§657-5  Domestic judgments and decrees. 
Unless an extension is granted, every judgment and decree of any court of the
State shall be presumed to be paid and discharged at the expiration of ten
years after the judgment or decree was rendered.  No action shall be commenced
after the expiration of ten years from the date a judgment or decree was
rendered or extended.  No extension of a judgment or decree shall be granted
unless the extension is sought within ten years of the date the original
judgment or decree was rendered.  A court shall not extend any judgment or
decree beyond twenty years from the date of the original judgment or decree. 
No extension shall be granted without notice and the filing of a non-hearing
motion or a hearing motion to extend the life of the judgment or decree. [CC
1859, §1051; RL 1925, §2643; am L 1927, c 16, §1; RL 1935, §3914; RL 1945,
§10425; RL 1955, §241-5; HRS §657-5; am L 1972, c 105, §1(d); am L 1992, c 74,
§1; am L 2001, c 145, §1]



 



Case Notes



 



  District court erred in extending the judgment pursuant to a
request that was not made within ten years after the original judgment was
rendered.  536 F.3d 980.



  Statute does not run during period decree not enforceable due
to interest of a life tenant not subject to plaintiff's claim.  20 H. 225.



  Applied to action seeking enforcement of promissory note
where note was enforceable only as part of final divorce decree.  73 H. 566,
836 P.2d 1081.



  Garnishment order conclusively presumed to be paid and
discharged upon expiration of underlying judgment.  82 H. 197, 921 P.2d 117.



  General scheme of §653-11 and this section is to terminate a
judgment when judgment is actually paid or presumed to be paid as a matter of
law.  82 H. 197, 921 P.2d 117.



  Under this section, judgment, together with all rights and
remedies appurtenant to it, are conclusively presumed paid and discharged after
ten years unless timely renewed.  82 H. 197, 921 P.2d 117.



  This section controls over HRCP rule 5(a); thus, notice of a
proposed extension of a judgment pursuant to this section must be provided to
the judgment debtor prior to the granting of the extension, even if the debtor
is in default and is not required under rule 5(a) to be served with pleadings;
although failure to provide notice under §657-7 was error, error was harmless
where debtor never appeared to defend debtor's self, had an opportunity to be
heard at a HRCP rule 60(b) hearing, and offered no defense on the merits to the
original judgment or extension, and thus failed to demonstrate any prejudice. 
120 H. 1, 200 P.3d 370.



  Limitations period begins to run on each child support
payment as it becomes due; decree creditor may avoid effect of statute of
limitations on part of decree debt for which statute has not run by obtaining
new decree on unbarred debt.  6 H. App. 201, 716 P.2d 496.



  License revocation order is more like administrative order
than judgment subject to ten-year limitations period.  9 H. App. 169, 828 P.2d
1287.



  The notice requirement contained in this section does not
apply to defaulted parties who have not appeared; thus, defendant, as a
judgment debtor in default, was not entitled to notice of extension proceedings
instituted pursuant to this section.  118 H. 132 (App.), 185 P.3d 880.



  Where the August 28, 1996 judgment was the "original
judgment" for purposes of the case and the limitation period for a
ten-year extension commenced on the August 28, 1996 judgment entry date, trial
court erred in concluding that a October 21, 1996 amended judgment was
"extinguished" when it was subsequently reversed, vacated and
remanded in part by the Hawaii supreme court and that the limitation period
commenced on the October 18, 1999 and September 6, 2001 entry dates of the
second and fourth amended judgments; thus, motions to extend filed on May 8,
2007 were untimely.  120 H. 123 (App.), 202 P.3d 584.



  Cited:  9 H. 514, 517.