Miller v. Slania Enterprises, Inc., 150 N.H. 655 (2004)

Citation: Miller v. Slania Enterprises, Inc., 150 N.H. 655 (2004)
Parent Document: Miller v. Slania Enterprises, Inc., 150 N.H. 655 (2004)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2004-03-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8092853/miller-v-slania-enterprises-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,047 chars

There is no dispute that the original tenancy was terminated, and that the writ of possession was issued to the landlord. On April 25, however, the parties entered into a new agreement — the plaintiff tendered a check that included payment of the May rent and the parties agreed that the tenants would be allowed to stay in the apartment until May 25. The landlord deposited the check in its bank account. It is undisputed that the landlord did not inform the tenants either orally or in writing that he intended to enforce the writ of possession despite the payment. Thus, the parties created either a new or renewed tenancy. See RSA 540-A:l (1997) (defining “landlord” and “tenant”); cf. Corcoran Management Co., Inc. v. Withers, 513 N.E.2d 218, 222-23 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987) (general rule is that after effective date of valid notice to terminate tenancy, payment of rent in advance for period after termination of tenancy, and acceptance by landlord thereof, is prima, facie evidence of waiver of right to recover possession absent new notice).

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text