HRS 651-92: Hawaii’s $30,000 and $20,000 Real-Property Exemptions
HRS 651-92 pulls an interest in one parcel out of attachment and execution – at $30,000 for one class of owner, $20,000 for another – and HRS 651-91 decides which class an owner is in by defining a single word, “person”. This page quotes those sections and covers execution outside bankruptcy. General legal information, not legal advice.
The Short Version
Hawaii’s real-property exemption is HRS 651-92, and subsection (a) has two limbs. Limb (1) exempts an interest in one parcel in the State of Hawaii, of a fair market value not exceeding $30,000, owned by a defendant “who is either the head of a family or an individual sixty-five years of age or older” – two independent routes, and age is one of them. Limb (2) sets $20,000 for a defendant “who is a person”. HRS 651-91 defines “person”, for this subpart, as “any individual under sixty-five years of age other than the head of a family” – so limb (2) is the residual class, what limb (1) leaves. Which limb applies to a given debtor is a legal question for Hawaii counsel. General information, not legal advice.
Watch: Hawaii Exemptions in Practice
Three minutes on wage garnishment limits, the homestead exemption, the vehicle exemption, bank accounts and retirement accounts.
Watch Overview
The $20,000 Limb Is the Residual Class: How HRS 651-91 Defines “Person”
HRS 651-92(a)(1)-(2), read against the definitions section that governs it.
HRS 651-92, captioned “Real property exempt”, opens:
“(a) Real property shall be exempt from attachment or execution as follows: (1) An interest in one parcel of real property in the State of Hawaii, of a fair market value not exceeding $30,000, owned by the defendant who is either the head of a family or an individual sixty-five years of age or older. (2) An interest in one parcel of real property in the State of Hawaii, of a fair market value not exceeding $20,000, owned by the defendant who is a person.”
The label (a)(1)-(2) is deliberate: subsection (a) does not end there. Two further paragraphs sit inside it – including the one that turns these caps from a value test into an equity test – and both are quoted further down.
Read as ordinary English, limb (2) looks like the general rule and limb (1) like an enhancement for older or family-supporting debtors. It is the other way round. The word carrying the weight is “person”, and HRS 651-91 defines it for this subpart: “Person” means any individual under sixty-five years of age other than the head of a family. Age is in the statute, on the face of limb (1); what the definition settles is which limb is the default.
| HRS 651-92(a) | Amount | The defendant the statute names | What follows from the wording |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limb (1) | $30,000 | “either the head of a family or an individual sixty-five years of age or older” | Two independent routes. Either is enough. |
| Limb (2) | $20,000 | “a person” – defined in HRS 651-91 as “any individual under sixty-five years of age other than the head of a family” | The residual class, reached only where neither route in limb (1) is open. |
| The paragraph after (1) and (2) | No figure | Appraisal, priority, and one exemption per parcel | Quoted in full further down. |
Each limb protects “an interest in one parcel of real property in the State of Hawaii” – a one-parcel limit and a Hawaii-situs limit on the face of both. And the vocabulary throughout is claim: “Not more than one exemption shall be claimed“, “Any claim of exemption under this section”. Nothing in HRS 651-92 describes the exemption as automatic or self-executing, and the section captioned “Exemption, how claimed” is HRS 651-61, in a different subpart not read for this page – so nothing here describes its procedure, form or deadlines.
Because the limb turns on household composition and residence, what to fix early is who holds which interest and who lives there – the enquiry behind our asset search for judgment collection work, and where a file needs that layer built you can open a Hawaii parcel request.
Three Limbs and Five Branches: What HRS 651-91 Means by “Head of a Family”
The defined term the $30,000 limb runs on, and the section that carves into it.
HRS 651-91 does not say what “head of a family” means. The phrase “includes within its meaning” three limbs – an inclusive chapeau, not an exhaustive test, so the limbs are quoted rather than rewritten.
