Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 804
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 804-51 (2026)

 

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART III.  FORFEITURE

 

     §804-51  Procedure.  Whenever the court, in any criminal cause, forfeits any bond or recognizance given in a criminal cause, the court shall immediately enter up judgment in favor of the State and against the principal or principals, surety or sureties, and surety insurer or surety insurers on the bond, jointly and severally, for the full amount of the penalty thereof, and shall cause execution to issue thereon immediately after the expiration of thirty days from the date that notice is given via personal service or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the surety or sureties or the surety insurer or surety insurers on the bond, of the entry of the judgment in favor of the State, unless before the expiration of thirty days from the date that notice is given to the surety or sureties or the surety insurer or surety insurers on the bond of the entry of the judgment in favor of the State, a motion or application of the principal or principals, surety or sureties, surety insurer or surety insurers, or any of them, showing good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment, is filed with the court.  If the motion or application, after a hearing held thereon, is sustained, the court shall vacate the judgment of forfeiture and, if the principal surrenders or is surrendered pursuant to section 804-14 or section 804-41, return the bond or recognizance to the principal, surety, or surety insurer, whoever shall have given it, less the amount of any cost, as established at the hearing, incurred by the State as a result of the nonappearance of the principal or other event on the basis of which the court forfeited the bond or recognizance.  If the motion or application, after a hearing held thereon, is overruled, execution shall forthwith issue and shall not be stayed unless the order overruling the motion or application is appealed from as in the case of a final judgment.  If the motion or application, after a hearing held thereon, is granted, the State may appeal the order granting the motion or application as in the case of a final judgment.

     This section shall be considered to be set forth in full in words and figures in, and to form a part of, and to be included in, each and every bond or recognizance given in a criminal cause, whether actually set forth in the bond or recognizance, or not. [L 1933, c 17, §§1, 2; RL 1935, §5461; RL 1945, §10761; RL 1955, §256-50; HRS §709-51; am L 1970, c 188, §39; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1972, c 109, §1(b), (c); am L 1989, c 289, §1; am L 2002, c 10, §1; am L 2023, c 154, §2]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Bail; bond, see HRPP rule 46.

  Applicability of rules, see HRCP rule 81(a)(8), (f), (g), (h), (i); DCRCP rule 81(a)(2).

 

Case Notes

 

  Appeal not untimely where appealable event was order denying motion to set aside judgment of forfeiture.  81 H. 324, 916 P.2d 1225 (1996).

  "Good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment" of forfeiture may be shown by defendant providing a satisfactory reason for defendant's failure to appear when required or surrendering or being surrendered prior to expiration of the thirty-day search period.  81 H. 324, 916 P.2d 1225 (1996).

  Where principal was surrendered, surety entitled to return of bond whether principal was actually surrendered by surety or police.  81 H. 324, 916 P.2d 1225 (1996).

  Circuit court's delayed entry of forfeiture judgment resulted in no prejudice to surety and did not render the judgment void or otherwise unlawful.  83 H. 118, 925 P.2d 288 (1996).

  Surety's motion under this section failed to make requisite showing of good cause why execution should not issue upon forfeiture judgment where principal neither surrendered nor was surrendered prior to expiration of the thirty-day search period.  83 H. 118, 925 P.2d 288 (1996).

  Where petitioner's incarceration in California established good cause under this section for petitioner's failure to appear at petitioner's arraignment and thus for why the bail forfeiture judgment should not be executed, the district court erred in denying the motion to set aside bail forfeiture and for return of bail filed by petitioner.  128 H. 215, 286 P.3d 824 (2012).

  Because this section governs situations in which a judgment of forfeiture has been entered, and such a judgment was entered against petitioner, this section and not §804-14 applied to recovery of the bail bond by petitioner.  131 H. 9, 313 P.3d 698 (2013).

  Intermediate court of appeals correctly concluded that the Hawaii rules of civil procedure (HRCP) did not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings; HRCP rule 81(a)(8) expressly precluded the application of the HRCP in the case.  131 H. 9, 313 P.3d 698 (2013).

  Petitioner's appeal from the court's denial of its motion to set aside judgment and order for forfeiture of bail bond, petitioner's first motion to set aside, was untimely, consequently, petitioner had no further recourse under this section.  131 H. 9, 313 P.3d 698 (2013).

  Pursuant to this section, a court is only required to enter a judgment of forfeiture once--at the time the court forfeits a bond.  131 H. 9, 313 P.3d 698 (2013).

  Pursuant to this section, once the court forfeits a bail bond, §804-14 is limited by the thirty-day search period contained within this section.  131 H. 9, 313 P.3d 698 (2013).

