PART III.
DIVORCE
Cross References
Distribution of property (employees' retirement system
benefits) in a divorce, see §88-93.5.
Law Journals and Reviews
Why is My Client Nuts?... Dealing with the Difficult Divorce
Client. II HBJ, no. 13, at 91 (1998).
§580-41 Divorce. The family court
shall decree a divorce from the bond of matrimony upon the application of
either party when the court finds:
(1) The marriage is irretrievably broken;
(2) The parties have lived separate and apart under a
decree of separation from bed and board entered by any court of competent
jurisdiction, the term of separation has expired, and no reconciliation has
been effected;
(3) The parties have lived separate and apart for a
period of two years or more under a decree of separate maintenance entered by
any court of competent jurisdiction, and no reconciliation has been effected;
or
(4) The parties have lived separate and apart for a
continuous period of two years or more immediately preceding the application,
there is no reasonable likelihood that cohabitation will be resumed, and the
court is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it would
not be harsh and oppressive to the defendant or contrary to the public interest
to a divorce on this ground on the complaint of the plaintiff. [L 1870, c 16,
§1; am L 1903, c 22, §2; am L 1909, c 25, §1; am L 1915, c 56, §1 and c 192,
§1; am L 1919, c 10, §1; RL 1925, §2965; am L 1931, c 196, §1; RL 1935, §4460;
am L 1935, c 27, §1; RL 1945, §12210; am L 1949, c 53, §29 and c 174, §1; am L
1951, c 287, §1; RL 1955, §324-20; am L 1957, c 72, §2; am L 1965, c 52, §3; am
L 1966, c 22, §6; am L 1967, c 76, §1; HRS §580-41; am L 1970, c 116, §1; am L
1972, c 11, §1]
Law Journals and Reviews
For discussion of development of new approach to family
problems, see Divorce, Law and Psychology. VII HBJ, no. 3, at 73 (1970).
The Case Against Uncontested Divorce Practice. XII HBJ, no.
4, at 21 (1977).
Notes of Decisions
Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 254 P.3d 439 (Haw. 2011).
· cites it 18× “Based on the foregoing, then, to be "granted" a divorce, the applicant must show (1) the parties were married; (2) domicile or continuous presence for six months in Hawai`i; and (3) one of four situations outlined *465 by HRS § 580-41 (2006 Repl.) applied. Geraldine's divorce…”
Matter of Est. of Lorenzo, 602 P.2d 521 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 4× “The present statute dealing with divorce is embodied in HRS § 580-41 and abolishes the fault concept.”
Crofford v. Adachi., 506 P.3d 182 (Haw. 2022).
· cites it 9× “As amended, HRS § 580-41 now mandates that divorce is appropriate “upon the application of either party” if the court finds: (1) The marriage is irretrievably broken; (2) The parties have lived separate and apart under a decree of separation from bed and board entered by any…”
Sabol v. Sabol, 624 P.2d 1378 (Haw. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 580-41 (1976). The personal conduct of the spouses toward each other has no bearing on the property division issue nor on the alimony issue.”
Whitehead v. Whitehead, 492 P.2d 939 (Haw. 1972).
· cites it 2× “In this respect, it is similar to § 580-41, which sets forth grounds for divorce.”
Long v. Long, 69 P.3d 528 (Haw. App. 2003).
“In these circumstances, we conclude that the court abused its discretion when it summartly entered a default against Robert.”
Doe v. Doe, 52 P.3d 278 (Haw. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “]” In contrast, HRS §§ 580-41 through 580-56 (Supp.1999) authorize divorce actions.”
Puckett v. Puckett, 16 P.3d 876 (Haw. App. 2000).
“In this respect, it is similar to § 580-41, which sets forth grounds for divorce.”
Camp v. Camp, 128 P.3d 351 (Haw. App. 2006).
“RELEVANT STATUTES, COURT RULES AND PRECEDENTS Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580-41(1) (1993) provides: “The family court shall decree a divorce from the bond of matrimony upon the application of either party when the court finds: (1) The marriage is irretrievably broken[.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 580-41(1) — 4 cases
Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 254 P.3d 439 (Haw. 2011).
“Based on the foregoing, then, to be "granted" a divorce, the applicant must show (1) the parties were married; (2) domicile or continuous presence for six months in Hawai`i; and (3) one of four situations outlined *465 by HRS § 580-41 (2006 Repl.) applied. Geraldine's divorce…”
Matter of Est. of Lorenzo, 602 P.2d 521 (Haw. 1979).
“The present statute dealing with divorce is embodied in HRS § 580-41 and abolishes the fault concept.”
Long v. Long, 69 P.3d 528 (Haw. App. 2003).
“In these circumstances, we conclude that the court abused its discretion when it summartly entered a default against Robert.”
Camp v. Camp, 128 P.3d 351 (Haw. App. 2006).
“RELEVANT STATUTES, COURT RULES AND PRECEDENTS Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580-41(1) (1993) provides: “The family court shall decree a divorce from the bond of matrimony upon the application of either party when the court finds: (1) The marriage is irretrievably broken[.”
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.