Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-5 (2026)

Civil jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

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

§604-5 Civil jurisdiction. (a) Except as otherwise provided, the district courts shall have jurisdiction in all civil actions where the debt, amount, damages, or value of the property claimed does not exceed $40,000, except in civil actions involving summary possession or ejectment, in which case the district court shall have jurisdiction over any counterclaim otherwise properly brought by any defendant in the action if the counterclaim arises out of and refers to the land or premises the possession of which is being sought, regardless of the value of the debt, amount, damages, or property claim contained in the counterclaim. Attorney's commissions or fees, including those stipulated in any note or contract sued on, interest, and costs, shall not be included in computing the jurisdictional amount. Subject to subsections (b) and (c), jurisdiction under this subsection shall be exclusive when the amount in controversy, so computed, does not exceed $10,000. The district courts shall also have original jurisdiction of suits for specific performance when the fair market value of such specific performance does not exceed $20,000 and original jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief in residential landlord-tenant cases under chapter 521.

(b) The district courts shall try and determine all actions without a jury, subject to appeal according to law. Whenever a civil matter is triable of right by a jury and trial by jury is demanded in the manner and within the time provided by the rules of court, the case shall be transferred to the circuit court. If the demand is made in the complaint and the matter is triable of right by a jury, the action may be commenced in the circuit court if the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.

(d) The district courts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to real estate comes in question, nor actions for libel, slander, defamation of character, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, breach of promise of marriage, or seduction; nor shall they have power to appoint referees in any cause. [L 1892, c 57, §10; am L 1923, c 20, §1; RL 1925, §2274; RL 1935, §3763; am L 1935, c 95, §1; RL 1945, §9674; am L 1953, c 34, §1; RL 1955, §216-4; am L 1957, c 197, §1; am L 1963, c 99, §1; HRS §604-5; am L 1970, c 188, §13; am L 1971, c 144, §1; am L 1975, c 97, §2; am L 1979, c 90, §2; am L 1983, c 238, §1 and c 249, §1; am L 1989, c 37, §2; am L 1994, c 4, §1; am L 1995, c 94, §1; am L 2008, c 69, §1; am L 2014, c 24, §1]

Rules of Court

Demand for jury trial, see DCRCP rule 38; RCC rule 14; small claims division, see RSCD rule 7.

Pleading that raises question of title to real estate, see DCRCP rule 12.1.

Case Notes

Pleading, rigid rules not required. 3 H. 328 (1872); 14 H. 500 (1902); 22 H. 91 (1914); 23 H. 603, 605 (1917); 30 H. 191 (1927). All essential facts must be shown. 24 H. 16, 19 (1917). Absence of prayer for process not demurrable. 24 H. 95 (1917).

Trespass, q.c.f., ouster by plea of title. 6 H. 542 (1884); 9 H. 619 (1895); 17 H. 426 (1906). Maintenance of easement. 11 H. 275 (1898); 12 H. 409 (1900). No ouster in action for purchase money, if vendee's possession undisturbed. 14 H. 280 (1902).

Jury trial allowed on appeal satisfies Seventh Amendment. 14 H. 290, 291 (1902).

Prior to 1903, appeal stayed execution. 14 H. 524 (1902). Since, magistrate may allow execution, after hearing, unless supersedeas bond is filed. 15 H. 590 (1904); 15 H. 624 (1904).

Affidavit required by supreme court rule 14 is sufficient if it sets forth the source, nature, and extent of title claimed by defendant, and need not set forth source of defendant's predecessors; counter affidavit not required by rule 14 and should not be considered. 52 H. 246, 473 P.2d 864 (1970).

The "amount of controversy" for purposes of subsection (b) is the aggregate amount being sought in a complaint by a single plaintiff against a single defendant, as opposed to the amount alleged as damages in each individual "count" of a complaint. 90 H. 371, 978 P.2d 809 (1999).

In an ejectment proceeding filed in district court, a defendant seeking to raise a defense to the court's jurisdiction pursuant to district court rules of civil procedure rule 12.1, on the ground that the action is one in which title to real estate will come into question, must set forth in the affidavit "the source, nature, and extent of the title claimed" with sufficient detail or specificity to "fully apprise the court of the nature of" its claim to title of the property in question, and may include any other particulars; where defendant failed to do so, the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction. 126 H. 32, 265 P.3d 1128 (2011).

Where respondent subject to non-judicial foreclosure provided an affidavit claiming that the respondent "made all of the Settlement payments and all or sufficient number of Monthly Assessment Payments to keep current, but for the [association of apartment owners' (AOAO's)] secret assessment of illegal and unenforceable late charges, as well as, legal fees and costs related thereto", and that respondent "spoke to [management company for the AOAO] regarding the notice of foreclosure sale of the Real Property and was told that as long as [the respondent] was making [ . . . ] settlement payments and monthly payments, the foreclosure sale would not occur", sufficient detail was provided to establish a question of title to real estate. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the AOAO's summary possession action under this section. 139 H. 278, 389 P.3d 115 (2016).

