Current through July 1, 2026 · Last verified September 11, 2026
In one sentenceRule 9 relaxes the pleading burden for capacity, conditions precedent, official acts and judgments, and tightens it for fraud and mistake.
(a)(a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.
(b)(b) Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.
(c)(c) Conditions precedent. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity.
(d)(d) Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.
(e)(e) Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matters showing jurisdiction to render it.
(f)(f) Time and place. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matters.
The Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s compiled text of this rule carries no amendment order for this rule. For the adopting orders and any later amendments, see the Hawaiʻi State Judiciary’s rules page.
Plain-English Summary
Most of this rule tells a pleader what not to bother alleging. Capacity to sue or be sued, authority to sue in a representative capacity, and the legal existence of an organized association need not be averred. A party who wants to put any of those in issue must do it by specific negative averment, with the supporting particulars peculiarly within that party knowledge.
The same economy runs through the middle subdivisions. Conditions precedent may be alleged generally, though a denial must be specific and particular. An official document or act may be pleaded by averring it was issued or done in compliance with law. A judgment of a domestic or foreign court, tribunal, board or officer may be pleaded without setting out the matters that gave it jurisdiction.
One subdivision runs the other way. Fraud and mistake must be stated with particularity: the circumstances constituting them have to appear. Malice, intent, knowledge and other conditions of mind may still be averred generally, which is the concession that makes the particularity requirement workable. Averments of time and place are material and are tested like any other material averment.
Frequently Asked Questions
How must fraud be pleaded in Hawaii family court?
With particularity. The circumstances constituting the fraud or mistake must be stated, though intent and knowledge may be averred generally.
Do I have to plead capacity to sue?
No. Capacity, representative authority and the legal existence of an organized association need not be averred. A party contesting them must do so by specific negative averment.
How are conditions precedent pleaded?
Generally: it is enough to aver that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial must be specific and particular.
How is a prior judgment pleaded?
By averring the judgment or decision itself, without setting forth the matters that show jurisdiction to render it.
Are time and place material?
Yes. For testing the sufficiency of a pleading they are material and are considered like any other material averment.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Hawaii Family Court Rules (Haw. Fam. Ct. R. 9). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified September 11, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:pleading fraud hawaii family courthawaii family court special matters pleadingconditions precedent pleading hawaiihawaii family court rule 9