Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1

Section 657-1(1) provides a six-year limitations period for actions to recover a debt founded on a contract, obligation, or liability.

Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers, Local 996 v. City Express, Inc. · filed 1990-08-01(1)

This Court finds that HRS § 657-1(1) constitutes the most suitable statute for statute of limitations purposes.

Section 657-1(1) gives an employer six years to bring a claim for breach of an employee’s duty of loyalty.

Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Riley · filed 2003-08-11(1)

Thus, section 657-l(l)’s six-year limitation period applies to EBI’s claim for the breach of the duty of loyalty.

Section 657-1(1) sets a six-year limit for breach-of-contract actions, and § 657-1(4) sets a six-year limit for personal actions not otherwise covered by state law, including misrepresentation.

Kersh v. MANULIFE FINANCIAL CORP. · filed 2011-05-31(1), (4)

Breach of contract claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. ... A plaintiff must bring a misrepresentation claim within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Section 657-1 gives six years to bring a contract claim, with the period beginning when the agreement is breached.

Almeida v. Almeida · filed 1983-09-09

The instant law suit was commenced in October 1980, only a short time after the six-year limitations period of HRS § 657-1 (1976 & Supp. 1982) began running.

Section 657-1(1) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a contract claim.

Mroz v. Hoaloha Na Eha, Inc. · filed 2005-02-22(1)

Because Count 2 of Plaintiffs’ complaint is governed by Hawaii’s six-year statute of limitations and the statute began running in 1996, Count 2 is barred by the statute of limitations and must be dismissed. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-1(1) (1986).

Section 657-1(1) gives six years from accrual to file a contract claim; a claim for unpaid rent accrues when each payment is due.

Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc. · filed 2007-05-11(1)

HRS § 657-1(1) provides that contract claims “shall be commenced within six years next after the cause of action accrued.” ... The court disagrees with both, and finds that under Hawaii law, a cause of action for rent accrues upon the due date of each rental payment.

A claim for breach of a continuing contractual obligation is timely under Section 657-1(1) when a breach occurs within the six-year limitations period.

Dominguez v. PRICE OKAMOTO HIMENO & LUM · filed 2009-04-29(1)

Applying these principles here, any obligation by Dominguez to carry professional liability insurance under the counsel agreement was a continuing one, and her failure to do so constituted a continual breach. Thus, the circuit court did not err in finding that POHL's counterclaim was not time-barred.

Section 657-1(1) requires a breach-of-contract action to be brought within six years after the cause of action accrues, generally when the contract is breached.

Moddha Interactive, Inc. v. Philips Electronic North America Corp. · filed 2015-03-10(1)

Under Hawaii law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is six years. See HRS § 657-1(1) (explaining that an action for breach of contract “shall be commenced within six years next after the cause of action accrued, and not after”). This six-year period generally begins upon breach of the contract.

Section 657-1 gives an intended third-party beneficiary six years to bring a claim for breach of an escrow agreement.

Wolf v. Heis · filed 2024-02-15

But the six-year limitation period under HRS § 657-1 (2016) applies to Wolf's claims based on Beverly being an intended third-party beneficiary of the escrow agreements.

Section 657-1(1) gives a party six years after a breach of contract claim accrues to bring suit; a factual dispute over accrual can prevent summary judgment on timeliness.

Schmidt v. Dubin · filed 2024-03-28(1)

The parties agree that the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years and that an action must be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrued, pursuant to HRS § 657-1(1). ... Therefore, the Circuit Court erred in concluding that Schmidt's breach of contract claims against Dubin were time-barred as a matter of law.

Section 657-1(1) gives a breach of contract claim a six-year limitations period.

Construction Services Pacific, LLC v. Mule-Hide Products Co., Inc. · filed 2025-05-09(1)

Under Hawaii law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim is six years. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1(1).

Section 657-1 gives a plaintiff six years to bring an action for a contract debt, subject to equitable tolling when the plaintiff diligently pursues relief but extraordinary circumstances prevent timely filing.

Ruppersberger v. Ramos · filed 2020-07-31(1)

Enforcement of a settlement agreement is a breach of contract dispute, Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381, to which a six-year limitation period applies, HRS § 657-1. ... The Court rejects Defendant’s argument because the Court finds that equitable tolling applies.

Section 657-1 allows six years to sue for a debt; when a new promise to pay is conditional, the limitations period begins when the condition is fulfilled.

