Mountain View Park, LLC v. Gerald Robson, Jr., 168 N.H. 117 (2015)

Citation: Mountain View Park, LLC v. Gerald Robson, Jr., 168 N.H. 117 (2015)
Parent Document: Mountain View Park, LLC v. Gerald Robson, Jr., 168 N.H. 117 (2015)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2015-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2826159/mountain-view-park-llc-v-gerald... ↗

Full Text

1,766 chars

By holding that the statute precludes the parties from agreeing that the landlord may obtain possession without instituting a new proceeding if the tenant defaults in the payment of ongoing rent during the period in which the tenant has agreed to retire the arrearage, the majority eliminates one of the major incentives for a landlord to enter into such an agreement. This means that landlords will be less likely to do so, which in turn means that tenants will be deprived of the opportunity for a second chance to remain in their homes. Under the majority’s construction of the statute, the landlord is deprived of the ability to obtain possession without the delay and expense of filing a new action if the tenant, instead of “catching up” on his or her obligations, merely reallocates payments from ongoing rent to payments on the arrearage. Because it is fair to assume that most such agreements will call for arrearage payments that are smaller than the amount of the ongoing rent, it is hard to imagine why any landlord who has already obtained a judgment that permits eviction would find such an arrangement at all attractive. Much more likely is that a landlord who has already obtained a a judgment and who understands that, pursuant to the majority’s construction, a new eviction proceeding will be required if the *127tenant is unable to pay both the scheduled arrearage amount and ongoing rent, will conclude that entering into such agreements is simply not worth it.3 Unfortunately, tenants — whom the majority believes it is protecting — likely will bear the brunt of the adverse effects of today’s decision. See AIMCO Props. v. Dziewisz, 152 N.H. 587, 591 (2005) (describing potential adverse consequences for tenants that may result from eviction).

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text