  Intermediate court of appeals did not err in determining that notice to petitioner to execute bail bond on behalf of a defendant in consolidated cases was not required by due process or by this section.  This section only requires that notice be issued to the "surety on the bond", and the bonds at issue did not identify petitioner as the surety.  140 H. 123, 398 P.3d 712 (2017).

  Surety not excused from liability under bail bond where surety provided no evidence that "uncontrollable circumstances" prevented it from meeting its obligations under the bond.  88 H. 126 (App.), 962 P.2d 1008 (1998).

  The prosecuting attorney has the authority to represent the State in bail forfeiture proceedings conducted pursuant to this section.  135 H. 525 (App.), 354 P.3d 178 (2015).

  Bail agent was the "surety" and, therefore, under this section, notice of the bail forfeiture judgment to the bail agent was proper.  139 H. 147 (App.), 384 P.3d 923 (2016).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: State v. Nelson, 384 P.3d 923 (Haw. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Nelson, 384 P.3d 923 (Haw. App. 2016). · cites it 108× “The primary question in the appeal is whether the notice to the “surety” about the bail forfeiture judgment, which is required under HRS § 804-51, was satisfied by notice to the bail agent who signed the bail bond, or whether the insurance company that conferred…”
State v. Nelson, 398 P.3d 712 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 72× “11-1-0306, it was several hundred days later—International Fidelity moved to set aside each of the forfeiture judgments, stating that it did not receive notice of the forfeiture judgments as required under HRS § 804-51 (2014). Upon consolidating the motions, the circuit court…”
State v. Camara, 916 P.2d 1225 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 28× “4 Thereafter, on September 23, 1994, Aoha submitted its motion to set aside, pursuant to HRS § 804-51 (1993), which provides that either the principal or surety may make an application to the trial court “showing good cause why execution-should not issue upon the judgment [of…”
State v. Vaimili., 313 P.3d 698 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 96× “mber 2 Motion for Relief could not be brought under Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b) 2 because pursuant to HRCP Rule 81(a)(8), 3 the rules of civil procedure do not apply to bond forfeiture proceedings, (2) the statement in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §…”
State v. Diaz., 286 P.3d 824 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 33× “Although not an issue on certiorari, it should be noted that Respondent argued to the ICA that Petitioner’s First Motion was untimely, and thus, the Second Motion was untimely as well under HRS § 804-51 19 The court concluded that Petitioner’s First Motion was untimely because…”
State v. Ranger Ins. Co. Ex Rel. James Lindblad, Inc., 925 P.2d 288 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 34× “On March 15, 1991, the Surety filed a timely HRS § 804-51 motion, which sought to stay execution of the ordered bail forfeiture for a period of 120 days in order to accord the Surety additional time within which to produce Merino and/or pay the bail forfeiture.”
State v. Miles, 354 P.3d 178 (Haw. App. 2015). · cites it 55× “2 We hold that the Prosecuting Attorney has the authority to represent the State in bail forfeiture proceedings conducted pursuant to HRS § 804-51, and therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s Order Denying Set-Aside.”
State v. Villiarimo., 320 P.3d 874 (Haw. 2014). · cites it 8× “Diaz noted that under HRS § 804-51, “‘“good cause” why execution should not be issued upon the judgment of forfeiture “may be satisfied by the defendant .”
State v. Flores, 962 P.2d 1008 (Haw. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “However, a lower court’s order denying relief from a judgment of bail bond forfeiture on grounds that a surety has not, as required by HRS § 804-51, shown “good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment” is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
State v. Nelson. Consol. with Nos. CAAP-12-0001041, CAAP-12-0001042, CAAP-12-0001043, CAAP-12-0001044, CAAP-12-0001045, CAAP-12-0001046, & CAAP-12-0001047. (Haw. 2017). · cites it 144× “11-1- 0306, it was several hundred days later — International Fidelity moved to set aside each of the forfeiture judgments, stating that it did not receive notice of the forfeiture judgments as required under HRS § 804-51 (2014). Upon consolidating the motions, the circuit court…”
State v. Deplae II (Haw. App. 2026). · cites it 30× “" "[A] lower court's order denying relief from a judgment of bail bond forfeiture on grounds that a surety has not, as required by HRS § 804-51, shown 'good cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment' is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
State v. Kamealoha (Haw. App. 2025). · cites it 26× “The version of HRS § 804-51 in effect at the time allowed the principal or surety to move to set aside (or not execute) a forfeiture judgment within thirty days of the notice of the forfeiture: 7 Procedure.”
Show all 27 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.