Mun Seek Pai v. First Hawaiian Bank · filed 1977-01-07(1)

We agree with the trial court that the limitations period began to run no earlier than May, 1969, when decedent became financially able to pay plaintiff in full. ... This court has further held that if a promise to pay is conditional, the cause of action on the promise does not accrue until the condition is performed.

Section 657-1 gives creditors six years to sue on contract debts, and a debtor’s new promise to pay starts a new limitations period; acknowledgment or part payment is rebuttable evidence of that promise.

First Hawaiian Bank v. Zukerkorn · filed 1981-09-04(1)

After reading the authorities, ... we state the applicable law to be as follows: A new promise by the debtor to pay his debt, whether then barred by the applicable statute of limitations or not, binds the debtor for a new limitations period. The promise may be express or implied. If it is express, it may be unconditional or conditional, but if conditional, it is not effective until the condition is performed. The promise may be implied from an express acknowledgment of the debt or from part payment thereof. However, an express acknowledgment of the debt-or part payment thereof is only prima facie evidence of a new promise which may be rebutted by other evidence and by the circumstances under which it is made.

Section 657-1 provides a six-year limitations period for fraudulent and negligent representation claims under subsection (4) and breach of express warranty claims under subsection (1).

Au v. Au · filed 1981-03-23(1), (4)

We hold that the relevant limitations period for fraudulent representation is governed by HRS § 657-1(4). ... Thus, Count II was also timely filed because the limitations period in this instance is HRS § 657-1(4). ... We agree with the appellant’s contention that the relevant limitations period for Count III is the six-year period set forth in HRS § 657-1(1).

Section 657-1(4) gives fraudulent misrepresentation claims a six-year limitations period.

Eastman v. McGowan · filed 1997-09-29(4)

Fraudulent misrepresentation is not governed by a specific limitations period, and the general limitations period set forth in HRS § 657-1(4) applies.

Section 657-1(4) sets a six-year limitations period for negligent and intentional or fraudulent misrepresentation claims.

Aana v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. · filed 2013-08-09(4)

Both negligent misrepresentation claims and intentional/fraudulent misrepresentation claims, however, are subject to the six-year limitations period in Haw.Rev. Stat. § 657-1(4). Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 216-17, 626 P.2d 173, 178-79 (1981). Because of the nature of Plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims, the continuing tort doctrine does not apply. The Court therefore FINDS that the portions of Plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims based on the October 2000 Response Letter and 2002 Conservation Plan are time-barred.

Section 657-1(4) provides a six-year limitations period for fraudulent failure to disclose claims.

Lindgard v. RESIDUARY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP · filed 2006-12-27(4)

Assuming, without deciding, that a duty to disclose the presence of Chlordane or fill existed at the time the Lindgards accepted assignment of the Amended Indenture, we conclude, in light of the supreme court's reasoning in Au, that the applicable statute of limitations for a fraudulent failure to disclose claim is HRS § 657-1(4) (1993), which states: ... Therefore, the circuit court incorrectly held that a two-year statute of limitations was applicable.

Section 657-1(4) gives claims sounding in fraud, including claims based on an allegedly forged deed, a six-year limitations period.

Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC · filed 2014-01-10(4)

Plaintiffs claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations because they sound in fraud. ... Accordingly, the Court applies the six-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1(4). ... Plaintiffs Complaint was not filed until April 26, 2013, more than six years after the recording of the allegedly forged deed, and, therefore, Plaintiffs claims sounding in fraud are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Section 657-1(4) sets a six-year limitations period for claims that a deed was procured by fraud in the inducement or constructive fraud and is not void from inception.

Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC. · filed 2019-11-13(4)

To answer the second modified certified question, we hold that the six-year statute of limitations under HRS § 657-1(4) applies to claims that a deed was procured by fraud of the type that does not render it void ab initio, e.g., fraud in the inducement and constructive fraud.

Section 657-1(4) provides a six-year limitations period for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation claims.

Gilliam v. Elliot · filed 2022-06-17(4)

This purported claim was subject to a six-year statute of limitations under HRS § 657-1(4).

Section 657-1(4) gives fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims a six-year limitations period.

Warta v. Porter, McGuire, & Kiakona, LLP · filed 2022-08-23(4)

“Fraudulent misrepresentation and other claims sounding in fraud are subject to the six-year statute of limitations period in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1(4).” ... The six-year statute of limitations also applies to negligent misrepresentation claims. ... All of the actions and omissions at issue in this case occurred within six years prior to the filing of this action.

