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

939 chars
Alternatively, the landlords argue that, even if the quoted language from
the judicial branch form is required, dismissal was not the proper remedy.
However, contrary to the landlords’ assertions, we have consistently ruled that
strict compliance with the mandates of RSA chapter 540 is required. See
Buatti v. Prentice, 162 N.H. 228, 230 (2011); So. Willow Properties, 159 N.H. at
498; Matte, 152 N.H. at 218; Lavoie v. Szumiez, 115 N.H. 266, 267 (1975). A
dismissal on the grounds that the landlord’s eviction notice fails to comply with
statutory requisites is not a judgment on the merits and does not preclude the
landlord from filing a new eviction notice and a new writ for possession. See
So. Willow Properties, 159 N.H. at 499 (holding that “the trial court’s dismissal,
based upon a technical defect in the notice to quit, was not a decision on the
merits” and, accordingly, did not bar the landlord’s second lawsuit). Of course,