SB155 would significantly revise Hawaii’s landlord-tenant law by moving the state toward a “for-cause” eviction framework for many residential tenancies. The bill states that landlords may not terminate a tenancy or seek summary possession unless one of the listed causes exists, such as substantial tenant violations, nonpayment of rent, nuisance, illegal use, or other specified breaches. It also defines “substantial violation” and preserves existing remedies for rent default and other tenant misconduct, while clarifying that good-faith actions for possession under the bill’s exceptions are treated as no-fault evictions.
The bill also creates a new statutory part governing when a landlord may use a no-fault eviction. Permitted no-fault grounds include demolition, conversion to condominiums, change of use to transient vacation rentals, substantial repairs or renovations, owner or immediate-family occupancy, sale of certain properties, refusal to sign a new lease on reasonable terms, and a pattern of late rent payments. Each ground comes with notice requirements and waiting periods, generally 90 days, with a 120-day notice for demolition or conversion and a shorter 45-day period for servicemembers. In addition, landlords using a no-fault eviction must offer relocation assistance or waive the final month’s rent, and tenants may have a first right of refusal to return after shorter-term repairs.
SB155 would amend existing provisions in Chapter 521, Hawaii Revised Statutes, including sections governing nonpayment of rent and landlord recovery of possession, to align them with the new cause-based eviction rules. It would also limit certain uses of no-fault eviction before the end of a rental term and add protections against retaliatory use of repair-based evictions. The bill is set to take effect on January 1, 2026, and applies prospectively without affecting already matured rights or pending proceedings.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly tenant-protective. The findings emphasize housing insecurity, arbitrary non-renewals, and the chilling effect that fear of eviction can have on tenants who report habitability problems. The bill’s structure suggests a policy goal of reducing displacement and stabilizing housing for renters, while still preserving landlord remedies for legitimate misconduct and certain property-related needs.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s language, the most likely points of contention would be the restriction on landlord discretion, the expanded notice and relocation obligations, and the limits on no-cause nonrenewals versus the bill’s exceptions for owner occupancy, sale, repairs, and late rent history. Landlords and property owners may view the measure as burdensome, while tenant advocates would likely support it as a housing-stability and anti-retaliation reform.
SB155 would add a new part to Chapter 521 and amend existing landlord-tenant provisions to require cause for most tenancy terminations, thereby narrowing the circumstances under which landlords may pursue summary possession. It would also impose mandatory notice periods, documentation requirements, and relocation assistance or rent-waiver obligations for specified no-fault evictions, while updating related statutes on nonpayment and landlord recovery of possession to conform to the new framework. The bill would affect landlords, tenants, property managers, and owners of residential rental property, especially in contexts involving redevelopment, conversion, owner move-in, and lease renewal.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect a clear pro-tenant, anti-displacement sentiment. It frames no-cause evictions as a source of housing instability and retaliation risk, and it seeks to protect renters who are otherwise in good standing. No contrary committee record or vote history is provided, so the available materials show only the bill’s supportive framing and do not document any formal opposition or amendment debate.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s limits on landlords’ ability to end tenancies without cause, the mandatory 90- to 120-day notice periods, and the requirement to provide relocation assistance or waive the final month’s rent. Landlords may object to the reduced flexibility for owner occupancy, sale, renovation, and conversion decisions, as well as the new evidentiary and timing requirements. Tenant advocates, by contrast, are likely to support the bill’s anti-retaliation protections, first-right-of-refusal provisions, and the shift toward for-cause eviction standards.