Amanda Colburn v. Nicholas Saykaly & a. (2020)

Citation: Amanda Colburn v. Nicholas Saykaly & a. (2020)
Parent Document: Amanda Colburn v. Nicholas Saykaly & a. (2020)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2020-03-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4734583/amanda-colburn-v-nicholas-saykaly-a/ ↗

Full Text

1,036 chars

The defendant next argues that, because he is not a “tenant” pursuant to
RSA 540-A:1, II, and, therefore, lacks a landlord-tenant relationship with the
plaintiff, the district division had no jurisdiction over the eviction case. We
disagree. Although the defendant’s assertion that he is not a “tenant”
pursuant to RSA 540-A:1 is accurate, see RSA 540-A:1, II, RSA chapter 540-A
governs proceedings and penalties only in cases in which a landlord or tenant
engages in a “prohibited practice.” See RSA 540-A:2 (2007), :3 (Supp. 2019).
There is no allegation of a “prohibited practice” in this case, and, therefore,
RSA chapter 540-A is not implicated. However, RSA chapter 540, the chapter
governing residential evictions in New Hampshire, expressly provides that
possession may be recovered “from a lessee, occupant, mortgagor, or other
person in possession.” RSA 540:12 (2007). Thus, the district division was not
without jurisdiction to adjudicate the eviction action merely because the
defendant was an occupant rather than a tenant.

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text