§667-3 Proceeds, how
applied. Mortgage and other creditors shall be entitled to payment
according to the priority of their liens, and not pro rata; and judgments of
foreclosure that are conducted in compliance with this part shall operate to
extinguish the liens of subsequent mortgages and liens of the same property,
without forcing prior mortgagees or lienors to their right of recovery. The
surplus after payment of the mortgage foreclosed, shall be applied pro tanto to
the next junior mortgage or lien, and so on to the payment, wholly or in part,
of mortgages and liens junior to the one assessed. [CC 1859, §1233; RL 1925,
§2889; RL 1935, §4722; RL 1945, §12422; RL 1955, §336-3; HRS §667-3; am L 1972,
c 90, §9(c); am L 2011, c 48, §16; am L 2012, c 182, §12]
Rules of Court
See HRCP rule 13.
Case Notes
Mortgagee of recorded chattel mortgage taking possession of
unharvested rice crop has prior right over subsequent creditors. 9 H. 616
(1895).
Tender must include attorney's fee in order to ward off
foreclosure when mortgage provides for attorney's fee. 21 H. 470 (1913); 29 H.
20 (1926).
Under HRCP rule 54(b), court has discretion to leave
adjudication of junior lien status for later determination. 56 H. 587, 545
P.2d 1173 (1976).
First mortgage lien should not have been terminated by
confirmation of sale unless first mortgagee's priority as to proceeds was
preserved. 67 H. 322, 687 P.2d 1333 (1984).
See 33 H. 1 (1934); 35 H. 482 (1940).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
Fujii v. Osborne, 687 P.2d 1333 (Haw. 1984).
Fujii v. Osborne, 687 P.2d 1333 (Haw. 1984).
· cites it 10× “46782, denying relief from the order determining priorities entered October 2, 1979, must also be reversed because, if the orders of January 24, 1979 and October 2, 1979 had the effect, as appellee contends, of terminating appellants’ first mortgage lien, and foreclosing…”
Hoge v. Kane II, 670 P.2d 36 (Haw. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 667-3 (1976). Moreover, HRS § 667-2 (1976) required Hoge to make them parties to the action.”
Honolulu, Ltd. v. Blackwell, 750 P.2d 942 (Haw. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “2d 1173 (1976); see HRS § 667-3. If Honolulu was in fact overpaid, Trustee and the other defendants have been deprived of monies due them.”
Powers v. Ellis, 545 P.2d 1173 (Haw. 1976).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 667-3. Defenses to the foreclosure complaint are required to be pleaded by such junior lienor defendants and are adjudicated by the decree of foreclosure.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Deshaw, 538 P.3d 791 (Haw. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “29 HRS § 667-3 (2016), entitled "Proceeds, how applied," provides for the distribution of foreclosure proceeds.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Lake (Haw. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 667-10 states in part that "[w]hen public sale is made of the mortgaged property under this part, distribution of the proceeds of the sale shall be as specified in section 667-3, and the remainder of the proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the owner of the mortgaged…”
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.