§580-13 Security and enforcement of maintenance and alimony.

387 words·~2 min read·/hi/chapter-580/580-13

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

§580-13 Security and enforcement of maintenance and alimony. Whenever the court makes an order or decree requiring a spouse to provide for the care, maintenance, and education of children, or for an allowance to the other spouse, the court may require the person subject to such order or decree to give reasonable security for such maintenance and allowance. Upon neglect or refusal to give the security, or upon default of the person subject to such order or decree and such person's surety to provide the maintenance and allowance, the court may sequester such person's personal estate, and the rents and profits of such person's real estate, and may appoint a receiver thereof and cause such person's personal estate and the rents and profits of such person's real estate to be applied towards such maintenance and allowance, as to the court shall from time to time seem just and reasonable. [CC 1859, §1333; am L 1903, c 22, §2;

RL 1925, §2981; RL 1935, §4477; RL 1945, §12228; RL 1955, §324-39; HRS §580-13; am L 1973, c 211, §5(h); am L 1974, c 65, pt of §2]

Case Notes

This section is limitation upon words "or out of his property" found in §580-74. 26 H. 128 (1921).

Application in connection with contempt. 28 H. 291 (1925).

Receiver appointed. 28 H. 291 (1925); 35 H. 570 (1940).

Sequestration. 33 H. 725 (1936).

Judicial sale of real property at suggestion of both parties. 39 H. 653 (1953).

Failure to comply with alimony order must be punished as criminal contempt if contemnor lacks present ability to comply. 60 H. 160, 587 P.2d 1220 (1978).

Family court abused its discretion when it ordered husband to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $1,500,000, with wife as beneficiary, where:

(1)the divorce decree provided that husband's alimony obligation terminates, at the latest, upon husband's death;

(2)the amount appeared to far exceed spousal support payments reasonably likely to be accrued at the time of husband's death; and

(3)the amount appeared to far exceed the amount necessary to give reasonable security for the remaining amount of the two children's period of dependency. 134 H. 431 (App.), 341 P.3d 1231 (2014).

Cited: 13 H. 654, 661 (1901); 14 H. 152, 156 (1902); 23 H. 281, 289 (1916); 31 H. 574, 576 (1930).