Limb (1): “A man and woman when married, except as provided in section 651-93.” That is the statute’s own connector, not “subject to” – and the difference is not cosmetic: 651-93 moves people out of the limb rather than merely qualifying it.
Limb (2): “Every individual who is residing on the real property and who has under that individual’s care or maintenance, either:” one of five lettered relations – (A) that individual’s minor child, or minor grandchild, or the minor child of that individual’s deceased wife or husband; (B) a minor brother or sister, or the minor child of a deceased brother or sister; (C) a father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother; (D) the father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother of a deceased husband or wife; or (E) an unmarried brother, sister, or any other of the relatives mentioned in this paragraph who have attained the age of majority. Two conditions, not one: residing on the real property and a listed relation under that individual’s care or maintenance.
Limb (3): “Head of household as defined in section 2(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.” The words “of 1954, as amended” are part of the text.
The connector printed between branch (2)(E) and limb (3) is “; and“, not “or”; against an “includes within its meaning” chapeau the limbs read as alternatives, but the punctuation is quoted as printed. And the definition is gender-specific on its face – “A man and woman when married”, “deceased wife or husband” – the compilation’s printed text, quoted without any claim about how a court would apply it.
HRS 651-93, captioned “Effect of separation, divorce, reconciliation”, provides: “Following the entry of a decree of separate maintenance or an interlocutory decree of divorce, each spouse may claim a separate real property exemption under this part as a person. A subsequent reconciliation of the spouses when evidenced by a dismissal of the divorce action or vacation of the decree of separate maintenance executed by both spouses or their attorneys of record shall cancel a separate claim for a real property exemption and the spouses shall only have one real property exemption.”
The operative words are as a person – the defined term from HRS 651-91 – so the effect of the decree, read against 651-92, is that each spouse claims under limb (2) rather than under the married branch of limb (1). HRS 651-93 speaks of each spouse claiming “a separate real property exemption”, while HRS 651-92 says not more than one exemption shall be claimed on any one parcel. Nothing read for this page resolves that, so both are quoted and neither is harmonised. HRS 651-91 also scopes its definitions to “this subpart” while HRS 651-93 grants its exemption “under this part” – two different words, each repeated here as written.
One Acre, an Immediate Right of Possession, a Twenty-Year Lease
What HRS 651-91 counts as real property, in the statute’s own words.
HRS 651-91 provides:
“Real property” consists of the dwelling house in which the owner resides and one parcel of land not to exceed one acre, upon which it is situated together with other buildings thereon. This parcel may be in fee simple or any other interest in real property that vests the immediate right of possession, even though the immediate right of possession is not exclusive, and includes land held under long-term lease, ownership rights in a condominium or stock cooperative unit.
Four conditions sit in those two sentences. The dwelling must be one in which the owner resides – a residence condition inside the definition itself, separate from the one in limb (2) of “head of a family”. The land is capped at one acre, and “together with other buildings thereon” is protected too. The qualifying interest is not limited to fee simple, but the alternative is not open-ended: it must vest the immediate right of possession, which the statute then says need not be exclusive. And the categories named in terms are long-term lease, condominium and stock cooperative unit.
The same section settles what “long-term” means: “Long-term lease” means a lease for twenty years or more. “Owner” is drawn just as broadly – “Owner” means an individual who has an interest in real property – so the exemption attaches to an interest rather than to a form of title, and to an individual rather than to an entity.
One boundary on all of it. HRS 651-91 opens “As used in this subpart“, and the subpart is B, Real Property, which the chapter’s index shows running from 651-91 to 651-96. These definitions of “person”, “head of a family”, “real property” and “owner” are not stated to carry into subpart C, the personal-property sections, and are not carried there here.
Appraised, Net of Earlier-Recorded Liens, One Per Parcel: The Rest of HRS 651-92(a)
The paragraph that decides how much a creditor is actually arguing about.
“The fair market value of the interest exempted in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be determined by appraisal and shall be an interest which is over and above all liens and encumbrances on the real property recorded prior to the lien under which attachment or execution is to be made. Not more than one exemption shall be claimed on any one parcel of real property even though more than one person residing on such real property may otherwise be entitled to an exemption.”
