Can a landlord charge for a pet in Hawaii, and what does the law require for an assistance animal?

Yes, up to a ceiling the statute sets for a pet deposit as such. One month's rent, as a separate ceiling for the pet portion (section 521-44, subsection (b)(2)). The statute states the general deposit and the pet deposit in one sentence as an addition, so a tenant with a pet may lawfully be asked for two months' rent in total and a tenant without one for a single month. It may be taken on top of the general deposit cap.

Hawaii is one of the few states with a second, separate ceiling for pet money. A landlord may require a security deposit for the five purposes the section lists and no others, one of which is damage caused by a pet animal allowed to live in the unit under the rental agreement, in an amount not above one month's rent, plus an amount agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant for pet damage, and that additional amount may not exceed one month's rent. Two things follow that most summaries drop. The pet amount is agreed, not imposed: it is a negotiated figure inside a ceiling. And it may not be required at all from a tenant who has no pet living in the unit, or for an assistance animal that is a reasonable accommodation under section 515-3. Nothing requires the pet portion to be held in a separate account, and the ordinary deposit still covers damage a pet does, because the purpose list reaches any tenant damage without an animal carve-out.

Refundability: Fully refundable. The pet portion is a security deposit and carries the entire section 521-44 scheme: the fourteen-day return with particulars, the forfeiture of any right to retain if the landlord is late, a small-claims route in which neither side may be represented by an attorney, single damages for a wrongful retention and treble damages where the landlord wrongfully and willfully kept the money.

The general deposit cap it sits against: One month's rent for everything other than the pet portion (section 521-44, subsection (b)). The deposit must be returned within fourteen days of the end of the tenancy with written particulars and written evidence of the costs claimed, and a landlord who misses that deadline loses the right to keep any of it; the security-deposits page carries the whole scheme.

Where the rule switches off or on: The pet ceiling applies to rental agreements entered into on or after November 1, 2013, the applicability date in the act that created it (Act 206 of 2013). An older agreement is outside it.

No for a non-refundable pet fee, which a general or specific rule bars. Monthly pet rent is open.

Hawaii bars move-in money that is neither rent nor a refundable deposit, so a non-refundable pet fee at signing has nowhere to sit, while a monthly pet charge agreed as rent is permitted without limit. That split is the whole answer, and it is the reason the same state can look strict and permissive at once. There is no reasonableness standard for a tenant fee anywhere in Hawaii law. A landlord who wants pet money at the start takes it as the additional pet security deposit, which is capped at one month's rent, refundable and purpose-limited; a landlord who wants it monthly charges it as rent, with the ordinary notice rules for any increase.

Monthly pet rent: Monthly pet rent is open. The rent section lets the landlord and tenant agree to any consideration not otherwise prohibited by law as rent (section 521-21, subsection (a)), and the Code does not define rent, so a recurring pet charge agreed as rent is permitted with no ceiling. It carries the ordinary rent-increase notice: forty-five days in writing for a month-to-month tenancy and fifteen days for a shorter one (subsections (d) and (e)). A late charge may not exceed eight percent of the rent due, which is the only percentage in the section and is not a pet rule.

A one-time pet fee: There is no room for a one-time move-in pet fee. Money taken at the start of a tenancy must be either the first month's rent or a security deposit under section 521-44, and a non-refundable fee is neither.

How far the non-refundable-fee rule reaches: The closing sentence of section 521-44, subsection (b): a landlord may not require or receive from or on behalf of a tenant, at the beginning of a rental agreement, any money other than the first month's rent and a security deposit as provided in that section. It is a closed list of move-in money rather than a rule that a fee must be refundable, and it is time-limited to the beginning of the agreement, so it does not reach a recurring charge. The word nonrefundable does not appear anywhere in the Landlord-Tenant Code.

No — but a written-rules or mid-term-change provision would govern a pet rule the landlord adopts.

