Free Hawaii Rental Application Fee Receipt

Hawaii is a short statute with one very sharp edge. HRS § 521-46 occupies a few hundred words, sets no maximum fee, imposes no pre-fee disclosure, and creates no penalty — which is why most summaries of it are a single line about cost recovery and stop there. The edge is in subsection (c). The unused part of the fee has to be returned within thirty days after the landlord has submitted screening requests, and that is a starting event no ordinary rental process records. Every other refund clock a landlord is likely to have met runs from something visible: an application, a payment, a decision, a move-in date. This one runs from the moment you sent the requests out, which lives in a vendor portal or an email timestamp and is usually reconstructed months later, if at all. The consequence is that a landlord can be meticulous about the money and still miss the deadline, simply by never having written down the date it ran from. The rest of the section is straightforward but has its own traps. The fee is permitted at the time the application is processed and only to cover the costs of obtaining information about the applicant, which is a purpose limit rather than a ceiling: the number is yours to set and yours to justify against what the information actually cost. It may be charged only for an applicant who is eighteen or older or an emancipated minor, which quietly outlaws the per-occupant fee schedule that property software makes the path of least resistance. And the receipt and the itemized breakdown are owed upon request — a conditional duty, but one you can only satisfy quickly if the underlying record already exists. One question comes before all three, and it is a question about the letting rather than about the fee: § 521-46 is a section of the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code, and § 521-7 of that code, captioned Exclusions from application of chapter, puts thirteen categories of arrangement outside it altogether — institutional residence incidental to detention or care, university and college housing and certain private dorm-management companies, contract-of-sale occupancy, fraternal-organization residence, day-to-day hotel and motel occupancy, employee and pensioner occupancy, long leases of improved residential land, occupancy by a prospective purchaser or by a seller after transfer, homeless facilities, public housing authority property, and transitional facilities for abused family or household members. Inside the chapter the duties below are exactly as stated; outside it the chapter does not reach the arrangement at all. This page works through that gate first, then each of those in turn, sets out the evidence that makes each one provable, and is explicit about the several things the section does not say.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a dated PDF you can print, sign and give to the applicant, keeping a copy for your file. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields you leave blank print as a dash so you can complete them by hand.

Watch: Hawaii Rental Application Fee Receipt explained

▶ Watch overview

The generator above produces the receipt and the cost breakdown that § 521-46(b) requires you to provide upon an applicant’s request, and gives you somewhere to record the date the screening requests were submitted — the fact subsection (c) runs its thirty days from. Hawaii prescribes no form, so this is not a statutory form and is not captioned as one. It records the parties and the unit, the amount received with its date and method, the screening company used, the criteria applied, the outcome, and the refund position. Why issue it when the duty is conditional. The receipt and the breakdown are owed upon request. Producing them as a matter of course costs nothing, discharges the duty before it is triggered, and — more usefully — forces the underlying record to exist at the moment the information is easy to gather. A breakdown you can only assemble by going back to a vendor portal months later is a breakdown you will struggle to produce inside any reasonable period once asked. What it deliberately does not print. No dollar ceiling, because the section contains none and a number invented for a form is a number a landlord would rely on. And no penalty or enforcement statement, because the section as read carries neither. And one thing it assumes. It is written for a letting chapter 521 governs; § 521-7 excludes thirteen categories from that chapter, and the record does not ask which yours is, because that is a question of fact about the property rather than a field. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields left blank print as a dash.

• That your letting is one chapter 521 governs. § 521-46 is a section of that chapter, and § 521-7 excludes thirteen categories from it — university and college housing, a private dorm-management company offering fifty beds or more, day-to-day hotel and motel occupancy, employee and pensioner occupancy, a lease of improved residential land for fifteen years or more, homeless facilities, transitional facilities for abused family or household members, and Hawaii public housing authority property among them.
• That the applicant was eighteen or older, or an emancipated minor. The condition on charging at all, in § 521-46(a).
• That nobody younger was charged. Which in practice means showing your fee schedule as applied, not as advertised — a per-occupant schedule breaches this by default.
• What the fee was set to cover. The costs of obtaining information about the applicant: reference checks, tenant reports, criminal background checks, credit reports.
• That the fee was charged at the time the application was processed. The frame the subsection uses for when the charge arises.
• The date you submitted the screening requests. The single most important date on the file, because § 521-46(c) runs from it.
• The vendor and order reference for each request. What proves the submission date and evidences the cost.
• The actual cost of each item obtained. The subtraction in subsection (c) is only as good as the invoice behind it.
• The receipt you issued, if the applicant asked for one. § 521-46(b)(1).
• The breakdown of costs covered, if the applicant asked for one. § 521-46(b)(2) — a separate document from the receipt.
• The amount returned, when and how. Within thirty days of submitting the screening requests, by a method you can evidence.
• That an unspent fee went back in full. Where no screening request was ever submitted, nothing was used for the authorized purposes.
• Your adverse-action record where a consumer report drove a rejection. Federal consumer-reporting law applies alongside § 521-46 and was not researched from primary sources here.
• Any county requirement you are also meeting. No county ordinance was researched for this page.

