Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 580
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 580-74 (2026)

  Support of spouse and children

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

     §580-74  Support of spouse and children.  Upon decreeing a separation, the court may make such further decree for the support and maintenance of either spouse and for the support, maintenance, and education of minor children, by either spouse, or out of the property of either spouse, as may appear just and proper; provided that the court shall apply the considerations required by section 580-47(a) in formulation of any support decree in any action under this part; and provided further that the court may amend or revise any such decree in the same manner and under the same circumstances as provided for by section 580-47(d). [CC 1859, §1338; am L 1903, c 22, §2; RL 1925, §2989; RL 1935, §4486; RL 1945, §12238; RL 1955, §324-63; HRS §580-74; am L 1973, c 211, §5(u); am L 1974, c 65, pt of §2; am L 1978, c 77, §3]

 

Case Notes

 

  Order awarding alimony will not be disturbed where there has been no abuse of discretion.  9 H. 352 (1894).

  Court cannot upon decreeing separation award specific property as alimony; words "or out of his property" limited by §580-13.  26 H. 128 (1921).

  Alimony in gross not allowable upon decree of separation from bed and board.  27 H. 230 (1923).

  Liability under order for temporary maintenance despite final decree of separate maintenance.  38 H. 148 (1948).

  Considerations when decreeing alimony.  42 H. 279 (1958).

  Section does not authorize division of property.  42 H. 279 (1958).

  Cited:  31 H. 574, 576 (1930).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Crofford v. Adachi., 506 P.3d 182 (Haw. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crofford v. Adachi., 506 P.3d 182 (Haw. 2022). · cites it 2× “Husband’s Additional Challenges on Appeal are Meritless After finding that the Marital Agreement and Addendum were unenforceable, the family court considered the value of the marital assets when separating the parties’ assets in a just and equitable manner under HRS § 580-74. In…”
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.