Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 580-45 (2026)

Decree

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§580-45 Decree. If after a full hearing, the court is of opinion that a divorce ought to be granted from the bonds of matrimony a decree shall be signed, filed and entered, which shall take effect from and after such time as may be fixed by the court in the decree. The court, in its discretion, may waive a hearing on an uncontested divorce complaint and admit proof by affidavit. In case of a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony, such time so fixed shall not be more than one month from and after the date of the decree. [L 1870, c 16, §8; am L 1878, c 26, §4; am L 1903, c 22, §2; am L 1911, c 136, §1; RL 1925, §2977; am L 1931, c 247, §1; RL 1935, §4472; RL 1945, §12221; am L 1949, c 53, §29; RL 1955, §324-31; am L 1957, c 72, §5; am L 1965, c 52, §1; am L 1967, c 81, §§1, 2; HRS §580-45; am L 1969, c 44, §§1, 2; am L 1970, c 116, §2; am L 1971, c 72, §1; am L 1972, c 11, §4; am L 1973, c 211, §5(p); am L 1989, c 127, §3]

Case Notes

Exceptions could have been taken to supreme court from decree in reference to property rights notwithstanding death of libellant. 10 H. 117, 121 (1895).

Decree in divorce remains binding on the parties subject to reversal thereof for error. 23 H. 646, 650 (1917).

Premature appeal. 28 H. 403 (1925).

Findings. 30 H. 240 (1927).

Appeal must be taken from the decree not the decision. 30 H. 620 (1928). See 29 H. 464 (1926).

Jurisdiction. 31 H. 603 (1930).

Great weight as to findings. 32 H. 177 (1931); 37 H. 512 (1947).

Appeal does not abrogate decree. 35 H. 440 (1940).

The express reservation of custody and support questions does not impair the finality of divorce decree. 57 H. 519, 559 P.2d 744 (1977).

Decree, how construed. 59 H. 575, 585 P.2d 938 (1978).

In light of the legislative history of this section, courts have discretion in fixing the effective date of the divorce decree but this discretion is limited to a one month period commencing the date of the entry of the decree; thus, it does not authorize courts to order the divorce decree to be effective prior to the date of its entry. 109 H. 469 (App.), 128 P.3d 351 (2006).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1977–2011 · leading case: Camp v. Camp, 128 P.3d 351 (Haw. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Camp v. Camp, 128 P.3d 351 (Haw. App. 2006). · cites it 18× “]” HRS § 580-45 (1993) states as follows: Decree.”

Cleveland v. Cleveland, 559 P.2d 744 (Haw. 1977). · cites it 4× “On the other hand, HRS § 580-45 provides that a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony shall take effect at such time as may be fixed by the court in such decree, which in the decree of July 18, 1975 was upon signing and filing.”

Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 254 P.3d 439 (Haw. 2011). · cites it 2× “" HRS § 580-45 (1993). Geraldine filed her Complaint for Divorce on November 6, 2003.”

Doe v. v. ROE V., 704 P.2d 940 (Haw. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “gislative intent favoring finality and appealability of a decree terminating marriage, despite the questions of custody and support of minor children being reserved for future determination, was found in (1) HRS § 580-11 authorizing the family court to make orders for the care,…”

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.