Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-8 (2026)

] Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee

✓ current as of July 2026

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

[§651C-8] Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee. (a) A transfer or obligation is not voidable under section 651C-4(a)(1) against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under section 651C-7(a)(1), the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under subsection (c), or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against:

(1) The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or

(2) Any subsequent transferee other than a good-faith transferee who took for value or from any subsequent transferee.

(c) If the judgment under subsection (b) is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.

(d) Notwithstanding voidability of a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a good-faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to:

(1) A lien on or a right to retain any interest in the asset transferred;

(2) Enforcement of any obligation incurred; or

(3) A reduction in the amount of the liability on the judgment.

(e) A transfer is not voidable under section 651C-4(a)(2) or section 651C-5 if the transfer results from:

(1) Termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law; or

(2) Enforcement of a security interest in compliance with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

(f) A transfer is not voidable under section 651C-5(b):

(1) To the extent the insider gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer was made unless the new value was secured by a valid lien;

(2) If made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider; or

(3) If made pursuant to a good-faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor. [L 1985, c 216, pt of §1]

Case Notes

Fraudulent transfers, discussed. 916 F.2d 528 (1990).

Petitioners were entitled to a variety of means (§§651C-7 and 651C-10 and this section) to secure a full recovery of their losses from respondent and/or the asset fraudulently transferred to respondent, but only once, not twice; moreover, nothing in this chapter requires petitioners to elect one remedy over another. This chapter does not, however, allow petitioners recovery of both the asset transferred (regardless of its value) and, in addition, a judgment in the full amount of their damages. 130 H. 58 (App.), 305 P.3d 474 (2013).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: In Re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “We then analyzed the good faith exception under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-8, Hawaii’s equivalent of 11 U.”

Schmidt v. HSC, Inc., 358 P.3d 727 (Haw. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “HRS § 651C-8 (1993) provides, in relevant part: § 651C-8 Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee, (a) A transfer or obligation is not voidable under section 651C-4(a)(1) against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any…”

Field v. Levin (In Re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co.), 463 B.R. 499 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2011). · cites it 2× “The “ordinariness” of the transactions may, however, be probative of the transferee’s good faith under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 651C-8(a). The existing record is sufficient to establish the defendants’ good faith or the lack thereof.”

Jobin v. McKay, 84 F.3d 1330 (10th Cir. 1996). “Although the question before the Ninth Circuit was the proper interpretation of "good faith” under a section of Hawaii's Fraudulent Conveyance Act, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 651C-8(d), the court referred to 11 U.”

Rolloffs Hawaii, LLC - Adversary Proceeding (Bankr. D. Haw. 2019). “§ 651C-8 (“A transfer or obligation is not voidable under section 651C-4(a)(1) against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.”); Hayes v. Palm Seedlings Partners-A (In re Agric.”

Pac. Links US Holdings, Inc. v. Tianjin Dinghui Hongjun Equity Inv. Partners (Bankr. D. Haw. 2022). “”23 Good faith is not susceptible to a precise definition, but courts generally apply an objective standard and consider what the transferee “knew or should have known” rather than what the transferee actually knew from a subjective standpoint.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-8(a) — 1 case

Field v. Levin (In Re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co.), 463 B.R. 499 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2011). “The “ordinariness” of the transactions may, however, be probative of the transferee’s good faith under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 651C-8(a). The existing record is sufficient to establish the defendants’ good faith or the lack thereof.”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-8(d) — 2 cases

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.