• Running the thirty days from payment. § 521-46(c) runs them from the landlord having submitted the screening requests. Payment is usually earlier, sometimes by weeks, and a diary entry set from the wrong event is a deadline calculated from the wrong day.
• Running them from the decision, or from move-in. Both are later events and neither appears in the subsection. A landlord who waits for the outcome before thinking about the refund may already be outside the period.
• Never recording the submission date at all. This is the most common failure, and it is a records failure rather than a legal one. Without the date, you cannot show you were inside thirty days even if you were.
• Holding a fee for a screening you never ordered. If no request was submitted, nothing was used for the authorized purposes and the whole fee is unused. Return it promptly rather than relying on an argument about a clock that never started.
• Charging a per-occupant fee that sweeps in under-eighteens. The fee may be charged only for an applicant who is eighteen or older or an emancipated minor. Per-person pricing breaches that the first time a household with a younger member applies.
• Assuming there is a cap to stay under. There is no dollar figure in the section. The limit is the cost of obtaining the information, which means the discipline is documentary rather than numerical.
• Building margin or staff time into the fee. The permitted purpose is the costs of obtaining information about the applicant. An amount that exists whether or not anything was obtained is not a cost of obtaining anything, and is unused within the meaning of subsection (c).
• Treating the receipt and the breakdown as one document. § 521-46(b) lists two: a receipt for payment, and a breakdown of costs covered. Providing one does not discharge the request for the other.
• Treating ‘upon request’ as ‘never’. The duty is conditional, not absent. When the request comes, the section sets no period for compliance, which makes promptness the only sensible standard — and promptness depends on the record existing already.
• Refunding only rejected applicants. The duty is to return any amount not used for the authorized purposes. An approved applicant whose screening cost less than the fee is owed the balance in exactly the same way.
• Relying on guidance written before Act 200 of 2023. Before that Act there was no provision of this kind, so any summary predating it describes a different position entirely.
• Assuming the chapter applies to every letting. § 521-46 sits inside chapter 521, and § 521-7, ‘Exclusions from application of chapter’, puts thirteen categories outside it — institutional residence incidental to detention or care, university and college housing and certain private dorm-management companies, contract-of-sale occupancy, fraternal-organization residence, day-to-day hotel and motel occupancy, employee and pensioner occupancy, a lease of improved residential land for fifteen years or more, occupancy by a prospective purchaser or by a seller after transfer, homeless facilities, public housing authority property in two forms, and transitional facilities for abused family or household members. That does not weaken the duties on a letting the chapter covers; it means the classification question comes first, and it is a question of fact about your property.

No. HRS § 521-46 contains no dollar figure. What subsection (a) does is tie the fee to a purpose: a landlord or the landlord’s agent may charge an application screening fee at the time the application is processed for the dwelling unit to cover the costs of obtaining information about the applicant.

That is a limit, but it is a documentary limit rather than a numerical one. There is no ceiling to stay under, and equally no safe number that is automatically defensible. What makes a fee defensible here is being able to point at the components: the credit report, the tenant report, the criminal background check, the reference checks, each with what it actually cost.

The subsection names those components itself. Information sought by the landlord or the landlord’s agent charging the fee may include personal reference checks, tenant reports, criminal background checks, and credit reports produced by any consumer credit reporting agency. That list is illustrative rather than exhaustive — it says may include — but it is a good description of the category. What it plainly does not describe is staff time, general overhead, or a figure chosen to deter casual applicants.

