Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 657

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-20

  Extension by fraudulent concealment

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

     §657-20  Extension by fraudulent concealment.  If any person who is liable to any of the actions mentioned in this part or section 663-3, fraudulently conceals the existence of the cause of action or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to bring the action, the action may be commenced at any time within six years after the person who is entitled to bring the same discovers or should have discovered, the existence of the cause of action or the identity of the person who is liable for the claim, although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations. [CC 1859, §1049; RL 1925, §2654; RL 1935, §3925; RL 1945, §10436; RL 1955, §241-19; HRS §657-20; am L 1972, c 105, §1(1)]

 

Case Notes

 

  Possibility that plaintiffs can show "lulling" or fraudulent concealment is sufficient to avoid summary disposition on statute of limitations defense.  501 F. Supp. 830 (1980).

  Applicability of statute of limitations to state securities fraud claims discussed.  758 F. Supp. 1357 (1991).

  Where plaintiffs claimed that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations applicable to their contract claims:  (1) material questions of fact existed regarding the breach of the first alleged agreement; and (2) the count alleging breach of contract under the second alleged agreement was barred by the statute of limitations; plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of their cause of action arising out of the second alleged agreement no later than 1996 and the doctrine of constructive notice applied despite any fiduciary relationship that may have existed.  360 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (2005).

  Doctrine of fraudulent concealment was inapplicable, where plaintiffs had not brought forth evidence sufficient to support a finding that defendant's employees took affirmative steps to conceal anything.  396 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (2005).

  This section is limited to causes of action mentioned in part I of chapter 657 or §663-3, and therefore does not apply to plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to chapter 480.  777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (2011).

  Plaintiff did not set forth any facts to support a plausible allegation of fraudulent concealment, where plaintiff did not point to conduct by either defendant to conceal anything, including the existence of plaintiff's current causes of action, and failed to allege any acts by defendants to prevent plaintiff from suing in time.  Also, the alleged facts that plaintiff contended were concealed were evident on the face of the recorded trustee deed.  992 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (2014).

  Construed in connection with contention that nondisclosure amounts to concealment.  44 H. 297, 353 P.2d 820 (1960).

  Nature of fraudulent concealment.  63 H. 210, 626 P.2d 173 (1981).

  Discussed:  792 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (2011).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon (2011) hid · cites it 34× “At the hearing, the court required the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of whether HRS § 657-20, which extends the statute of limitations for certain types of claims, applies to a HRS Ch.”
Schnidt v. HSC, Inc. (2014) haw · cites it 15× “They contended (1) that the ex parte motion filed for execution/and or garnishment filed on September 1, 2005, “could [also] be construed [ ] as a commencement of an action under HRS § 651C-9(1),” (2) that their claim was timely under HRS § 657-20 (1993), 14 which “extends the…”
Au v. Au (1981) haw · cites it 6× “Appellant contends that the applicable limitations period for Count I is set forth in HRS § 657-20 5 which deals with fraudulent concealment.”
Leibert v. Finance Factors, Ltd. (1990) haw · cites it 8× “Did the trial court err in tolling the statute of limitations on grounds of fraudulent concealment under HRS § 657-20? Answer.”
Higa v. Mirikitani (1973) haw · cites it 12× “d in dismissing the complaint in the face of a genuine question of fact on the issue of whether the defendant fraudulently concealed the existence of a claim against him, thereby tolling the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovered that he had a claim entitling him…”
Kersh v. MANULIFE FINANCIAL CORP. (2011) hid · cites it 10× “12 As to Plaintiffs assertion that Defendants prevented him from learning of enough facts to bring this action, HRS § 657-20 states that where the defendant fraudulently conceals the existence of the cause of action .”
Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC. (2019) haw · cites it 2× “HRS § 657-20 (2016), titled “Extension by fraudulent concealment,” provides a six-year statute of limitations for actions under HRS chapter 657, commencing when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the claim or the identity of the person who is liable…”
Nakamoto v. Hartley (1991) hid · cites it 5× “§ 657-20 applies. Under section 657-20, when any person fraudulently conceals from a plaintiff the existence of the plaintiff’s cause of action or the identity of any person who is liable, the plaintiff may bring his claim any time within six years from the date he discovers or…”
Lowther v. U.S. Bank N.A. (2013) hid · cites it 4× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-20 provides: If any person who is liable to any of the actions mentioned i this part or section 663-3, fraudulently conceals the existence of the cause of action or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person…”
Sung v. Hamilton (2010) hid · cites it 2× “2d 173, 178 (1981) (citing HRS § 657-20). 8 .”
Schmidt v. HSC, Inc. (2019) haw · cites it 2× “One of the alternative theories presented by the Schmidts as to why their HUFTA claims were timely, which this court rejected in Schmidt II, was that the limitations period was extended by six years pursuant to the doctrine of fraudulent concealment in HRS § 657-20, which they…”
Bailey v. United States (2003) hid · cites it 5× “At the hearing, however, Plaintiffs argued for the first time that the court should apply the six-year statute of limitation set forth in Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-20 ("Extension by fraudulent concealment”), which states: If any person who is liable to any of the actions mentioned in…”
Show all 25 citing 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.