SB155 would substantially revise Hawaii’s landlord-tenant eviction rules by moving the state toward a “for-cause” framework for many residential tenancies. The bill states that landlords may not serve a notice to terminate tenancy or file for summary possession unless there is cause, and it defines several categories of cause, including substantial tenant violations, nonpayment of rent, waste, nuisance, illegal use, holdover after lease expiration, and other specified breaches. It also creates a new part in Chapter 521 governing “no-fault evictions,” which are allowed only in limited circumstances such as demolition, condominium conversion, 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 repeated late rent payments.
The bill adds procedural protections and notice requirements for each type of no-fault eviction. Depending on the reason, landlords must give tenants 45 to 120 days’ notice, provide written explanations and supporting documentation, and in some cases allow tenants a right of first refusal to return after repairs. It also bars certain no-fault evictions when repairs are required to fix habitability problems or are retaliatory. For owner-occupancy cases, the landlord or family member must move in within three months, and for sale or conversion cases the unit may not be relisted as a transient vacation rental for a period after the tenant leaves. The bill further requires landlords who use a no-fault eviction to offer relocation assistance or waive the final month’s rent.
SB155 would amend existing eviction statutes in Chapter 521, including the rent-default and summary possession provisions, to align them with the new cause-based and no-fault eviction rules. It also clarifies that good-faith actions for summary possession under the amended statute constitute no-fault evictions under the new part. The measure would take effect on January 1, 2026, and would not affect rights, penalties, or proceedings that arose before that date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly tenant-protective. The findings emphasize that many Hawaii households rent, that arbitrary non-renewals contribute to housing instability, and that fear of eviction can deter tenants from reporting repair and habitability issues. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call history in the materials to indicate support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated policy goals.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between tenant protections and landlord flexibility. The bill limits when landlords can end tenancies without cause, imposes lengthy notice periods, and adds relocation or rent-waiver obligations, which could be viewed by landlords as burdensome or restrictive. At the same time, the bill preserves eviction rights for serious tenant misconduct, nonpayment, and certain good-faith property needs, suggesting an attempt to balance housing stability with property management and redevelopment interests.
SB155 would create a new statutory framework in Chapter 521 that restricts termination of residential tenancies to specified causes and regulates the limited circumstances in which a landlord may proceed with a no-fault eviction. It would amend existing rent-default and summary possession provisions to incorporate the new cause/no-fault structure, and it would add notice, timing, documentation, and relocation-assistance requirements that landlords must follow before recovering possession for redevelopment, repairs, owner occupancy, sale, lease refusal, or repeated late rent. The bill would directly affect landlords, tenants, property managers, and residential rental markets in Hawaii, especially for month-to-month and fixed-term tenancies.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect a clear pro-tenant and housing-stability orientation, emphasizing the harms of arbitrary non-renewals and retaliatory displacement. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded legislative debate in the supplied materials; however, the bill’s structure suggests support for stronger tenant protections while still preserving landlord remedies for cause and limited good-faith no-fault situations.
Likely areas of contention are the bill’s restrictions on lease non-renewal and the added burdens on landlords who need to recover units for repairs, sale, conversion, or personal occupancy. Landlords may object to the mandatory notice periods, documentation requirements, return rights after short-term repairs, and the requirement to provide relocation assistance or waive a month’s rent. Tenant advocates would likely support those provisions as necessary to prevent displacement and retaliation, while some property owners may argue that the bill narrows flexibility too much, especially in a high-cost housing market.