Section 657-1(4)'s six-year limitations period does not apply to claims specifically covered by another Hawaii law, including Chapter 480 claims.

Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2011-02-28(4)

Given that § 657-1(4) is expressly limited to personal actions not specifically covered by the laws of this State, and a Ch. 480 claim by its very terms is specifically covered by the laws of this State, the court rejects this argument.

Section 657-1(4)’s six-year limitations period does not govern claims whose nature makes them subject to the four-year period for Chapter 480 UDAP claims.

Flynn v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. · filed 2016-02-29(4)

Plaintiffs argue that, because neither Chapter 481A nor Chapter 514E has a specific statute of limitations, the six-year catchall limitations period in Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1(4) applies. ... This Court disagrees. ... Thus, this Court CONCLUDES that the four-year limitations period in § 480-24(a) applies to all claims in Count III and Count V.

Section 657-1(4) provides a six-year limitations period that applies when there is doubt whether it or the two-year period in section 657-7 governs.

Au v. Au · filed 1981-03-23(4)

Thus, the six-year limitations period in HRS § 657-1(4) rather than the two-year period in HRS § 657-7 applies.

Section 657-1 does not give a claimant six years after the last no-fault payment to demand arbitration of disputed benefits.

In re the Appointment of an Arbitrator for the Dispute Between Wiegand & Allstate Insurance Companies · filed 1985-08-23

Appellants contend that the arbitration clause in the no-fault policy is contractual in nature and therefore, the six year statute of limitations period provided in HRS § 657-1 is applicable and not the two-year statute of limitations period provided in HRS § 294-36. Appellants argue that the word “suit” should be narrowly construed to mean only judicial proceedings, and that arbitration is not a judicial proceeding, therefore, the word “suit” in HRS § 294-36 should not be construed to include arbitration. We disagree.

Section 657-1(4)’s six-year catchall period does not govern a claim enforcing rights created by federal law when section 657-11 provides the closer analogy.

Gonzalez v. Aloha Airlines, Inc. · filed 1991-08-09(4)

Gonzalez argues that the six-year statute of limitations contained in section 657-1(4) should apply to his claims. ... We disagree. The EPP does not provide a remedy for rights created elsewhere. Rather, it creates new substantive rights for certain airline employees. Gonzalez’ suit is thus an action to enforce a right created by a federal statute. Section 657-11 therefore provides the most closely analogous state statute of limitations since it expressly applies to claims created by federal law.

Section 657-1(4)’s six-year catchall period does not govern § 1983 claims because Hawaii has a general personal injury limitations statute.

Pele Defense Fund v. Paty · filed 1992-09-28(4)

We hold that the two-year statute of limitations set forth in HRS § 657-7 governs § 1983 actions, ... rather than the six-year statute of limitations set forth in HRS § 657-1 (4).

Section 657-1’s six-year limitations period does not apply to underinsured motorist benefit claims arising from automobile accidents.

Allstate Insurance v. Wolcott · filed 1994-03-23

No Hawaii court has yet addressed the specific issue whether Haw.Rev.Stat. § 294-36 or Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-1 applies to UIM claims. ... Accordingly, by its express terms the two year statute of limitations period in Haw.Rev.Stat. § 294-36 applies to UIM claims.

Section 657-1(1)’s six-year period does not apply to a claim for physical injury merely because it is pleaded as a contract claim.

Gomez v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2006-05-23(1)

The form of the pleading notwithstanding, it is both legally and intuitively obvious that Plaintiffs personal injury suit is governed and barred by the two-year, personal injury statute of limitations imposed by HRS § 657-7. ... These two exceptions we grant, but the record of the case before us in no wise involves the exceptional circumstances referenced in the Higa note and the Yoshizaki proviso.

Section 657-1 provides a six-year limitations period; claims filed more than six years after accrual are untimely when no longer period applies.

Fukuda v. Nakada · filed 2021-06-30

Because more than six years elapsed between the accrual of Fukuda's claims and the filing of the First Amended Complaint naming the Nakada Defendants, the Nakada Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on their statute of limitations defense, and the Circuit Court did not err in granting the Summary Judgment Motion Re Statute of Limitations.

Section 657-1’s six-year limitations period applies to a challenge to an unauthorized foreclosure when the resulting deed is voidable under state law.

