FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK v. ZUKERKORN Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A debtor agreed to make payments on an unspecified “old account” to obtain a new credit card. The court held that this did not automatically revive specific, time-barred debts as a matter of law, creating a factual issue for a jury.
Legal Significance: Establishes that part payment or acknowledgment of a time-barred debt is only prima facie evidence of a new promise to pay. This creates a rebuttable presumption, presenting a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for summary judgment.
FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK v. ZUKERKORN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Zukerkorn had two outstanding promissory notes with First Hawaiian Bank (Bank) from 1965 and 1966. By 1975, the six-year statute of limitations for collecting on these notes had expired. In December 1975, Zukerkorn applied for a Master Charge credit card from the Bank. The Bank conditioned the issuance of the card on Zukerkorn’s agreement to make payments on his old debt. The parties dispute the specifics of this agreement. The Bank asserted that the two time-barred notes were specifically identified and that Zukerkorn agreed to pay $100 per month towards them. Zukerkorn admitted the Bank told him he owed “a small amount of money on an old account” and that he agreed to the monthly payment condition to receive the card. However, he denied that the two specific notes from 1965 and 1966 were ever mentioned or that his agreement pertained to them. Subsequently, Zukerkorn made four payments totaling $500. The Bank sued to collect on the original notes, arguing they had been revived by Zukerkorn’s new promise and part payment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a debtor’s partial payment toward an unspecified “old account,” made as a condition of receiving new credit, revive specific, time-barred debts as a matter of law, or does it present a genuine issue of material fact?
Reversed in part. A new promise to pay a time-barred debt cannot Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a debtor’s partial payment toward an unspecified “old account,” made as a condition of receiving new credit, revive specific, time-barred debts as a matter of law, or does it present a genuine issue of material fact?
Conclusion
This case establishes that reviving a time-barred debt requires a factual finding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut en
Legal Rule
A new promise by a debtor to pay a debt, whether barred Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proide
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that while a time-barred debt can be revived, the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate ve
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A debtor’s acknowledgment or part payment of a time-barred debt is