Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 580-1 (2026)

Jurisdiction; hearing

✓ current as of July 2026

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

PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

§580-1 Jurisdiction; hearing. (a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of annulment and separation, subject to section 603-37 as to change of venue, and subject also to appeal according to law, is conferred upon the family court of the circuit in which the applicant has been domiciled or has been physically present for a continuous period of at least three months next preceding the application therefor, except as provided in subsection (b).

Exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of divorce, subject to section 603-37 as to change of venue, and also subject to appeal according to law, is conferred upon the family court of the circuit in which the applicant is domiciled at the time the application is filed, except as provided in subsection (b).

A person who may be residing on any military or federal base, installation, or reservation within the State or who may be present in the State under military orders shall not thereby be prohibited from meeting the requirements of this section.

The family court of each circuit shall have jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to the annulment, divorce, and separation of civil unions entered into in this State or unions recognized as civil unions in this State in the same manner as marriages.

(b) An action for annulment, divorce, or separation may be commenced where neither party to the marriage meets the domicile or physical presence requirements of subsection (a) at the time the action is commenced, if:

(1) The marriage was solemnized under chapter 572 in this State; and

(2) Neither party to the marriage is able to pursue an action for annulment, divorce, or separation where the parties are domiciled because both parties are domiciled in a jurisdiction or jurisdictions that do not recognize their marriage.

There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a jurisdiction will not maintain an action for annulment, divorce, or separation if the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the parties are domiciled do not recognize the parties' marriage.

(c) Actions brought under subsection (b) shall be commenced in the circuit where the marriage was solemnized and the law of this State shall govern. Jurisdiction over actions brought under subsection (b) shall be limited to decrees granting annulment, divorce, or separation that address the status or dissolution of the marriage alone; provided that if both parties to the marriage consent to the family court's personal jurisdiction or if jurisdiction otherwise exists by law, the family court shall adjudicate child custody, spousal support, child support, property division, or other matters related to the annulment, divorce, or separation. [L 1870, c 16, §2; am L 1878, c 26, §1; am L 1903, c 22, §4 and c 33, §1; am L 1919, c 172, §1; RL 1925, §2966; am L 1927, c 126, §1; RL 1935, §4461; am L 1935, c 94, §1; RL 1945, §12211; am L 1949, c 53, §29; RL 1955, §324-21; am L 1957, c 72, §3; am L 1961, c 58, §1; am L 1965, c 76, §1; am L 1967, c 76, §2; HRS §580-1; am L 1973, c 211, §5(a); am L 1977, c 173, §1; am L 2011, c 1, §6; am L 2012, c 267, §15; am L Sp 2013 2d, c 1, §10; am L 2021, c 69, §1]

Law Journals and Reviews

"Physically present" construed. Haw Supp, III HBJ, no. 3, at 20 (1965).

For discussion of development of new approach to family problems, see Divorce, Law and Psychology. VII HBJ, no. 3, at 73 (1970).

Case Notes

One-year residence requirement does not violate equal protection clause. 512 F.2d 430 (1975).

Averments as to jurisdiction held sufficiently set forth. 7 H. 342 (1888). Failure to allege that parties last lived together as husband and wife within said circuit may result in dismissal of suit for lack of jurisdiction. 9 H. 405 (1894). Suit cannot be brought in circuit other than that in which the parties last lived together. 19 H. 243 (1908). Decree where court has jurisdiction cannot be attacked collaterally. 23 H. 451, 455 (1916). Reference to a master: power of divorce judge; taking of evidence; review of master's fee. 44 H. 442, 355 P.2d 33 (1960). Jurisdiction, custody of children. 49 H. 20, 29-31, 407 P.2d 885 (1965).

Public cannot, but persons of immature years may, be excluded from courtroom. 22 H. 425, 428 (1915).

"Residence" equivalent to "domicile". 23 H. 376, 377 (1916); 37 H. 223 (1945); 38 H. 261 (1948); 41 H. 37 (1955).

History of divorce courts discussed; not common law courts. 24 H. 239 (1918).

Domicile of soldier or sailor. 35 H. 461 (1940); 37 H. 223 (1945).

To acquire domicile. 40 H. 625 (1954).

The one-year residence requirement for divorce does not violate the equal protection clause. 53 H. 302, 492 P.2d 939 (1972).

Domicile, evidence and continuation of. 54 H. 60, 502 P.2d 380 (1972).