Ryan v. Association of Apartment Owners of Waikiki Landmark · filed 2025-10-29

The district court correctly determined that Ryan’s claims are barred by HRS § 480-24’s four-year statute of limitations and HRS § 657-1’s six-year statute of limitations. ... Because, under state law, a deed of foreclosure undertaken without authority is voidable, not void ab initio, the statutes of limitations apply.

Section 657-1's six-year catch-all period barred a declaratory claim filed more than six years after the plaintiff learned of the subdivision approval; the lot owners' continued ownership did not toll the period as a continuing tort.

Kellberg v. Kern · filed 2024-06-27(4)

Lot Owners argued Kellberg's claims were time-barred under HRS § 657-1's 6-year catch-all provision. Kellberg's cause of action accrued at the latest on August 11, 2005, when he learned of the subdivision approval. His Amended Complaint was not filed until December 2, 2015. ... Even if the County's approval was improper, the continuing tort doctrine does not apply to Kellberg's claims against Lot Owners. ... The circuit court was not wrong to ... conclude that Kellberg's claim for declaratory relief against Lot Owners was time-barred.

Section 657-1(1) supplies the six-year limitations period for a TILA rescission claim as the most analogous state statute.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Winters · filed 2025-05-19(1)

HRS § 657-1(1), the six-year breach-of-contract statute of limitations, is the most analogous.

Section 657-1(1) supplies the six-year limitations period for a TILA rescission enforcement claim when no federal limitations period controls.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Winters. ICA mem. op., filed 05/19/2025. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 06/05 · filed 2025-07-16(1)

HRS § 657-1(1) (2016), the six-year breach-of-contract statute of limitations, is the most analogous.

Section 657-1(1)'s six-year limitations period governs legal malpractice claims for injury to intangible interests, regardless of whether the claim is framed in tort or contract.

Higa v. Mirikitani · filed 1973-12-11(1)

Moreover, we are persuaded that the words "obligation" and "liability" in section 657-1(1) would be rendered meaningless unless read to encompass actions such as this, which are hybrids of tort and contract and which have as their gravamen injury to intangible property interests. ... We therefore hold that the timeliness of the plaintiff's complaint is governed by the six-year limitations period of HRS § 657-1(1).

Section 657-1(1) gives legal malpractice claims a six-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the negligence.

Blair v. Ing · filed 2001-02-27(1)

Based upon the foregoing, we hold that the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice claim is governed by HRS § 657-1(1), the accrual of which is determined by application of the discovery rule.

Section 657-1(4) gives six years to bring a claim for loss of an intangible property interest.

Field v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (In re Ho) · filed 2017-01-18(4)

If the plaintiff seeks recovery for loss of an intangible property interest, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-l(4)’s six year statute of limitations applies.

Section 657-1(1) gives plaintiffs six years from accrual to bring legal malpractice claims, including estate planning claims; under the discovery rule, accrual depends on when they knew or should have known of the alleged malpractice.

Makaipo v. Sterling & Tucker LLP · filed 2025-02-04(1)

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1(1) provides that “actions for the recovery of any debt founded upon any contract, obligation, or liability” must be “commenced within six years next after the cause of action accrued, and not after . . . .” This statute applies to legal malpractice claims, Higa v. Mirikitani, 55 Haw. 167, 173 (1973), including claims in the estate planning context.

Section 657-1(1)'s six-year period for legal malpractice claims begins when the claimant discovers or should have discovered the negligent act, the damage, and the causal connection between them.

Tracy v. Choi & Ito · filed 2025-04-02(1)

"[T]he statute of limitations in a legal malpractice claim is governed by HRS § 657-1(1), the accrual of which is determined by application of the discovery rule." ... Here, the Circuit Court erred by designating the November 3, 2011 date of termination of the attorney-client relationship as the date of accrual in both claims, without applying the discovery rule.

Section 657-1(1)’s six-year period for contract actions does not apply to an action enforcing a divorce decree as a judgment.

Brooks v. Minn · filed 1992-09-25(1)

However, because the circuit court erred in ruling that the Note could be enforced as a discrete contract independent of the final divorce decree, the circuit court applied the wrong statute of limitations (SOL), namely HRS § 657-1 (1985).

Section 657-1(1) gives six years to bring a contract-based action to enforce an arbitration award.