No Hawaii statute requires a lease to state whether pets are allowed. The disclosure section lists the manager's and owner's names and addresses, a copy of a written agreement, rent receipts, an on-island agent for an absentee owner and the landlord's general excise tax number, and says nothing about animals. Nor does the state supply a default when the lease is silent: the deposit section speaks of a pet animal allowed to live in the unit under the rental agreement, which assumes permission without creating it. What does govern is the general rules section: a pet rule must clear the four-part test and a mid-term rule that substantially changes the bargain needs the tenant's written consent. A tenant in a condominium must also comply with the association's bylaws and a cooperative tenant with the corporation's bylaws, which is how a private no-pets rule reaches a tenancy. A pet kept against a valid rule is handled by a ten-day cure notice in the statutory form, with a possession action available within thirty days of a continuing or repeated breach (section 521-72). Hawaii has no number limit and no mandate that any class of housing allow pets.

Changing the rule mid-tenancy: Section 521-52. A tenant must comply with the landlord's obligations or restrictions, whatever the landlord calls them, if they were brought to the tenant's attention when the rental agreement was made; if they were not, they bind only once brought to the tenant's attention, and, where they work a substantial modification of the tenant's bargain under the agreement, only if the tenant consents to them in writing. Subsection (b) adds that no such rule is enforceable at all unless it promotes the convenience, safety or welfare of the tenants, preserves the landlord's property from abusive use or distributes services and facilities fairly; is reasonably related to that purpose; applies to all tenants of the property in a fair manner; and is explicit enough to tell the tenant what to do or not do. A no-pets rule or a new pet charge introduced part-way through a tenancy is the kind of substantial modification that needs written consent.

Yes, for a pet — the only breed rule in housing is that an assistance animal may not be refused on breed.

No Hawaii statute limits a landlord's breed, size or weight rule for an ordinary pet, and the word breed appears nowhere in the Landlord-Tenant Code, the fair-housing chapter, the disability chapter or the entire insurance title. The one breed rule in housing protects assistance animals only, and it is in the Civil Rights Commission's rules: a housing provider may refuse a particular assistance animal only where the animal is a direct threat that the handler does not control, would cause substantial physical damage that no accommodation can reduce, would be an undue financial and administrative burden, or would fundamentally alter the provider's operations, and the decision must rest on an individual assessment of the specific animal, such as its current conduct or a recent history of overt acts. The rule then says in terms that the decision may not be based on the animal's species or breed, and that refusing one animal does not stop a request to use a different one. Outside housing, the state's dangerous-dog law says a dog's breed is not to be considered in deciding whether it is dangerous, which binds county animal control rather than landlords.

Size and weight: Neither size nor weight is addressed anywhere. A size or weight limit on an ordinary pet is lawful in Hawaii; applied to an assistance animal it would have to survive the same individual assessment that a breed objection must.

Yes — a state statute or rule sets what a landlord may request or what a certifier must meet for an assistance animal in housing. Both a statute and an administrative rule under it speak to it.

It is a discriminatory practice, because of disability, to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when they may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a housing accommodation; where the accommodation includes the use of an assistance animal, reasonable restrictions may be imposed (section 515-3, subsection (a)(9)). The same subsection sets the documentation rule, stated below. The Commission's rules fill in what a reasonable restriction is: a housing provider may require the tenant to observe leash and pick-up laws, to take responsibility for damage the animal causes, to clean the unit on leaving by fumigation, deodorizing, professional carpet cleaning or another appropriate method, to clean up the animal's waste, to license the animal with the county where the county requires it, to have the animal vaccinated with documentation of the vaccination, and to keep the animal under control in common areas by harness, leash, tether, cage, carrier or other physical control, with voice or signal control substituted where the disability makes physical control impracticable or where it would interfere with the animal's assistance; any other reasonable restriction must leave the unit in the condition it was in before the tenancy, except for reasonable wear and tear. A refusal to allow a particular assistance animal is permitted only on four grounds and only after an individual assessment, as stated under breed above. One limit exists in the rule and not in the statute: a provider need not accommodate a person who meets the definition of disability only under the record-of or regarded-as prongs.

