Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

DARBOUZE v. Champney, 8 A.3d 105 (2010)

Citation
DARBOUZE v. Champney, 8 A.3d 105 (2010)
Parent Document
DARBOUZE v. Champney, 8 A.3d 105 (2010)
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date
2010-09-17

Full Text

722 chars
Champney argues that RSA 540:3, V establishes that any notice entitled “Notice To Quit” is defective as a matter of law. Champney reads the statute too broadly. Rather than rendering the term “notice to quit” legally ineffective, subsection V simply provides a rule of interpretation: In any residential lease agreement in effect on July 1, 2006, the term “notice to quit” shall be interpreted as “eviction notice.” The statute does not require use of the term “eviction notice.” Thus, while the better practice would be the use of the term “eviction notice,” we find no statutory prohibition against the use of the term “notice to quit,” as long as the substance of the notice satisfies the three enumerated requirements.