1906).  Married woman may contract for necessaries.  19 H. 494 (1909); 20 H. 598 (1911).  And may recover on joint note of husband and others against such others.  27 H. 369 (1923).  Suretyship.  33 H. 226 (1934).  Resulting trusts.  34 H. 363 (1937); 40 H. 593 (1954).  Assignment of leasehold may be made by husband to wife, being in the nature of a gift, and not a contract under this section.  16 H. 731 (1905).  See 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 547, 561 (1915).

  Approval of divorce judge not required for valid property settlements not technically alimony.  41 H. 89 (1955).

 Child support agreement, modification thereof, court's inherent power over welfare of child.  52 H. 480, 478 P.2d 852 (1971).

  Agreement for periodic payment, merely approved by court, is not incorporated into divorce decree.  53 H. 123, 488 P.2d 537 (1971).

  Where husband signed a quitclaim deed transferring husband's entire interest in property to wife, the quitclaim deed did not bar the family court from equitably dividing the property because, based on the family court's findings, the married couple did not intend the quitclaim deed to alter the disposition of their marital partnership property upon their divorce; the intermediate court of appeals erred in concluding that the quitclaim deed was an enforceable separation agreement.  134 H. 29, 332 P.3d 631 (2014).

  Where married couple entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) stating that, upon divorce, the wife would receive seventy-five per cent of the proceeds from the sale of their home and $100,000 in lieu of alimony and court proceedings, the MOU was an enforceable marital agreement with regard to these clauses because the MOU:  (1) was not unconscionable; and (2) was entered into voluntarily.  134 H. 29, 332 P.3d 631 (2014).

  An incorporation by reference of a property settlement agreement, whether the decree specifically sets forth all the terms of the agreement, is an actual incorporation.  1 H. App. 605, 623 P.2d 893 (1981).

  To change a marital agreement after incorporating it into a consent decree of divorce, consent of both parties required or must move case from uncontested to contested calendar.  3 H. App. 51, 641 P.2d 333 (1982).

  Spousal support payable for indefinite period is subject to further court order.  6 H. App. 66, 708 P.2d 143 (1985).

  Where a conveyance to nonparties was agreed to in a valid and enforceable divorce agreement, this section authorized and required the family court to order the conveyance.  83 H. 412 (App.), 927 P.2d 420 (1996).

  Cases under Hawaii uniform parentage act involving written promises for child support are not subject to the court approval specified in this section.  87 H. 369 (App.), 956 P.2d 1301 (1998).

  Agreement in contemplation of divorce entered into eighteen years prior to the filing for divorce was enforceable in divorce case unless the agreement showed that it was not intended to apply to the divorce proceedings, the parties abandoned the agreement prior to the proceedings, or the agreement was unconscionable.  87 H. 419 (App.), 958 P.2d 541 (1998).

  Cited:  9 H. 369, 371 (1894); 23 H. 761, 764 (1917); 35 H. 382 (1940).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Epp v. Epp, 905 P.2d 54 (Haw. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Epp v. Epp, 905 P.2d 54 (Haw. App. 1995). · cites it 62× “With respect to marriages, three relevant agreements between the marital partners are possible: (1) premarital or antenuptial agreements in contemplation of marriage (premarital agreements); (2) during-the-marriage agreements not in contemplation of divorce (marital agreements);…”
Kakinami v. Kakinami, 276 P.3d 695 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 20× “[13] See HRS Chapter 572D; HRS § 572-22. The third method, covering gifts and inheritances acquired during the marriage, requires that the asset was: (1) "expressly classified" as separate property; (2) "maintained by itself and/or sources other than one or both of the spouses";…”
Labayog v. Labayog, 927 P.2d 420 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 24× “In making such further orders, the court shall take into consideration: the respective merits of the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will be left by the divorce, .”
Balogh v. Balogh, 332 P.3d 631 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 8× “HRS § 572-22 (1987). However, the formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and consideration.”
Kuroda v. Kuroda, 958 P.2d 541 (Haw. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “” 3 With respect to spousal support and child support, HRS § 572-22 specifies that such agreements “shall be subject to approval by the court in any subsequent proceeding for divorce or judicial separation^]” With respect to the division of property and debts, however, there is…”
Chen v. Hoeflinger, 279 P.3d 11 (Haw. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “We agree that the Family Court erred with regard to voluntariness and that the court’s findings do not support its conclusion of unconscionability.”
Crofford v. Adachi., 506 P.3d 182 (Haw. 2022). · cites it 16× “Rather, given the explicit provisions of HRS § 572-22, and as recognized by the supreme court, spouses may contract regarding marital property rights in premarital, postmarital, or settlement agreements, and the family court must enforce all valid and enforceable agreements with…”
Toni v. Toni, 2001 ND 193 (N.D. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 891, 897 (1991) (construing Haw.Rev. Stat. §§ 572-22 and 580-47). [¶ 13] Several jurisdictions, by judicial decision, have allowed contractual waivers of the right to seek spousal support modification.”
Dring v. Dring, 956 P.2d 1301 (Haw. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “HRS § 572-22 (1993) states that “[a]ll contracts made between spouses, whenever made, whether before or after June 6, 1987, and not otherwise invalid because of any other law, shall be valid.” With respect to spousal support and child support, HRS § 572-22 specifies that such…”
Collins v. Wassell., 323 P.3d 1216 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 4× “As stated above, a premarital economic partnership is formed when, “prior to their subsequent marriage, [two people] cohabit and apply their financial resources as well as their individual energies to and for the benefit of each other’s 5 (.”
Crofford v. Adachi, 479 P.3d 153 (Haw. App. 2020). · cites it 17× “HRS § 572-22 and Hawai#i Case Law When the parties signed the Addendum, in 2013, HRS § 572-22(2013) provided, in relevant part: §572-22 Contracts.”
Phillips v. Phillips, 541 P.3d 666 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “not otherwise invalid because of any other law, shall be valid.")[.] . . . . A postmarital or separation agreement is enforceable if the agreement is not unconscionable and has been voluntarily entered into by the parties with the knowledge of the financial situation of the…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-22(2013) — 1 case
Crofford v. Adachi, 479 P.3d 153 (Haw. App. 2020). “HRS § 572-22 and Hawai#i Case Law When the parties signed the Addendum, in 2013, HRS § 572-22(2013) provided, in relevant part: §572-22 Contracts.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-22(c) — 2 cases
Crofford v. Adachi., 506 P.3d 182 (Haw. 2022). “Rather, given the explicit provisions of HRS § 572-22, and as recognized by the supreme court, spouses may contract regarding marital property rights in premarital, postmarital, or settlement agreements, and the family court must enforce all valid and enforceable agreements with…”
Phillips v. Phillips, 541 P.3d 666 (Haw. App. 2024). “not otherwise invalid because of any other law, shall be valid.")[.] . . . . A postmarital or separation agreement is enforceable if the agreement is not unconscionable and has been voluntarily entered into by the parties with the knowledge of the financial situation of the…”
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.