Who it binds: Every owner, any other person engaging in a real estate transaction, and any real estate broker or salesperson, statewide, with two exemptions that do reach the accommodation duty because they are written against the whole section: the rental of a housing accommodation in a building containing housing for no more than two families living independently where the owner or lessor lives in one of them, and the rental of a room or up to four rooms in a housing accommodation where the owner or lessor lives there (section 515-4, subsection (a)). The Commission's rules repeat the exemption. There is no other unit threshold. The exemption has a knock-on effect on money: because the pet-deposit exemption applies to an assistance animal that is an accommodation under section 515-3, in an exempt owner-occupied duplex or room rental the state deposit exemption has nothing to attach to. Religious-institution and older-persons carve-outs exist in the same section and do not reach disability.

The rule's currency: Hawaii Administrative Rules chapter 12-46, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission's rules, sections 12-46-302, 12-46-306, 12-46-313 and 12-46-318. The amendments and compilation shown on the chapter's summary page dated November 19, 2024 were adopted that day after a public hearing on November 4, 2024, and the filed copy is stamped as filed July 9, 2025; by its own terms the chapter took effect ten days after filing, so the current text has been in force since about July 19, 2025. The operative animal language dates from the amendment of October 6, 2013 and was carried forward unchanged. It is published by the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations for the Commission.

Two requests, each gated on a condition, rather than a list of questions. Only if the disability is not readily apparent may the housing provider request information verifying that the person has a disability, meaning a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Only if the disability-related need for the animal is not readily apparent may it request verification that the animal is needed to alleviate one or more symptoms of the disability (section 515-3, subsection (a)(9)). Where the disability or the need is obvious, nothing may be demanded. The provider may not request medical records or access to health care providers, and may not ask about the diagnosis, nature or severity of the disability.

An online certificate is not, by itself, sufficient. A treatment relationship is required. A landlord may not require medical records, a diagnosis or its severity. A landlord may require proof of vaccination or licensing compliance.

Who may certify: Verification may be provided by a letter or other communication from the person's treating health care professional, mental health professional or social worker (section 515-3, subsection (a)(9)). Hawaii names no license type, no license number and no rule that the writer be licensed in the state, and it prescribes no form; the words letter or other communication leave the format open. The whole professions and occupations title was read for a duty on the writer and there is none.

The relationship test: No day count and no minimum number of sessions. The only relational word in the statute is treating, in the phrase the person's treating health care professional, mental health professional or social worker (section 515-3, subsection (a)(9)).

Hawaii's rule is short and unusually clear. A housing provider may ask for verification of the disability only where the disability is not obvious, and for verification of the need for the animal only where that need is not obvious. The verification may be a letter or any other communication from the person's treating health care professional, mental health professional or social worker, with no license list and no form. The provider may not ask for medical records, may not ask for access to the person's health care providers, and may not ask about the diagnosis, nature or severity of the disability. A vest, tag, garment or registration document of the kind commonly bought online, purporting to identify an animal as a service or assistance animal, is not valid verification, which has been in the statute since November 1, 2022. Hawaii sets no minimum treatment period, no rule about remote or in-person evaluation, no annual re-evaluation and no deadline for the landlord's answer, and it puts no duty on the professional who writes the letter. What the provider may require is proof of vaccination and county licensing for the animal, which the Commission's rules list among the reasonable restrictions. The rule prints its own worked example, of a condominium owner with an anxiety disorder whose treating psychologist's letter obliges the association to allow an emotional support rabbit, subject to reasonable restrictions.

No, not a pet deposit — the state bar is a carve-out in the deposit statute that reaches an emotional support animal, and it does not reach pet rent or a one-time pet fee.

