AIMCO Properties, LLC v. Dziewisz, 152 N.H. 587 (2005)

Citation: AIMCO Properties, LLC v. Dziewisz, 152 N.H. 587 (2005)
Parent Document: AIMCO Properties, LLC v. Dziewisz, 152 N.H. 587 (2005)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2005-09-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093068/aimco-properties-llc-v-dziewisz/ ↗

Full Text

1,242 chars

Nor would it advance the purpose of the statute to conclude that the mere expiration of a lease constitutes a legitimate business or economic reason. RSA 540:2, II only applies to landlords who rent restricted property: landlords who are generally in the business of renting residential property, and whose main concern is, presumably, profit. See RSA 540:l-a, II (1997). It does not apply to: property rented for nonresidential purposes, see RSA 540:l-a, I (1997); single-family houses if the owner of such a house does not own more than three single-family houses at one time, see RSA 540:l-a, 1(a) (1997); rental units in an owner-occupied budding containing a total of four units or fewer, see RSA 540:l-a, *5911(b) (1997); rental units in a vacation or recreational dwelling rented during the off-season for certain purposes, see RSA 540:l-a, 1(c) (1997); or single-family houses acquired by banks or other mortgagees through foreclosure, see RSA 540:l-a, 1(d) (1997). Replacing one tenant upon the expiration of a lease with another tenant who will pay the same rent and occupy the same position as the tenant being evicted does not, in and of itself, provide the landlord of restricted property with any economic or business advantage.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text