Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 604
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-6 (2026)

  Ejectment proceedings

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

     §604-6  Ejectment proceedings.  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.  If the defendant is defaulted or if on the trial it is proved that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the premises, the court shall give judgment for the plaintiff and shall issue a writ of possession.  The rules of court shall govern the stay of a writ of possession. [L 1949, c 315, §1; RL 1955, §216-5; HRS §604-6; am L 1970, c 188, §14; am L 1971, c 144, §2]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Stay, see DCRCP rule 62.

 

Case Notes

 

  Plaintiff in ejectment need not show possession within twenty years if plaintiff shows title and no adverse possession is proved.  7 H. 324 (1888).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Castro, 313 P.3d 717 (Haw. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Castro, 313 P.3d 717 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 2× “HRS § 604-6 (1993), governing ejectment proceedings, provides that "[n]othing 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.”
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 2× “2 Kelepolo’s complaint sought the following relief: entry of judgment giving Kelepolo possession of the property; a writ of possession directing law enforcement remove the tenants and their property; damages in an amount to be proven at trial based on trespass and unjust…”
Maukele v. Maukele, 504 P.3d 1053 (Haw. App. 2022). · cites it 16× “" HRS § 604-6 (2016). In other words, the $40,000 limitation does not preclude the District Court from adjudicating an ejectment action if the property's title is not at issue.”
Preston v. Hiraoka (Haw. 2026). · cites it 4× “]” See also HRS § 604-6 (2016) (“Nothing in section 604-5 (continued .”
Keliipuleole v. Rutt, 200 P.3d 418 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" With respect to ejectment proceedings, HRS § 604-6 (1993) similarly provides that "[n]othing in [HRS] 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…”
Castro. (Haw. 2013). · cites it 2× “Peelua, 126 11 HRS § 604-6 (1993), governing ejectment proceedings, provides that “[n]othing 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.”
Est. Admin. Servs. LLC v. Mohulamu. (Haw. 2020). “2 HRS § 607-3 (2016) states, “The judges of all the courts of the State shall have discretionary power to waive the prepayment of costs or to reduce or remit costs where, in special or extraordinary cases, the cost of any suit, action, or proceeding may, to the judges, appear…”
Mironer v. Steele, 479 P.3d 153 (Haw. App. 2021). “" Hawaii Revised Statutes § 604-6 (2016). The record on appeal does not indicate Steele contested title in the ejectment proceeding below.”
Jeffries v. Fukui (Haw. 2026). “3d 1154, 1166 (2023); see also Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 604-6 (2016); HRS § 641-1(a) (2016). It is ordered that the petition is denied.”
Fukumoto v. Onogi, 203 P.3d 675 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “]" With respect to ejectment proceedings, HRS § 604-6 similarly provides that "[n]othing in [HRS] 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.”
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.