Where sublessee's counterclaim arose out of and referred to the land or premises the possession of which was being sought, district court had jurisdiction to decide counterclaim under this section. 86 H. 149 (App.), 948 P.2d 570 (1997).

$20,000 maximum jurisdictional limit not reached where total amount for which judgment was sought included interest. 92 H. 209 (App.), 990 P.2d 107 (1999).

Where plaintiffs alleged a variety of claims against a variety of defendants, and minority shareholders had a different number of shares in the corporation that would have entitled them to different sums of money if they had prevailed, and plaintiffs' allegation of wrongdoing was not made on behalf of all of the corporation's shareholders, the circuit court did not err in ruling that minority shareholders could not aggregate their claims to meet the jurisdictional minimum. 123 H. 82 (App.), 230 P.3d 382 (2009).

As ownership of a cooperative membership, combined with the right to occupy a unit in a cooperative project, is a form of property ownership which has value and constitutes a right of property beyond mere possession, based on Queen Emma Foundation v. Tingco and subsection (d)'s limits on the civil jurisdiction of the district court, a cooperative member's right to occupy their cooperative unit cannot be canceled or terminated in a district court summary possession action. 125 H. 176 (App.), 254 P.3d 487 (2011).

Jurisdiction. Determined by ad damnum. 3 H. 127, 138 (1869). Part penalty of bond. 13 H. 695 (1901). Part due on note. 18 H. 412 (1907). Part due for goods etc., but second action cannot be brought for balance. 14 H. 290 (1902); 14 H. 295 (1902). In determining ad damnum, interest, if prayed for, should be included, but not statutory attorney's commissions or costs, and defect not cured by remittitur in appellate court. 14 H. 290, 293 (1902); 15 H. 590 (1904). Attorney's fees provided in note are included. 28 H. 480 (1925). On splitting causes of action. 22 H. 196, 199 (1914); 40 H. 302 (1953). As to previous jurisdictional amount. See 6 H. 656 (1887). Cannot include interest, attorney's fees, and costs in calculating the jurisdictional amount. 72 H. 228, 814 P.2d 393 (1991).

Limited jurisdiction. 22 H. 129, 132 (1914). Magistrate cannot enforce specific performance, having no equity jurisdiction. 10 H. 407 (1896); 11 H. 424 (1898). May appoint next friend. 11 H. 279 (1898). May set aside judgment and grant rehearing. 15 H. 424 (1904). No presumption in favor of jurisdiction, liability for exceeding. 4 H. 584 (1883). Action on judgment for taxes. 18 H. 278 (1907). Plea to jurisdiction goes to whole cause of action. 24 H. 74, 80 (1917). As to concurrent jurisdiction, etc., see 3 H. 127 (1869); 4 H. 297 (1880). This section applies only to civil cases. 25 H. 556 (1920). Cannot issue alias summons after return day of original has expired. 25 H. 597, 602 (1920). Because subsection (d) limits civil jurisdiction of the district court by excluding real actions or actions involving title to real property, the only court that may take cognizance of actions seeking cancellation or forfeiture of appellants' leases is the circuit court. 74 H. 294, 845 P.2d 1186 (1992).

Summary possession. 9 H. 225 (1893). Denial of tenancy and claim of title ousts jurisdiction. 4 H. 154 (1879); 22 H. 129 (1914). Supreme court rule 14 prescribes essentials of affidavit, showing source, nature and extent of title claimed. 18 H. 640 (1908); 21 H. 270 (1912); 22 H. 129 (1914); 23 H. 65, 73 (1915); 24 H. 176 (1918); 24 H. 546, 555 (1918); 29 H. 336 (1926); 30 H. 160 (1927); 37 H. 248 (1945). No evidence necessary to support plea. 12 H. 409 (1900). Hence, judgment of district court, not decisive in subsequent ejectment. 3 H. 768 (1877). Vendee on mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. 5 H. 98 (1884). If magistrate errs in sustaining plea of title, circuit court should remand. 9 H. 636 (1895). Where on appeal to circuit court after a plea of title on trespass case from district court it is decided the plea has no merit, case should be remanded to district court. 9 H. 636 (1895).

Cited: 17 H. 598, 599 (1906); 19 H. 346, 347 (1909); 27 H. 631, 635 (1923); 30 H. 445 (1928); 30 H. 560 (1928).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Lum v. Sun, 769 P.2d 1091 (Haw. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lum v. Sun, 769 P.2d 1091 (Haw. 1989). · cites it 14× “Sun, however, argues a segregation of Lum’s claim to possession of the premises from his other claims and her counterclaims was precluded because HRS § 604-5 and DCRCP 38(b) mandate a transfer of “the case” from the district to the circuit court whenever a trial by jury has been…”

Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Century Ctr., Inc. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Young Jin An, 389 P.3d 115 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 14× “HRS § 604-5(d) provides that the district court does not have jurisdiction over cases in which the title to real estate is in question: § 604-5 Civil jurisdiction. [[Image here]] (d) The district courts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to…”

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Peelua, 265 P.3d 1128 (Haw. 2011). · cites it 14× “On July 14, 2009, Petitioner filed a complaint in the court alleging, inter alia, that the court had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to HRS § 604-5; 6 Petitioner was the fee simple owner of the Property by virtue of a non-judicial foreclosure sale; Petitioner was entitled…”

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Castro, 313 P.3d 717 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 7× “In Monette , this court considered the defendants’ claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a summary possession action based on a question of title, pursuant to HRS § 604-5. 52 Haw. 246 , 473 P.2d 864 .”