Krystoff v. KALAMA LAND CO., LTD. · filed 1998-08-25(1)

In contrast, the general statute of limitations for enforcement of an arbitration award arrived at pursuant to contract is six years, as set forth in HRS § 657-1(1) (1993): ... (1) Actions for the recovery of any debt founded upon any contract, obligation, or liability, excepting such as are brought upon the judgment or decree of a court;....

Section 657-1(2) requires an action upon a judgment rendered by a foreign court of record to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues.

Beecher Limited v. Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC · filed 2008-03-07(2)

It was therefore incumbent on Beecher, if it wished to domesticate the 1993 Judgment in Hawai`i, to bring an action upon the 1993 Judgment within six years after the cause of action to sue upon the 1993 Judgment had accrued. HRS § 657-1. Even if we were to assume that Beecher's cause of action on the 1993 Judgment accrued in March 1996, upon Azabu Buildings's failure to file a jokoku appeal, the record is clear that Beecher did not file an action on the 1993 Judgment within the required statute-of-limitations period.

Section 657-1(4) provides a six-year limitations period for wrongful foreclosure claims.

Hines v. Wilmington Saving Fund Society FSB · filed 2020-05-20(4)

Plaintiffs’ wrongful foreclosure claim is timely because such claims are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. See Delapinia v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 146 Hawai`i 218, 225, 458 P.3d 929, 936 (Ct. App. 2020) (citing Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1(4)).

Section 657-1(4) provides a six-year limitations period for wrongful foreclosure claims based on loss of title and possession.

Schick v. Nation Star Mortgage LLC · filed 2022-06-28(4)

Accordingly, we conclude that the HRS § 657-1(4) six-year statute of limitations applied to the Schick's claim for wrongful foreclosure.

Section 657-1(4) gives a plaintiff six years to bring a wrongful foreclosure claim alleging nonphysical injury to an intangible property interest.

Guyer v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2022-11-30(4)

Here, as in Delapinia, Guyer did not allege any physical harm to the Property. Instead, Guyer claims Nationstar and Fannie Mae caused a nonphysical injury to his intangible interest by wrongfully "depriv[ing him] of his possession, record title, and use of the Property[.]" Thus, the six-year statute of limitations under HRS § 657-1(4) governs Guyer's claim for wrongful foreclosure.

Section 657-1(4) sets a six-year limitations period for wrongful foreclosure claims.

McCullough v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2025-09-12(4)

We now address the appropriate statute of limitations for a wrongful foreclosure claim and hold that HRS § 657-1(4) applies.

Section 657-1(4) imposes a six-year limit on quiet title and ejectment claims seeking to remedy an allegedly wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure.

Lujan v. Schneider · filed 2025-10-20(4)

Here, as in McCullough, Lujan's quiet title and ejectment claims against Titleholders were made to remedy her mortgagee's allegedly wrongful foreclosure. The HRS § 657-1(4) six-year statute of limitations applies to such claims.

Section 657-1(4) gives a wrongful foreclosure claim six years to be filed; the period begins when the claimant knows or should know the conduct, injury, and causal connection.

Day v. Association of Apartment Owners of Kaiolu Sunrise · filed 2026-03-19(4)

On this record, we hold that the statute of limitations on Day's wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure claim began to run on July 23, 2010, when the quitclaim deed was recorded, and the six- year period under HRS § 657-1(4) was not tolled.

Section 657-1(4) sets a six-year limitation period for wrongful foreclosure claims.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mendonza · filed 2026-05-22(4)

The statute of limitations applicable to a wrongful foreclosure claim is six years. Id. (citing HRS § 657-1(4)). Deutsche Bank's motion noted its nonjudicial foreclosure "was completed over 13 years ago." As a matter of law, Mendonza could not have voided Deutsche Bank's nonjudicial foreclosure.

Section 657-1(4)'s six-year limitation applies to quiet title and ejectment claims based on a voidable deed resulting from wrongful foreclosure.

Panuelos v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2024-09-24(4)

HRS § 657-1(4)'s six-year statute of limitations applies to a claim that a deed is voidable because the foreclosure from which it resulted was wrongful.

Section 657-1(4) imposes a six-year limit on quiet title and ejectment claims based on a wrongful foreclosure that makes a deed voidable.

Philips v. Arensdorf · filed 2025-06-25(4)

That claim is subject to HRS § 657-1(4)'s six-year statute of limitations.