Appeal from interlocutory order requires allowance of court. 56 H. 662, 548 P.2d 251 (1976).

Though wife had not been domiciled in Hawaii for the continuous periods required under this section, as long as wife was domiciled in Hawaii at the time wife filed for divorce, i.e., wife was physically present in Hawaii with the intention of remaining indefinitely, family court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the divorce action; family court was then authorized to grant the divorce decree dissolving the marriage as long as wife was domiciled in Hawaii for a continuous period of six months prior to entry of the divorce decree. 94 H. 471 (App.), 16 P.3d 876 (2000).

Relevant statutes, rules, and precedent did not permit wife to directly attack in circuit court the validity of the property and distribution part of the divorce decree; circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under §603-21.5 to do what wife must have had done to obtain the relief wife sought; pursuant to §580-47 and this section, only the family court could have granted that relief. 101 H. 370 (App.), 68 P.3d 644 (2003).

Sections 572-1, 580-21, and this section must be read together; only the family court can declare void a marriage obtained by force, duress, or fraud, and it cannot do so where there has been subsequent cohabitation. 112 H. 131 (App.), 144 P.3d 579 (2006).

Cited: 3 H. 300, 301 (1871); 20 H. 633, 635 (1911); 24 H. 29, 34 (1917); 30 H. 620, 621 (1928).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 254 P.3d 439 (Haw. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 254 P.3d 439 (Haw. 2011). · cites it 48× “The [family court] has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to HRS § 580-1. 31. [Geraldine's] claims sound in fraud or other intentional misconduct, and therefore are time-barred pursuant to [HFCR Rule] 60(b)(3).”

Whitehead v. Whitehead, 492 P.2d 939 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 110× “The sole question for decision on the appeal is the validity of the durational requirement of domicile or physical presence for one year in the State contained in HRS § 580-1. HRS § 580-1, in its entirety, reads as follows: "§ 580-1.”

Puckett v. Puckett, 16 P.3d 876 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 18× “In Hawaii, for example, HRS § 580-1 (1993) specifically requires that an applicant for divorce be domiciled or physically present in the State for at least six months in order to qualify for a divorce: Jurisdiction; hearing.”

Mon Chi Heung Au v. Lum, 360 F. Supp. 219 (D. Haw. 1973). · cites it 12× “KING, District Judge: This is a class action challenging the constitutionality of that portion of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 580-1 which requires that a person be a domiciliary of a circuit for three months and of the State for a year before that person may apply for and receive…”

Eaton v. Eaton, 748 P.2d 801 (Haw. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “]” HRS § 580-1 states in relevant part as follows: Jurisdiction; hearing.”

State v. Dudoit, 978 P.2d 700 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 2× “In addition, a proposed amendment to section 580-1, Hawai`i Revised Statutes was included.”

Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie., 231 P.3d 983 (Haw. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “HRS § 580-1 (2006 Repl.) provides: § 580-1 Jurisdiction; hearing.”

Brooks v. Minn, 836 P.2d 1081 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 2× “[i]n all proceedings under chapter 580____” HRS § 580-1 provides in relevant part: “Exclusive jurisdiction in matters of annulment, divorce, and separation, subject to section 603-37 as to change of venue, and subject also to appeal according to law, is conferred upon the family…”

Bienvenue v. Bienvenue, 72 P.3d 531 (Haw. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “The requirements for the family court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the termination of the marriage are specified in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580-1 (1993) 6 and discussed in Puckett v.”

Allen v. Allen, 645 P.2d 300 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× “Since she could satisfy neither the requirement of domicile or physical presence within the circuit for three months, as specified by HRS § 580-1 “in matters of annulment, divorce, and separation,” nor the *555 prerequisite of six months’ residence in the State prescribed…”

Nehring v. Ariyoshi, 443 F. Supp. 228 (D. Haw. 1977). · cites it 2× “” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 580-1 (Supp.1975) (residency requirement for divorce decree).”

Jezierny v. Biggins, 548 P.2d 251 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 2× “HRS § 580-1. No allowance of this appeal by the family court appears in the record.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 580-1(a) — 2 cases

Carzano v. Carzano, 517 P.3d 799 (Haw. App. 2022).

Shimauchi v. Rei (Haw. App. 2026).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 580-1(a)(2018) — 2 cases

Kruize v. Kruize (Haw. App. 2025).

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.