One boundary belongs on that answer, and it comes before everything else on this page. § 521-46 is a section of chapter 521, the Residential Landlord-Tenant Code, so it reaches what the chapter reaches and no further. § 521-7, captioned “Exclusions from application of chapter”, provides that unless created solely to avoid the chapter’s application, the chapter shall not apply to thirteen categories: residence at an institution, public or private, where residence is merely incidental to detention or the provision of medical, geriatric, educational, religious or similar services; residence in a structure directly controlled and managed by the University of Hawaii or any other university or college in the State for housing its own students or faculty, or in a structure erected on land leased from one by a nonprofit corporation for the exclusive purpose of housing them, or by a private dorm management company that offers a minimum of fifty beds to students of any college, university or other institution of higher education in the State; occupancy under a bona fide contract of sale where the tenant is, or succeeds to the interest of, the purchaser; residence by a member of a fraternal organization in a structure operated without profit for the benefit of the organization; transient occupancy on a day-to-day basis in a hotel or motel; occupancy by an employee of the owner or landlord whose right to occupancy is conditional upon that employment, or by a pensioner of the owner or landlord, or occupancy for up to four years afterwards under a plan for transferring the unit to the occupant; a lease of improved residential land for a term of fifteen years or more; occupancy by a prospective purchaser after an accepted offer and before the actual transfer of the owner’s rights; occupancy by the seller of residential real property after the transfer of the seller’s ownership rights; occupancy in a homeless facility or any other program for the homeless authorized under part XVII of chapter 346; residence or occupancy in a public housing project or complex directly controlled, owned or managed by the Hawaii public housing authority under the federal low rent public housing program; residence or occupancy in a transitional facility for abused family or household members; and residence or occupancy in a structure or on a property directly controlled, owned or managed by the Hawaii public housing authority.

Read that as a gate, not as a doubt. Where your letting is one the chapter covers — the ordinary residential tenancy this page is written for — everything below applies to you exactly as stated: the purpose limit, the eighteen-or-older restriction, the two documents owed on request, and the thirty-day refund clock. Where it is one of the thirteen, chapter 521 does not govern the arrangement at all, and whatever law does is not described here. Which side of the line a particular property falls on is a question of fact about the letting and not one this page can settle: whether a lodging is run on a day-to-day transient basis or as a tenancy, whether an employee’s right to occupy is genuinely conditional on the employment, and how long an improved-land lease has to run are all facts about the arrangement rather than conclusions from a statute. Answer it for your own property before you rely on anything that follows.

Within thirty days after the landlord has submitted screening requests. That is the whole of subsection (c): the landlord or the landlord’s agent shall return to the applicant any amount of the application screening fee that is not used for the purposes authorized by the section within thirty days after the landlord has submitted screening requests.

This is the single most misdescribed detail in Hawaii, and it is worth stating what the clock is not before saying anything else about it. It does not run from the date of the application. It does not run from the date the fee was paid. It does not run from the date the reports came back. It does not run from your approval or denial, and it does not run from move-in. It runs from your own act of sending the screening requests out.

There is a logic to that. The fee is money collected to buy information; submitting the requests is the moment the money begins to be spent and the moment the eventual cost becomes knowable. Anchoring the clock there means a slow decision cannot extend the deadline and an early application cannot shorten it. It is a clean, landlord-side event.

It is also an event that almost no rental process writes down. Every other deadline a landlord is likely to have dealt with runs from something with a paper trail. This one lives in a screening platform’s order history or an email timestamp, and is typically reconstructed — if it can be — long afterwards.

Three timelines cover almost everything that happens in a real letting.

Requests submitted the same day the fee is taken. The applicant pays on the 1st and you order the credit report and tenant report that afternoon. Payment and submission coincide, so the clock starts on the 1st and the balance is due back within thirty days of it. This is the straightforward case, and it is straightforward only because the two dates happen to be the same.

Requests submitted later. The applicant pays on the 1st, but you are waiting on a signed authorisation, or holding the file while a second applicant for the same unit completes, and you do not submit anything until the 12th. The clock starts on the 12th. A landlord who diarised thirty days from payment is simply early, which is harmless. A landlord who diarised nothing now has a deadline anchored to a date that exists only in a vendor’s records.

Requests never submitted. The applicant pays on the 1st; the unit is let to someone else on the 3rd; you never order anything. Nothing was used for the authorized purposes, so the entire fee is unused and the entire fee is owed back. Whether a thirty-day period that runs from a submission has begun where there was no submission is a question the sentence does not squarely answer — which is precisely why this case should never be allowed to turn into a timing argument. Return the whole fee promptly and record the date you did.