Section 657-1(4)'s six-year limit applies to quiet title and ejectment claims arising from an alleged wrongful foreclosure.

Ege v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2025-09-29(4)

We conclude the circuit court correctly ruled that Appellants' quiet title and ejectment claims, arising from an alleged wrongful foreclosure, were time-barred.

Section 657-1(4) applies to quiet title and ejectment claims challenging a voidable foreclosure sale.

Panuelos v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2024-10-31(4)

Jacqueline Bui seeks reconsideration of part III.D of our September 24, 2024 Memorandum Opinion, in which we held that her quiet title and ejectment claims against Matthew Robert Bush and Heather Noel Bennett (who bought Bui's foreclosed property from Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) after BANA sold the property to itself in a nonjudicial foreclosure) were time-barred under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-1(4), Delapinia v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 150 Hawai#i 91, 104, 497 P.3d 106, 119 (2021) (Delapinia II) ("sales pursuant to a wrongful foreclosure are voidable, regardless of whether the violation was statutory or contractual, substantial or a mere irregularity"), and Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC, 145 Hawai#i 374, 382, 452 P.3d 371, 379 (2019) (holding that HRS § 657-1(4) applies to claim that deed was voidable). ... We must, and did, apply it to Bui's claims against Bush and Bennett for quiet title and ejectment.

Section 657-1(4) sets a six-year limit for wrongful foreclosure claims, including quiet title and ejectment claims seeking return of title or possession as a remedy for wrongful foreclosure.

Hemsher, Jr. v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2025-09-12(4)

We reasoned that in bringing claims for quiet title and ejectment, borrowers essentially sought a remedy for their wrongful foreclosure claims, which were subject to the six-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1(4). ... As with the plaintiffs in McCullough, in this case, Borrowers’ claims for return of title and possession of the properties are subject to the wrongful foreclosure statute of limitations and, thus, are time-barred.

Section 657-1(4) gives a six-year limitations period for regulatory takings claims under the Hawai‘i Constitution.

DW Aina Le'a Development, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission. · filed 2020-12-17(4)

For the foregoing reasons, we respond to the certified question as follows: the statute of limitations for a takings claim under the Hawai‘i Constitution is six years pursuant to HRS § 657-1(4).

Section 657-1 applies to actions to recover contract debt, but its six-year limit does not govern mortgage foreclosure actions.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. White · filed 2024-12-30

Collins is correct that HRS § 657-1 applies to actions to recover on a debt based on a contract (such as the Note). ... The limitation period under HRS § 657-31 (2016) is twenty years. Bank's mortgage foreclosure action was not time-barred.

Section 657-1 sets a six-year limit for contract debt recovery actions and does not govern mortgage foreclosure actions.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. White. ICA s.d.o., filed 12/30/2024 [ada], 155 Haw. 255. Motion for Reconsideration, file · filed 2025-08-07

HRS § 657-1 sets a six-year statute of limitations for debt recovery actions founded on a contract. ... Collins believes otherwise. She says a mortgage is merely security for the payment of a promissory note. The two should be handled together under HRS § 657-1, she claims. Not so.

Section 657-1’s six-year limit applies to contract-based debt recovery actions, but mortgage foreclosure actions have a twenty-year limit under § 657-31.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Szymanski · filed 2025-08-12

Szymanski says HRS § 657-1’s six-year statute of limitations applies to mortgage foreclosure actions. Deutsche Bank disagrees. It says HRS § 657-31’s twenty- year statute of limitations applies. Deutsche Bank is right.

Section 657-1’s six-year limitation applies to actions to recover a contract debt; mortgage foreclosure actions are governed by the twenty-year limitation in section 657-31.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Szymanski · filed 2025-01-31

Szymanski is correct that HRS § 657-1 applies to actions to recover on a debt based on a contract.

The limitations defense under § 657-1(1) is personal and can be waived by failing to raise it in the answer or in opposition to summary judgment.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Morton · filed 2024-06-12(1)

(6) Morton argues U.S. Bank's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. He cites no authority other than HRS § 657-1(1). He provides no "record references supporting each statement of fact or mention of court or agency proceedings" as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(3). But ultimately, the statute of limitations is a personal defense that can be waived. Kellberg v. Yuen, 135 Hawai#i 236, 254, 349 P.3d 343, 361 (2015). Morton did not assert that defense in his answer or his opposition to U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. He waived it.