Mountain View Park, LLC v. Gerald Robson, Jr., 168 N.H. 117 (2015)

Citation: Mountain View Park, LLC v. Gerald Robson, Jr., 168 N.H. 117 (2015)
Parent Document: Mountain View Park, LLC v. Gerald Robson, Jr., 168 N.H. 117 (2015)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2015-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2826159/mountain-view-park-llc-v-gerald... ↗

Full Text

1,939 chars

There are several problems with the majority’s reasoning. First, in
focusing on the words “nonpayment of rent,” the majority fails to give effect to
the words that precede them. The statute permits agreements that provide for
arrearages to be satisfied through a schedule of payments while allowing a writ
of possession to be issued at the landlord’s request in the event of breach of the
agreement “in a case of nonpayment of rent.” RSA 540:13-c, II (emphasis
added). What the majority fails to appreciate is that, once initiated, an eviction
proceeding remains “a case of nonpayment of rent” until the entire arrearage,
as well as ongoing rent payments that become due in the interim, has been
paid in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule. By its construction of the
statute, the majority, in effect, transforms a single “case” into one involving two
tenancies — one covering the period before the agreement and the other the
period after it. Nothing in the language of the statute supports the view that
the legislature intended it to be interpreted in this fashion. Rather, just as in
other circumstances where a tenant is allowed to remain in possession despite
his default, see RSA 540:25, I; RSA 540:13-c, I, RSA 540:13-c, II should be
construed to permit agreements that require a tenant (1) to pay off the
arrearage according to the schedule (2) while also paying all ongoing rent that
becomes due until the arrearage is fully retired, and that allows the landlord to
obtain a writ of possession for breach of either term of such agreements
without the necessity of commencing a new eviction proceeding. Only when
the arrearage (and any ongoing rent due in the interim) is fully paid is the
matter no longer “a case of nonpayment of rent,” and it is only at that point
that the landlord should be required to initiate a new eviction proceeding in the
event the tenant fails to make rental payments that become due thereafter.1

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text