The fix for all three is one field on the application file: screening requests submitted on [date], vendor, order reference. Filled in the day you send the requests, it takes ten seconds and it fixes the start of the period, evidences that the fee was spent on the authorized purpose, and supplies the backbone of the itemized breakdown discussed below.

The amount not used for the authorized purposes, and no, the outcome of the application is irrelevant to the calculation.

Subsection (c) is a subtraction. Take the fee, subtract what was actually spent on obtaining information about this applicant, and return the difference. It says nothing about whether the applicant was approved, rejected, or withdrew. So an approved applicant whose screening cost less than the fee is owed the balance in exactly the same way as a rejected one; an applicant whose screening consumed the whole fee is owed nothing, whichever way the decision went.

Two consequences follow for how you price. If you set the fee close to your actual screening cost, the refunds are small and infrequent and the administration is light. If you set it well above, you have created a refund obligation on nearly every application, and the arithmetic has to be done each time within thirty days of an event you may not have recorded. The purpose limit in subsection (a) and the refund duty in subsection (c) therefore push in the same direction: a fee set at cost is both easier to justify and easier to administer.

The word doing the work is used. What you may keep is money that actually went on obtaining information about the applicant. A flat administrative component that exists whether or not anything was ordered has not been used for an authorized purpose, and a landlord who cannot show what a particular application cost cannot show that any part of the fee was used at all.

Only an applicant who is eighteen years of age or older, or an emancipated minor. The proviso sits in subsection (a) and is unconditional: the landlord or the landlord’s agent shall only charge an application screening fee for such an applicant.

This is the rule most likely to be broken without anyone deciding to break it. Property management software commonly prices screening per applicant or per occupant, because that is how the screening vendor prices its own product, and a schedule set up that way charges for every person named on the application. When a single adult applies, nothing goes wrong. When a household including a seventeen-year-old applies, the schedule bills for them too, and the breach happens at intake without a decision being made.

The fix belongs in the fee schedule rather than in a member of staff’s memory. Charge per adult applicant. Have the application form capture each person’s status — adult applicant, emancipated minor, other household member — so the exclusion is applied when the fee is calculated rather than remembered when someone queries it. And check what your screening vendor is invoicing you for, because a vendor that bills per occupant will bill you for people you cannot lawfully charge, which is a commercial problem for you and not a licence to pass the cost on.

One point of scope, stated so the page does not over-claim: the proviso is about who may be charged a fee. It says nothing this page can rely on about how household members may otherwise be considered in a letting decision, which is a separate body of law and was not researched here.

Two, and both are conditional on the applicant asking. Subsection (b) provides that upon request by the applicant, a landlord or the landlord’s agent shall provide to the applicant a receipt for payment of the application screening fee, and a breakdown of costs covered by the fee.

Read the structure carefully, because it is easy to flatten in either direction. These are not unconditional duties: nothing in the section requires you to issue either document unprompted. Nor are they courtesies: once the applicant asks, they are obligations, and there are two of them. A receipt showing that money was paid does not answer a request for a breakdown of what the money covered, and a breakdown does not double as a receipt.

The section sets no period for complying once a request is made, and states no penalty for failing to. That absence is not permission to be slow; it means the only workable standard is promptness, and promptness depends entirely on whether the underlying record already exists.

Which is the practical argument for issuing both as a matter of course. It costs nothing at the point of payment, it discharges the duty before it is triggered, and — most usefully — it forces you to assemble the cost information while the invoices are in front of you rather than months later from a vendor portal you may no longer have easy access to.

The section requires a breakdown of costs covered by the application screening fee and does not prescribe a format, so the content follows from what the fee is permitted to cover.

A breakdown that answers the question sets out each item of information obtained about the applicant with what it cost: the credit report and its price; the tenant report and its price; the criminal background check and its price; any reference checks with any charge attaching to them. It then totals those against the fee taken and states the balance to be returned. Adding the date the screening requests were submitted turns the same document into the record that fixes the subsection (c) clock, which is worth doing because it is the fact you are least likely to be able to establish later.

What a breakdown should not do is present unexplained aggregates. “Screening: one amount” against a fee of the same amount tells the applicant nothing about what was obtained, and tells you nothing either when you come to work out whether anything is refundable. The value of the exercise, from the landlord’s side, is that it makes the subsection (c) subtraction fall out automatically.

It is worth noting what the section conspicuously does not require here. There is no obligation to disclose your screening criteria, no obligation to explain how a decision was reached, and no obligation to hand over the reports themselves. The breakdown is about costs. Anything further you provide, you provide for your own reasons.

