by Bruce L. Dorner
Most landlords are decent people. Most tenants are decent people. Most laws regarding their relationship are reasonable — until you’re on the wrong side of the law!
New Hampshire has maintained a relatively balanced law regarding evictions and the rights of tenants. It may be slightly in favor of tenants, but I’d guess that it is a result of our legislature giving the “little guy” a bit of leverage against the property owner.
The law is relatively clear about what steps a landlord of an apartment complex has to take to evict a tenant. The process generally starts with a document called a Notice To Quit. This document lists the reasons the tenant is being evicted. If the issue relates to rent, a second document called a Demand For Rent has to be added. It details each amount the landlord claims is due.
The Notice To Quit and Demand For Rent require specific statements and references to statutes. They have to be delivered either in-hand to the tenant or left at the tenant’s apartment in a place where they would be likely to be found. Often the service of these documents is handled by the Sheriff’s office in the county where the apartment is located.
So, if the tenant throws loud parties, tosses trash into the common hallways and otherwise makes a nuisance of himself, the landlord might have good reason to try to get this tenant out of the building. I’d bet most of those reading this column would agree that no one wants a tenant who causes disruption to fellow occupants.
However, what happens when the landlord just doesn’t want to renew a written lease with a tenant? Gee, if the landlord owns the property, shouldn’t he be able to decide who he wants living in the property? Sure, we need some rules to prevent discrimination under Federal and State laws. However, if the tenant really isn’t doing anything wrong, but the landlord just prefers to have someone else living in that apartment, can the tenant be evicted?
Well, this question was just reviewed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The short story is that Kasha Dziewisz lived in an apartment at Royal Crest Estates in Nashua. Her lease expired at the end of August 2004. The landlord sent her a letter telling Ms. Dziewisz that they were not going to renew her lease. She had to get out. She didn’t move.
The landlord took the case to the Nashua District Court. Ms.Dziewisz filed requests with the court to have the case thrown out. She claimed that the letter was not a proper Notice to Quit, that even if the letter was a proper notice Royal Crest did not state a good reason for the eviction, and that Royal Crest failed to have the notice properly delivered to her at her apartment. The District Court sided with Royal Crest and ordered the eviction to go forward.
Ms. Dziewisz appealed the decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. After hearing both sides of the case, the Supreme Court determined that it was not going to address her first and third allegations. There was enough for them to latch onto in her second claim. The statute provides that the landlord must specify “good cause” for the eviction. She claimed that the mere expiration of the lease was not good cause.
The role of the Supreme Court is to determine the intent of the statue by examining the words in the statute. Where there might be some question as to what the legislature intended, the Court often examines the legislative history by reviewing the transcript of the debate which led to the passing of the law.
The Court, in its written decision, referenced both the statute and the legislative history. They started by noting that the words in the statute made it clear that the rules for evictions from apartment buildings applied to any tenancy. They defined “any” to mean “every” and “all.” Well, there was no doubt that the statute, RSA 540:2, II, fit in this case.
Next, the Court discussed the question of whether the expiration of the lease was “good cause” under the statute. The statute itemized a number of grounds for evictions, but did not specifically include the expiration of the lease as one of them. In the legislative debates in 1985 there was discussion indicating that, unless there were protections under law, landlords would be able to avoid the provisions of RSA 540:2, II, by “simply requiring tenants to sign renewable month-long leases, allowing the landlord to evict any tenant arbitrarily upon the expiration of any month’s lease.”
The Court determined that since the legislature didn’t specifically include the expiration of the lease as a ground to terminate the tenancy, then the tenant could not be evicted. The opinion also noted that, “The time for the landlord to determine whether to rent to a tenant is not after the tenant has established a residence, but at the beginning of the landlord-tenant relationship.” The landlord is bound by the specific grounds set forth in the statue when trying to terminate a tenancy.
This case, AIMCO Properties, LLC d/b/a Royal Crest Estates v. Kasha Dziewisz applies only to what is called “restricted property.” That generally means persons or companies in the business of renting residential apartments. Using broad strokes, it does not apply to landlords who own four or fewer rental units.
I believe that our legislature is likely to visit this issue in the next session. I pose the question, if you were the landlord and did not want to continue your relationship with a particular tenant, aside discrimination issues, shouldn’t you be able to evict them after giving due and proper notices?