The reference point is precise: the exempt interest must be over and above liens and encumbrances recorded prior to the lien under which attachment or execution is to be made – not prior to the judgment, not prior to the claim of exemption, and not simply “the mortgage”. Establishing that order is record work – the same recording history a creditor reads for the signs a debtor is hiding assets.
The second sentence’s tail is the operative half: even though more than one person residing on such real property may otherwise be entitled to an exemption. It is quoted rather than paraphrased: the tail turns on the word “person”, which HRS 651-91 defines for this subpart as the under-sixty-five, non-head-of-family class, and nothing read for this page settles whether it carries that defined sense here or its ordinary one. Where a married couple occupies the parcel, which spouse holds title is a separate marital-property question.
Subsection (a) then closes with one more paragraph, worth naming because it is the only increase-shaped language in the section: “Any claim of exemption under this section made before May 27, 1976, shall be deemed to be amended on May 27, 1976, by increasing the exemption to the amount permitted by this section on May 27, 1976, to the extent that such increase does not impair or defeat the right of any creditor who has executed upon the real property prior to May 27, 1976.” It operated once, retrospectively, on a single named date, subject to a saving for a creditor who had already executed. It is not an adjustment mechanism and has no forward operation – but it is there, so a flat statement that the section contains no increase provision would be wrong on its face.
Five Kinds of Process HRS 651-92(b) Does Not Stop
In the statute’s own numbering, because the asymmetry between the items is the point.
Subsection (b) opens: “No exemption authorized under this section shall apply to process arising from:” – and the chapeau matters as much as the list. Process arising from is wider than a catalogue of liens, and narrowing it to “these five liens” understates it.
The five, verbatim: (1) “A lien as provided by section 507-42”; (2) “A lien or security interest created by a mortgage, security agreement, or other security instrument”; (3) “A tax lien in the name of the federal or state government”; (4) “An improvement district lien of any county of the State”; or (5) “A lien or encumbrance recorded against the real property prior to the acquisition of interest in and commencement of residence on such real property.”
Item (3) names the federal or state government – it does not say “tax liens”, and paraphrasing it that way quietly widens it. Item (4) sits beside it and names exactly one county instrument, an improvement district lien. Whether an ordinary county real-property-tax lien falls inside (3) is not answered here in either direction; nothing read for this page settles it.
Item (5) carries two joined conditions: the lien or encumbrance must have been recorded before both the acquisition of interest in the property and the commencement of residence on it. Item (1) cross-refers to HRS 507-42, a section outside chapter 651 that was not read for this page, so the number is printed as the statute prints it and the lien it creates is not characterised. What is absent from the list matters too: an ordinary contract or tort judgment appears nowhere in subsection (b).
The Definitions Moved in 2016. The Amounts Have Not Moved Since 1978.
Two source notes, one subpart, and a contrast anyone can check.
HRS 651-91 closes with the source note [L 1976, c 136, pt of §1; am L 1978, c 46, §6; am L 2016, c 55, §31]. HRS 651-92 closes with [L 1976, c 136, pt of §1; am L 1978, c 46, §7]. The legislature came back to the definitions in 2016. It has not come back to the amounts since 1978.
The note records that Act 55 of 2016 amended HRS 651-91; it does not record what the act changed, no session law was read for this page, and the printed text is still gender-specific in a compilation regenerated after it – so the act cannot be assumed to have modernised the language. At the other end, the note records that L 1978, c 46 amended HRS 651-92, not that any act set $30,000 and $20,000; which act set them is not stated here.
Does the section index its own figures? It does not. HRS 651-92 was read whole – caption, both subsections, source note, Revision Note and case note – and searched for a consumer-price-index clause, a cost-of-living or inflation adjustment, an indexing mechanism, a periodic review and a schedule of amounts. None is present, in that section or in the definitions section. HRS 651-92 carries no adjustment mechanism of any kind, and its figures have not been amended since 1978 – with the 1976 transitional paragraph its single piece of increase-shaped language.
