Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31 (2026)

Twenty years

✓ current as of July 2026

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

PART II. REAL ACTIONS

Law Journals and Reviews

The Statutory Elements of Hawaii's Adverse Possession Law. 14 HBJ, no. 2, at 67 (1978).

§657-31 Twenty years. No person shall commence an action to recover possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty years after the right to bring the action first accrued. [L 1870, c 22, §1; am L 1898, c 19, §1; RL 1925, §2657; RL 1935, §3928; RL 1945, §10439; RL 1955, §241-30; HRS §657-31; am L 1973, c 26, §4]

Law Journals and Reviews

Beach Access: A Public Right? 23 HBJ, no. 1, at 65 (1991).

Public Beach Access: A Right for All? Opening the Gate to Iroquois Point Beach. 30 UH L. Rev. 495 (2008).

Case Notes

Easement by prescription. 36 H. 692 (1944).

Entry means entry by claimant personally as well as entry through another. 54 H. 488, 510 P.2d 93 (1973).

Exclusivity of possession is essential to claim of adverse possession. 57 H. 172, 552 P.2d 77 (1976).

A tenant in common claiming adverse possession must prove tenant acted in good faith, which in most cases mandates actual notice to tenant's cotenants of tenant's claim. 57 H. 195, 552 P.2d 1380 (1976).

Element of hostility discussed. 60 H. 650, 594 P.2d 128 (1979).

Saving clause in 1973 amendment requires application of prior law's ten-year period of limitations in adverse possession case. 3 H. App. 11, 639 P.2d 1119 (1982).

This section addresses recovery of possession of land and does not apply to claims seeking to imply an easement on another's land; further, statutes of limitations generally do not apply to bar a claim for an implied easement by necessity. 133 H. 425 (App.), 329 P.3d 330 (2014).

Miscellaneous. Doctrine of lost grant invoked against State. 25 H. 357 (1920), aff'd 272 F. 856 (1921). As to dower being barred. 6 H. 651 (1887); 15 H. 284 (1903). As to curtesy. 16 H. 432 (1905). May run in favor of married woman. 9 H. 135 (1893). Parol gift of land followed by required period of adverse possession cannot be disturbed. 10 H. 495 (1896). Parol exchange. 4 H. 198 (1879). Foreclosure of mortgage. 14 H. 527 (1902); 15 H. 507 (1904); 17 H. 49 (1905); 19 H. 382 (1909); 20 H. 620 (1911). Deficiency judgment. 20 H. 620 (1911). Term "entry" has common law meaning. 19 H. 681 (1909). Interruption of statute. 22 H. 673 (1915); 30 H. 204 (1927). Running of statute not checked by conveyance to minor. 24 H. 1, 6 (1917). As to cotenant and ouster. 24 H. 361 (1918). Acceptance of deed does not necessarily affect adverse possession. 5 H. 104 (1884); 48 H. 17, 395 P.2d 273 (1964). Acceptance by defendant of Royal Patent in name of plaintiff. 6 H. 390 (1883). Legal presumption of a deed. 24 H. 750 (1919). Basis of statute differs from laches. 25 H. 438 (1920), aff'd 269 F. 751 (1921). Statute distinguished from presumption of lost grant. 25 H. 357 (1920), aff'd 272 F. 577 (1921). Tacking and taxes. 31 H. 108 (1929). Directed verdict, possession less than ten years. 31 H. 436 (1930). Where evidence of adverse possession is clear and undisputed it is error not to direct a verdict. 48 H. 17, 395 P.2d 273 (1964). Fractional interests. 30 H. 100 (1927).

Requirements of adverse possession. 7 H. 590 (1889); 11 H. 518 (1898); 14 H. 321 (1902); 14 H. 330 (1902); 26 H. 809 (1923). Occasional visits to land without residence or occupation held insufficient. 4 H. 207 (1879). Long acquiescence in adverse possession though not a bar till after statutory period held to be significant. 6 H. 700 (1888). Plaintiff in ejectment need not show possession within statutory period if plaintiff shows title and no adverse possession is proved. 7 H. 324 (1888). Landlord and tenant. 12 H. 142 (1899). Konohiki and tenant. 4 H. 259 (1879); 10 H. 166 (1895); 15 H. 124 (1903); 19 H. 484 (1909). As between cotenants. 4 H. 42 (1877); 5 H. 491 (1885); 7 H. 575 (1889); 10 H. 583 (1897); 13 H. 716 (1901); 16 H. 228 (1904); 20 H. 724 (1911); 36 H. 614 (1944); 39 H. 327 (1952). As to infants. 7 H. 421 (1888); 16 H. 228 (1904). Possession by administrator. 4 H. 571 (1883); 4 H. 577 (1883). After administrator's discharge administrator holds realty adverse to the heirs. 6 H. 183 (1876). Claim must be ownership in fee. 16 H. 432 (1905); 18 H. 662 (1907); 19 H. 602 (1909); 22 H. 510 (1915). Claim under defective title. 9 H. 135 (1893). Claim where possession commenced with permission. 4 H. 481 (1882); 29 H. 750 (1927). By more than one person. 31 H. 661 (1930). Recognition of title in another inconsistent with adverse possession. 37 H. 49 (1945). See 33 H. 387 (1935); 34 H. 679 (1938); 34 H. 722 (1938); 36 H. 164 (1942); 39 H. 482 (1952). Prima facie case of constructive adverse possession. 50 H. 369, 440 P.2d 965 (1968).

