In these troubled economic times, many municipalities are taking ownership of occupied properties as a result of tax collector's deeds. As part of the governing body's duty to manage these properties, there will be times when the occupants must be evicted from these properties. Governing bodies should presume that the law will classify these persons as "tenants," and grant them all of the rights that tenants hold by virtue of RSA 540. There are several steps to the statutory eviction procedure, and each step is an opportunity for a landlord to commit an error which will require the local district court to deny the requested relief.
In this matter, the tenant appealed an eviction order entered in the district court in favor of the landlord. The tenant argued that the landlord made three different mistakes in the process, which should have warranted dismissal of the case. These mistakes were (1) the use of the words "Notice to Quit" rather than "Eviction Notice" in the first notice to the tenant that eviction was required; (2) the description of the tenant by use of the words "Nancy" or "Mrs. Nancy," rather than the tenant's full name of Nancy Champney; and (3) that the time provided in the notice to leave the premises was seven calendar days rather than seven clear days, and thus insufficient.
The court rejected each of these arguments, finding that use of the words "Eviction Notice" was not required by the statute, that the tenant had actual notice of eviction, even if her name was not fully spelled out, and that the statute did not, by its terms, require seven clear days between the date of the notice and the date that the person must leave the premises.
For municipalities, the case highlights the technical requirements of the process and shows that tenants will argue that landlords must follow the letter of the law before an eviction order may issue from the court. If your local governing body is considering an eviction and is not thoroughly familiar with the process, we strongly urge the body to consult with town counsel prior to commencing any discussions with the current occupant of the property. There is more than the eviction itself at stake: if the landlord violates the law by interfering improperly with a tenant, the district court may impose damages of $1,000.00 per day for every day that the interference continues.