Two things the compilation prints get mistaken for changes in the law. HRS 651-92 carries a Revision Note: under HRS 23G-15 the revisor added commas in (a)(1) and (a)(2) and changed “paragraphs (1)” to “paragraph (1)” – punctuation and a cross-reference, and affirmative evidence the figures were untouched. And there is exactly one case note, labelled only “Compared to prior law”, citing 61 H. 590, 607 P.2d 411 (1980). That case was not read for this page and is not characterised here.
The volume containing chapter 651 carries a January 2026 file timestamp on the legislature’s server, and the section pages print no “current through” statement. A file timestamp is not a certification of currency, so these sections are cited with no temporal claim.
What Chapter 651 Contains, and What This Page Does Not Claim About It
The chapter’s own index, with an honest line drawn through it.
Chapter 651 is captioned “Attachment and Execution” and runs in three parts – Part I. Attachment, Part II. Execution, Part III. Exemptions. Parts I and II were not read for this page. Part III divides into three subparts, and everything quoted above comes from B. Real Property; the chapter index names the rest, and naming is all this page does with them.
| Where in Part III | Sections | What the chapter index calls them | On this page |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Generally | 651-61 to 651-70 | Eight entries, opening with “Exemption, how claimed” and closing with “Service of petition and notice of hearing; effects of failure to serve; appointment of appraisers”. The index prints “651-65 to 67 Repealed”. | Named only |
| B. Real Property | 651-91, 651-92, 651-93 | “Definitions”; “Real property exempt”; “Effect of separation, divorce, reconciliation” | Quoted here |
| B. Real Property | 651-94, 651-95, 651-96 | “Proceedings where real property can be divided without material injury”; “Sale where real property cannot be divided; application of proceeds”; “After sale, money equal to real property exemption protected” | Named only |
| C. Personal Property | 651-121 to 651-124 | “Certain personal property and insurance thereon, exempt”; “Personal property not exempt”; “Application of proceeds of sale”; “Pension money exempt” | Named only |
“Named only” means exactly that: the caption is what the index prints, the section’s text was not read, and no figure, deadline or procedure is stated from any of them – including the personal-property schedule at HRS 651-121 and the pension section at HRS 651-124.
Among the Part III captions set out above, none is captioned as a declaration of homestead and none is captioned as a general, residual or wildcard exemption. That is a statement about those captions and nothing wider: a caption list cannot rule out a clause sitting inside a section’s text.
Wage garnishment runs under provisions this page did not read, so no rate, threshold or procedure for it is stated above; our Hawaii wage garnishment page is where that subject sits. A Hawaii exemption asserted in a bankruptcy schedule is a different instrument, decided under different provisions.
Where the Research Fits
Three factual questions, each keyed to a phrase in the sections above.
Fix the parcel and the interest
Which parcel, and which interest in it the record shows: HRS 651-91 counts interests well beyond fee simple.
Date the encumbrances against the right lien
What was recorded prior to the lien under which attachment or execution is to be made.
Establish who resides there, and in what relation
Residence on the property, and care or maintenance of a relation listed in limb (2).
None of those steps is an opinion about what is exempt; they are the inputs a Hawaii attorney applies the statute to, on the locate side that runs into Hawaii judgment collection and our skip tracing services.
What We Will and Will Not Do
We search the record for the parcel, the interest the debtor holds in it, what was recorded ahead of your lien, and who the record shows residing there – each finding attributed to its source, and the gaps named. We will not tell you whether HRS 651-92 covers it; that reading belongs to Hawaii counsel. We are not a consumer reporting agency and nothing we produce is a consumer report for a credit, insurance, employment or tenancy decision. We decline requests where the purpose looks like reaching a person who left because of domestic violence or is protected by a protective order.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is Hawaii’s real-property exemption – $30,000 or $20,000?