Credit Assocs. of Maui, Ltd. v. Brooks, 978 P.2d 809 (Haw. 1999). · cites it 23× “2 As a result, the judgment totaled $15,779.14, which included interest, court costs, attorney’s fees, and sheriffs fees.”

Scholes v. Kiyoshi Kawaguchi, 419 P.3d 1029 (Haw. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “HRS § 604-5(d) provides: § 604-5 Civil jurisdiction. ... (d) The district courts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to real estate comes in question, nor actions for libel, slander, defamation of character, malicious prosecution, false…”

Kelepolo v. Fernandez . Application for Writ of Certiorari or in the Alt. Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed 09/05/2018., 468 P.3d 196 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 4× “” HRS § 604-5(d); see also HRS § 604-6 (1993) (“Nothing in section 604-5 shall preclude a district court from taking jurisdiction in ejectment proceedings where the title to real estate does not come in question at the trial of the action.”

Queen Emma Found. v. Tingco, 845 P.2d 1186 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 7× “Although claims such as these typify the ordinary summary possession action, a review of the record convinces us that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to HRS § 604-5(d). *301 A. The Appellants held marketable property interests in their…”

Ferrer v. Ngo, 73 P.3d 73 (Haw. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “(B) The “Prevailing Party” under these rules, as defined above, is deemed the prevailing party under any statute or rule of *124 court.”

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Greenspon, 428 P.3d 749 (Haw. 2018). · cites it 3× “1 HRS § 604-5(d) provides in relevant part as follows: "The district courts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to real estate comes in question.”

Eaton v. Eaton, 748 P.2d 801 (Haw. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “9 District courts have limited civil jurisdiction, see HRS § 604-5, and limited criminal jurisdiction, see HRS § 604-8.”

Kng Corp. v. Kim, 110 P.3d 397 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 2× “”) (quoting HRS § 604-5(a) (emphasis added) (internal brackets omitted)).”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-5(a) — 11 cases

Lum v. Sun, 769 P.2d 1091 (Haw. 1989). “Sun, however, argues a segregation of Lum’s claim to possession of the premises from his other claims and her counterclaims was precluded because HRS § 604-5 and DCRCP 38(b) mandate a transfer of “the case” from the district to the circuit court whenever a trial by jury has been…”

Kng Corp. v. Kim, 110 P.3d 397 (Haw. 2005). “”) (quoting HRS § 604-5(a) (emphasis added) (internal brackets omitted)).”

Piedvache v. Knabusch, 962 P.2d 374 (Haw. 1998).

Ryan v. Herzog., 418 P.3d 619 (Haw. 2018).

Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 906 F. Supp. 1377 (D. Haw. 1995).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-5(b) — 7 cases

Credit Assocs. of Maui, Ltd. v. Brooks, 978 P.2d 809 (Haw. 1999). “2 As a result, the judgment totaled $15,779.14, which included interest, court costs, attorney’s fees, and sheriffs fees.”

Fisher v. Grove Farm Co., Inc., 230 P.3d 382 (Haw. App. 2009).

Ferrer v. Ngo, 73 P.3d 73 (Haw. App. 2003). “(B) The “Prevailing Party” under these rules, as defined above, is deemed the prevailing party under any statute or rule of *124 court.”

Sheehan v. Grove Farm Co., Inc., 163 P.3d 179 (Haw. App. 2005).

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-5(d) — 28 cases

Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Century Ctr., Inc. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Young Jin An, 389 P.3d 115 (Haw. 2016). “HRS § 604-5(d) provides that the district court does not have jurisdiction over cases in which the title to real estate is in question: § 604-5 Civil jurisdiction. [[Image here]] (d) The district courts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to…”

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Peelua, 265 P.3d 1128 (Haw. 2011). “On July 14, 2009, Petitioner filed a complaint in the court alleging, inter alia, that the court had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to HRS § 604-5; 6 Petitioner was the fee simple owner of the Property by virtue of a non-judicial foreclosure sale; Petitioner was entitled…”

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Castro, 313 P.3d 717 (Haw. 2013). “In Monette , this court considered the defendants’ claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a summary possession action based on a question of title, pursuant to HRS § 604-5. 52 Haw. 246 , 473 P.2d 864 .”

Scholes v. Kiyoshi Kawaguchi, 419 P.3d 1029 (Haw. App. 2017). “HRS § 604-5(d) provides: § 604-5 Civil jurisdiction. ... (d) The district courts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to real estate comes in question, nor actions for libel, slander, defamation of character, malicious prosecution, false…”

Queen Emma Found. v. Tingco, 845 P.2d 1186 (Haw. 1992). “Although claims such as these typify the ordinary summary possession action, a review of the record convinces us that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to HRS § 604-5(d). *301 A. The Appellants held marketable property interests in their…”

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.