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

1,332 chars

Second, in violation of our canons of construction, the majority adds
language to RSA 540:13-c, II that the legislature did not see fit to include. See,
e.g., Strike Four v. Nissan N. Am., 164 N.H. 729, 735 (2013). The statute
states that, when an agreement has been reached, “a writ of possession shall
not be issued, if the [tenant] makes payments in accordance with a schedule
designated in the agreement.” RSA 540:13-c, II (emphasis added). The
majority, however, reads the word “payments” as “payments of past due rent,”
thus interpreting the pertinent language as if it stated: “a writ of possession
shall not be issued, if the [tenant] makes payments of past due rent in
accordance with a schedule designated in the agreement.” If the legislature
intended “payments” to be limited to past due rent payments, it would have
1The agreement at issue here is entirely consistent with what, in my view, is this proper
construction of the statute. The agreement specifically provides that, upon reaching a zero
balance on the arrearage, the landlord will “drop” the possessory action. Because the action
would be terminated at that point, any failure to make rent payments due thereafter would not be
subject to the agreement and would therefore require the landlord to initiate a new possessory
action in order to evict the tenant.

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text