HRS 651-92(a) has two limbs. Limb (1) exempts an interest in one parcel of real property in the State of Hawaii, of a fair market value not exceeding $30,000, owned by a defendant “who is either the head of a family or an individual sixty-five years of age or older” – two independent routes, and age is one of them. Limb (2) sets $20,000 for a defendant “who is a person”, and HRS 651-91 defines “person” as “any individual under sixty-five years of age other than the head of a family”. Which limb applies to a particular debtor is a legal question for Hawaii counsel.
Who counts as a “head of a family” under HRS 651-91?
HRS 651-91 does not define the phrase exhaustively. It says “Head of a family” “includes within its meaning” three limbs. Limb (1) is “A man and woman when married, except as provided in section 651-93”. Limb (2) is every individual residing on the real property who has under that individual’s care or maintenance one of five lettered relations, from minor children and grandchildren to parents, grandparents and an unmarried adult relative. Limb (3) is “Head of household as defined in section 2(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended”.
Is there a Declaration of Homestead to file in Hawaii?
Not under that name in the sections this page read. Among the Part III captions the chapter index prints, none is captioned as a declaration of homestead. What the chapter does use is the vocabulary of claiming – HRS 651-92 says “Not more than one exemption shall be claimed on any one parcel” – and the section captioned “Exemption, how claimed” is HRS 651-61, in a different subpart that was not read for this page. So nothing here describes a procedure, a form or any deadline.
Can two people on the same parcel each claim the exemption?
The paragraph of HRS 651-92(a) that follows limbs (1) and (2) says: “Not more than one exemption shall be claimed on any one parcel of real property even though more than one person residing on such real property may otherwise be entitled to an exemption.” The tail is the operative half, quoted rather than paraphrased: it turns on the word “person”, which HRS 651-91 defines for this subpart as the under-sixty-five, non-head-of-family class, and nothing read for this page settles whether the tail carries that defined sense or its ordinary one. Separately, HRS 651-93 says that after a decree of separate maintenance or an interlocutory decree of divorce “each spouse may claim a separate real property exemption under this part as a person”. Both are quoted; neither is harmonised.
What does the HRS 651-92 exemption not stop?
Subsection (b) says no exemption authorized under the section applies to “process arising from” five things: a lien as provided by section 507-42; a lien or security interest created by a mortgage, security agreement, or other security instrument; a tax lien in the name of the federal or state government; an improvement district lien of any county of the State; or a lien or encumbrance recorded against the real property prior to the acquisition of interest in and commencement of residence on such real property. Item (3) names the federal or state government, not tax liens at large.
Does this page cover a bankruptcy filing?
No. This page is about what a judgment creditor may reach outside bankruptcy, through attachment and execution under HRS chapter 651, and it is limited to the three sections it quotes. A bankruptcy filing is a different route with a different answer, and our Hawaii bankruptcy exemptions page carries that side. No federal exemption figure appears here.
Do you decide what is exempt, and on what basis do you research?
We do not decide it. Applying HRS 651-92 and HRS 651-91 to a specific debtor is legal work for a Hawaii attorney, and nothing on this page is legal advice. Every file is opened only after the requester states a purpose the law permits – here, enforcing a judgment already entered. We are also not a consumer reporting agency, and our work product may not be used for credit, insurance, employment or tenancy decisions.
Will you locate anyone we ask you to?
No. We decline requests where the pattern suggests the person left because of abuse, or where a protective order or restraining order is in the picture, and we do not take work aimed at intimidating or harassing someone. Holding a judgment does not make a locate appropriate if the effect would be to endanger a person. If a file turns in that direction while we are working it, we stop and tell you why.
Establish the Parcel, the Interest and the Recording Order
Give us the debtor, the judgment and the purpose behind it, and we will come back with what the record shows about the interest they hold and what was recorded ahead of your lien, with the gaps named – so Hawaii counsel can run HRS 651-92 against something real. A first pass on a parcel is normally back within 24 hours. Talk to us about opening a matter.
Start Your Request →
