Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634-61 (2026)

] Death or dissolution of plaintiff or defendant

✓ current as of July 2026

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

PART V. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL

[§634-61] Death or dissolution of plaintiff or defendant. The death of a plaintiff or defendant or the dissolution of a corporate plaintiff or defendant shall not cause an action to abate, but it may be continued upon substitution of the proper parties as provided by the rules of court, or if the claim is one which survives to or against the surviving parties the action shall proceed in favor of or against the surviving parties as provided by the rules of court. [L 1876, c 34, §1; RL 1925, §2632; RL 1935, §4053; RL 1945, §10081; RL 1955, §230-55; am L 1967, c 82, §1; HRS §634-82; am L 1972, c 89, §2A(q); ren HRS §634-61]

Rules of Court

See HRCP rules 15(d), 25(a), (c); DCRCP rules 15(d), 25.

Case Notes

Defendant removed action to U.S. district court alleging complete diversity of citizenship based on plaintiff's notice of defendant doctor's death, and argued, inter alia, that under Hawaii law, a decedent is not a proper party to an action; because the time in which to substitute doctor's estate or representative had not yet passed, the action against doctor had not been dismissed; therefore, removal on that basis was premature. 61 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (1999).

Trespass quare clausum abates upon death of plaintiff. 6 H. 556 (1885), questioned 45 H. 373, 375, 369 P.2d 96 (1961).

Counsel for deceased may appear as amicus curiae on motion made prior to death. 10 H. 505 (1896).

Ejectment does not abate by death of sole defendant between verdict and judgment. 10 H. 505 (1896).

Plaintiff in ejectment having died after verdict and before defendant's bill of exceptions was allowed, plaintiff's heirs could not be substituted on motion in supreme court. 19 H. 385 (1909).

Survival of cause of action. 34 H. 667 (1938).

Suit over title to land or over performance of decedent's contract to convey land, heirs as parties. See 43 H. 241 (1959); 44 H. 464, 474, 357 P.2d 100 (1960); 45 H. 1, 13, 361 P.2d 374 (1961); 49 H. 409, 410, 420 P.2d 93 (1966).

Substitution of party must be made within reasonable time after death of party. 60 H. 125, 588 P.2d 416 (1978).

Appellant's claim against corporations not abated by involuntary dissolutions, where before default judgment was entered, corporations were involuntarily dissolved. 77 H. 417, 886 P.2d 754 (1994).

As a general rule, an heir of an undistributed estate, who has not been judicially appointed as the personal representative of a decedent's estate, is not a "proper party" for substitution pursuant to HRCP rule 25(a)(1). 89 H. 91, 969 P.2d 1209 (1998).

Defamation action does not survive death of defendant. 1 H. App. 517, 620 P.2d 771 (1980).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998). · cites it 4× “HRS § 634-61 (1993) provides in pertinent part that “[t]he death of a .”

Makaneole v. Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., 886 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 10× “HRS § 634-61 provides in relevant part: [t]he death of a plaintiff or defendant or the dissolution of a corporate plaintiff or defendant shall not cause an action to abate, but it may be continued upon substitution of the proper parties as provided by the rules of court[.”

Mitsuba Publ'g Co. v. State, 620 P.2d 771 (Haw. App. 1980). “Appellants argue that § 634-61, HRS, which provides that the death of a plaintiff or defendant does not cause an action to abate but that it may be continued upon substitution of proper parties saves their case.”

Foster v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (D. Haw. 1999). “”) § 634-61. Rather, the action may be continued against the legal representative of the wrongdoer’s estate.”

Leong v. Honolulu Ford, Inc., 500 P.3d 474 (Haw. 2021). · cites it 3× “HRS § 634-61. 2 *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Buyers asserted numerous claims alleging that HFI had engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices (“UDAP”) when it sold Buyers the Vehicle.”

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.