Depth on a short section has to come from analysis rather than from filling gaps, so the gaps are named here instead of being papered over. The section as read for this page contains:

• No dollar cap. The limit is the cost of obtaining information about the applicant.
• No penalty, damages figure or enforcement mechanism. Nothing in the section states what follows from a breach, and no figure is asserted here.
• No pre-fee disclosure duty. Nothing requires you to tell applicants in advance what the fee covers, though a breakdown becomes owed on request afterwards.
• No duty to publish screening criteria. The section is about the fee, not about how you decide.
• No denial-notice duty. Nothing in this section requires a written explanation of a rejection. Federal consumer-reporting law is a separate matter, discussed below.
• No prescribed refund method. Cash, check, transfer or reversal — the section does not choose, so choose one that leaves a record.
• No deadline for the receipt or the breakdown once requested. A real gap, and the reason promptness is the only sensible standard.

Three further limits belong in the same list. The definitions of consumer credit reporting agency and credit report in subsection (d) are borrowed from HRS § 489P-2, which was not read for this page. The Residential Landlord-Tenant Code’s own exclusion provision, § 521-7, was read and is set out above; what this page cannot tell you is which of its thirteen categories, if any, your particular letting falls in, because that is a question of fact about the property. And no case law and no county ordinance was researched, so nothing here reflects how a court or a county has treated any of this in practice.

The section is credited in the published text to L 2023, c 200, § 1 — Act 200 of the 2023 session — and the section itself carries no effective-date clause. This project’s verified law ledger records that provision as effective 1 May 2024. That commencement date comes from the ledger and was not independently verified for this page, so it is reported as what the ledger says rather than asserted as checked.

What can be said with confidence is that this is recent law. Before Act 200 there was no provision of this kind, which means any guidance about Hawaii application fees written before the 2023 session is describing the absence of these rules rather than an out-of-date version of them. If a summary you are reading says only that Hawaii does not cap application fees, that is a reliable sign it predates the section this page is about.

Act 200 has a second limb worth knowing about, recorded in the note published with the section: § 2 of the Act directs the office of consumer protection of the department of commerce and consumer affairs to produce and make available informational materials regarding application screening fees, and to publicise the requirements widely. That is a duty on the agency rather than on you, but it tells you where the state itself expects the public-facing explanation of these rules to come from.

Everything above concerns the fee. The screening it pays for is governed by a separate, federal body of law, and this page describes that layer in general terms only — it was not researched from primary sources here, and nothing in this section should be treated as a verified statement of federal requirements.

In broad outline: where a landlord obtains a consumer report about an applicant and that report contributes to a decision to reject them, to charge them more, or to impose different terms, federal consumer-reporting law generally requires the applicant to be told, and to be given the information needed to identify the reporting agency and dispute what it holds. That is the adverse-action framework. It matters here because § 521-46 contains no denial-notice duty of its own, so a landlord reading only the state section would conclude that a rejection requires no communication at all — and that would be a mistake once a consumer report has been obtained. The federal requirement is procedural: it is breached by not sending a notice, regardless of whether the underlying decision was sound.

Separately, federal fair-housing law governs the substance of screening decisions and the way applicants are treated across protected characteristics. That has a point of contact with the eighteen-or-older rule: household composition, and the presence of children in particular, is territory where a fee practice and a screening practice can each create exposure. Charging for a younger household member is a fee problem under § 521-46(a); treating an application differently because of who is in the household is a different and more serious problem under a different statute.

The practical takeaway is that satisfying § 521-46 does not finish the job. It tells you who may be charged, what the fee may cover, when the balance goes back, and what documents an applicant may demand. It says nothing about how you decide, or what you must tell someone you turn down.

An application screening fee is not a deposit and should never share a ledger line with one. Money taken to obtain information about an applicant is governed by § 521-46; money taken to secure performance under a tenancy is a deposit, with its own limits and its own return obligations. See Hawaii security deposit laws for the money taken at signing.

What you may lawfully consider in the screening the fee pays for, and what a denial requires once a consumer report has driven it, are separate questions again. Our guide to Hawaii tenant screening laws covers that side of the transaction, including the federal rules that apply whatever § 521-46 requires about the money.

For the wider framework of the tenancy — notice periods, entry, repairs, rent increases and termination — see Hawaii landlord-tenant laws.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.