Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Richard Horton & a. v. David Clemens & a. (2020)

Citation
Richard Horton & a. v. David Clemens & a. (2020)
Parent Document
Richard Horton & a. v. David Clemens & a. (2020)
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date
2020-08-11

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text

615 chars
To support their argument, the landlords rely upon Darbouze. Darbouze
is instructive, but contrary to the landlords’ assertions, is not dispositive. In
that case, the tenant argued that the eviction notice was defective because it
was entitled “Notice to Quit.” Darbouze, 160 N.H. at 698 (quotation omitted).
In rejecting this argument, we observed that “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 . . . requirements” enumerated in RSA 540:3. Id.