The additional pet security deposit may not be required for an assistance animal that is a reasonable accommodation for a tenant with a disability under section 515-3 (section 521-44, subsection (b)(1)(B)). Because the state's assistance-animal definition expressly covers emotional support animals, untrained animals and species other than dogs, the bar reaches an emotional support animal on the face of the statute rather than by inference. Three limits belong with it. A non-refundable move-in fee for an assistance animal is barred too, but by the general rule that bars such a fee for anyone, not by an animal rule. Monthly pet rent for an assistance animal has no express state bar at all: a tenant would have to argue that charging it is a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation under section 515-3, subsection (a)(9). And the ordinary security deposit still covers damage an assistance animal does, because only the additional pet deposit is barred. A separate no-extra-charge right for a trained service animal exists in the disability chapter but is scoped to carriers, hotels, lodging places and other public places, so it does not reach a tenancy.

The definition it hangs on: "'Assistance animal' means an animal that is needed to perform disability-related work, services, or tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability or provide emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability. 'Assistance animals' may include but are not limited to service animals, therapy animals, comfort animals, or emotional support animals that may have formal training or may be untrained and may include species other than dogs" (HRS § 515-3(b)).

Remedy: The fair-housing chapter's ordinary route: a complaint to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission under section 515-9 and the remedies in section 515-13. Hawaii attaches no damages multiplier to a wrongful pet charge for an assistance animal.

The tenant is liable for damage the animal causes like any other tenant, by express words.

The tenant remains liable for damage on the same footing as any other tenant. The deposit section's purpose list reaches accidental and intentional damage by any tenant with no animal carve-out (section 521-44, subsection (a)(1)), and the Commission's rules expressly allow a housing provider to require the tenant to assume responsibility for damage caused by the animal and to leave the unit in the condition it was in before the tenancy, except for reasonable wear and tear. Separately, a general tort rule makes the owner or harborer of an animal liable for personal or property damage regardless of any lack of knowledge of the animal's tendencies, and absolutely liable where the animal is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious (section 663-9).

An offense or sanction that reaches a misrepresentation made to obtain housing: a civil penalty, reaching the person claiming the animal. Penalty terms: not less than $100 and not more than $250 for a first violation; and not less than $500 for a second violation and each violation after that. The text names no venue and no court has construed its reach, so it reaches housing by its general words.

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly misrepresent as a service animal any animal that does not meet the service-animal definition, and the fine is not less than $100 and not more than $250 for a first violation and not less than $500 for a second and each one after that, on clear and convincing evidence (section 347-2.6). The text names no place, so nothing in it excludes a tenancy, and the act that created it in 2018 said the penalty was meant in part to discourage people from misrepresenting a pet as a service animal in order to gain housing amenities that lawful pet restrictions would otherwise deny; no court has construed how far it reaches. The gap that matters is in the definition it hangs on. A service animal in that chapter is a trained dog, and emotional support, comfort and companionship are expressly excluded, while the housing rule runs on the wider assistance-animal term. So a tenant who falsely claims a trained service dog commits the offense, and a tenant who falsely claims an emotional support animal, which is the far commoner case, commits no Hawaii offense at all. Hawaii penalizes no letter writer, no vendor and no clinician, and there is no criminal counterpart anywhere in the penal code.

Who enforces it: A civil penalty, imposed on clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard than the usual civil one. The section preserves any other civil remedy available to a person, entity or organization arising from a misrepresentation (section 347-2.6, subsection (c)). It creates no eviction ground and no licensing sanction.

State law says nothing either way about local pet rules in housing.

No Hawaii statute preempts a county pet, deposit or breed rule in housing, and none grants a county power over one. The Landlord-Tenant Code uses the word ordinance once, and it points the other way: an instrument authorizing someone other than the beneficial owner to act as landlord requires that person to use rents in conformity with the chapter and with any other law, code, ordinance or regulation about the maintenance and operation of the premises. The fair-housing chapter has neither a preemption clause nor a clause handing fair-housing work to counties, so Hawaii is not one of the states that devolves the duty. The county-powers chapter grants animal control and nothing more: each county may provide public pounds, regulate the impounding and disposition of stray animals and fowl, and appoint animal control officers. The animal-control chapter adds that nothing in it limits a county's authority to regulate animals other than dogs. The one state sentence that constrains a county on breed is in the dangerous-dog law and binds the officer making a declaration, not a landlord. No Hawaii county carries a pet-in-housing rule on this site.