§657-18 Extension by absence from State.
If at any time when any cause of action specified in this part or section 663-3
accrues against any person, the person is out of the State, the action may be
commenced within the terms respectively limited, after the return of the person
into the State, and if, after the cause of action has accrued, the person
departs from and resides out of the State, the time of the person's absence
shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited for the
commencement of the action. [CC 1859, §1041; RL 1925, §2652; RL 1935, §3923; RL
1945, §10434; RL 1955, §241-17; HRS §657-18; am L 1972, c 105, §1(j); gen ch
1985]
Case Notes
Section did not apply to toll the no-fault statute of
limitations where a nonresident motorist defendant was at all times subject to
the jurisdiction of Hawaii's courts and amenable to service of process under
its long-arm statutes as set forth in §§634-33 and 634-36. 89 H. 1, 967 P.2d
1059 (1998).
By express limitation, this section does not apply to toll
the statute of limitations period set forth in §490:2-725. 93 H. 174 (App.),
998 P.2d 55 (2000).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1985–2011 · leading case:
Shin v. McLaughlin, 967 P.2d 1059 (Haw. 1998).
Shin v. McLaughlin, 967 P.2d 1059 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 49× “1 On appeal, Shin contends that the circuit court erred in granting McLaughlin’s motion for summary judgment because the general tolling provision in HRS § 657-18 (1985) 2 suspended the no-fault, statute of limitations for the period of time that McLaughlin was *2 absent from…”
Eto v. Muranaka, 57 P.3d 413 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 25× “However, (1) the first complaint of Plaintiff-Appellant Takako Eto (Plaintiff) was not timely served on Defendant, (2) HRS § 657-18 (1993) did not toll the statute of limitations, (3) the dismissal of the first complaint without prejudice did not toll the statute of limitations,…”
First Hawaiian Bank v. Powers, 998 P.2d 55 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 24× “FHB argues, however, that the foregoing-statute of limitations was tolled, pursuant to HRS § 657-18 (1993), for the period that Clarence was out of this state.”
Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Haw. 2011).
· cites it 5× “2000), construed this language as expressly limiting its application to Part I of Chapter 657 and claims brought pursuant to § 663-3: The tolling provisions of HRS § 657-18 are thus applicable only to those causes of action specified in “this part” — ie.”
Bank of Hawaii v. Shinn, 200 P.3d 370 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Respondent cites to HRS § 657-18 (1993), which tolls "causes of actions” if the defendant is out of state and unavailable, arguing that the extension of judgment should be tolled because Petitioner was outside the state.”
Small v. Badenhop, 701 P.2d 647 (Haw. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” See HRS § 657-18 (1976). The Badenhops left for Saudi Arabia in late 1975; they returned to their Kailua home in September of 1979; and the Smalls instituted these proceedings in March of 1980.”
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.