[§651C-9] Extinguishment of cause of
action. A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or
obligation under this chapter is extinguished unless action is brought:
(1) Under section 651C-4(a)(1), within four years
after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within
one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been
discovered by the claimant;
(2) Under section 651C-4(a)(2) or section 651C-5(a),
within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
or
(3) Under section 651C-5(b), within one year after
the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. [L 1985, c 216, pt of §1]
Case Notes
Section barred fraudulent conveyance claim by U.S. upon
expiration of prescribed time period. 780 F. Supp. 705 (1992).
Petitioners' argument that the statute of limitations began
to run when the judgment in the underlying action was filed was incorrect. 131
H. 497, 319 P.3d 416 (2014).
The one year limitations period under paragraph (1) that
begins on the date a transfer "was or could reasonably have been
discovered by the claimant" commences when a plaintiff discovers or could
reasonably have discovered a transfer's fraudulent nature. 131 H. 497, 319
P.3d 416 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016).
“3d 416, 426 (2014) (en banc) (explaining that, because “[t]he term ‘transfer’ in HRS § 651C-9(1) clearly refers to the ‘fraudulent transfer’ identified in the preceding” portion of the statute of limitations provision and because “the obvious purpose of the UFTA is to prevent…”
Schmidt v. HSC, Inc., 358 P.3d 727 (Haw. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “On January 15, 2014, the supreme court issued an Opinion holding, inter alia: [T]he one year statute of limitations period begins on the date the fraudulent nature of the transfer “was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.”
Field v. Trust Est. of Rose Kepoikai (In Re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co.), 454 B.R. 133 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2011).
“The moving defendants argue that the trustee’s action is untimely under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 651C-9(1), because all of the transfers occurred more than four years before the bankruptcy and could reasonably have been discovered more than one year before the bankruptcy.”
Finn v. All. Bank, 838 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
“§ 18-2-79 (2010); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-9 (1993); Idaho Code Ann.”
Giacometti v. Arton Bermuda Ltd. (In Re Sia), 349 B.R. 640 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2006).
“Haw.Rev.Stat. § 651C-9. If the last transfer at issue occurred in 2000, this second amended complaint, filed in April, 2006, is outside of the limitation period.”
Field v. Levin (In Re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co.), 463 B.R. 499 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The defendants argue that the trustee’s action is untimely under Haw. Rev.Stat. § 651C-9(1), because a reasonably diligent creditor would have discovered the transfers either: (1) when RNI-NV Limited Partnership (“RNI”) commenced a lawsuit alleging fraud against Lloyd Ki-mura…”
Field v. Honda Aircraft Co., LLC (Bankr. D. Haw. 2025).
“The four-year statute of limitations under HRS § 651C-9(1) controls; the two- year statute of limitations under § 549(d) does not.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 651C-9(1) — 5 cases
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016).
“3d 416, 426 (2014) (en banc) (explaining that, because “[t]he term ‘transfer’ in HRS § 651C-9(1) clearly refers to the ‘fraudulent transfer’ identified in the preceding” portion of the statute of limitations provision and because “the obvious purpose of the UFTA is to prevent…”
Schmidt v. HSC, Inc., 358 P.3d 727 (Haw. App. 2015).
“On January 15, 2014, the supreme court issued an Opinion holding, inter alia: [T]he one year statute of limitations period begins on the date the fraudulent nature of the transfer “was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.”
Field v. Trust Est. of Rose Kepoikai (In Re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co.), 454 B.R. 133 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2011).
“The moving defendants argue that the trustee’s action is untimely under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 651C-9(1), because all of the transfers occurred more than four years before the bankruptcy and could reasonably have been discovered more than one year before the bankruptcy.”
Field v. Levin (In Re Maui Indus. Loan & Fin. Co.), 463 B.R. 499 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2011).
“The defendants argue that the trustee’s action is untimely under Haw. Rev.Stat. § 651C-9(1), because a reasonably diligent creditor would have discovered the transfers either: (1) when RNI-NV Limited Partnership (“RNI”) commenced a lawsuit alleging fraud against Lloyd Ki-mura…”
Field v. Honda Aircraft Co., LLC (Bankr. D. Haw. 2025).
“The four-year statute of limitations under HRS § 651C-9(1) controls; the two- year statute of limitations under § 549(d) does not.”
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.