Exceptions. Does not run against government. 3 H. 635 (1875); 7 H. 421 (1888); 16 H. 652 (1905); 18 H. 649 (1908). Did run against king on private lands. 14 H. 330 (1902); 14 H. 643 (1903). Mental incompetent. 31 H. 817 (1931).

Cited: 3 H. 610, 612 (1875); 3 H. 768, 776 (1877); 5 H. 377, 378 (1885); 5 H. 525 (1886); 6 H. 329, 330 (1882); 6 H. 545 (1884); 6 H. 573 (1885); 7 H. 575, 577 (1889); 8 H. 508, 510 (1893); 10 H. 573, 574 (1897); 11 H. 644, 649 (1899); 11 H. 755, 757 (1899); 14 H. 643, 644 (1903); 16 H. 345, 347 (1904); 18 H. 121, 123 (1906); 21 H. 252, 253 (1912); 31 H. 376, 383 (1930); 31 H. 796, 798 (1931); 32 H. 659, 661 (1933); 48 H. 17, 19, 395 P.2d 273 (1964); 49 H. 537, 553, 425 P.2d 83 (1967); 73 H. 297, 832 P.2d 724 (1992).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Malulani Grp., Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, Ltd., 329 P.3d 330 (Haw. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Malulani Grp., Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, Ltd., 329 P.3d 330 (Haw. App. 2014). · cites it 30× “of the properties could not, as a matter of law, satisfy the unity of ownership requirement for the implied easement claims; 2) concluding that the utility easement claim fails as a matter of law because it derives from Malulani’s implied easement claims; 3) concluding that…”

Gold Coast Neighborhood Ass'n v. State., 403 P.3d 214 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 12× “” 15 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** dedication, “the time period must be ‘much longer’ than the twenty year prescriptive period under HRS § 657-31,” relying on this court’s decision in In re Banning, 73 Haw.”

DW Aina Le'a Dev., LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm'n., 477 P.3d 836 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 4× “4 HRS § 657-31 (2016) states, “No person shall commence an action to recover possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty years after the right to bring the action first accrued.”

Carpenter v. PNC Bank, N.A., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1339 (D. Haw. 2019). · cites it 5× “] § 657-31, governs only adverse possession cases - an issue not relevant under the facts alleged here.”

City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Bennett, 552 P.2d 1380 (Haw. 1976). · cites it 3× “26 § 4, amending HRS § 657-31. In 1973, the legislature also passed a bill which would have required good faith by all adverse possessors, H.”

Application of Banning, 832 P.2d 724 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 4× “The current period for prescription is now twenty years under HRS § 657-31. HRS § 657-31 states: [n]o person shall commence an action to recover possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty years after the right to bring the action first accrued.”

Adair v. Hustace, 640 P.2d 294 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 2× ““Originally statutes of limitations had no application to proceedings in equity, but the time for bringing suit was controlled solely by the judicially imposed doctrine of laches.”

The Nature Conservancy v. Nakila, 671 P.2d 1025 (Haw. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “17 Assuming that Hana Ranch’s use was adverse to the Drummond’s 15% interest and was continuous and uninterrupted beginning in 1969, it was not for the prescriptive period of twenty years.”

In Re the Determination & Declaration of the Heirs of Keamo, 650 P.2d 1365 (Haw. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “11 HRS § 657-31 reads: No person shall commence an action to recover possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty years after the right to bring the action first accrued.”

Field v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (In re Ho), 564 B.R. 49 (Bankr. D. Haw. 2017). · cites it 4× “” Alternatively, the Trustee argues that Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-31 applies: “No person shall commence an action to recover possession of any lands or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty years after the right to bring the action first accrued.”

The Bank of New York Mellon v. White, 562 P.3d 176 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “"[T]he statute of limitations on actions 'to recover possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon,' under HRS § 657-31 [is] most analogous to a foreclosure action, as opposed to an action to recover a debt[.”

Campbell v. Hipawai Corp., 639 P.2d 1119 (Haw. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “The above instructions were based on the period of limitations governing claim of adverse possession set forth under the provisions of HRS §§ 657-31 1 and 669-1. 2 These statutes amended pre-existing law by increasing the period of limitations from ten years to twenty.”

Show all 32 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.