[¶10] It is undisputed that the defendant sent the Notice to the plaintiffs
to inform them that he intended to change the use of Hills Park and that it
provided less than four months’ notice requiring the plaintiffs to remove their
unit. However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
notice under RSA 205-A:3 due to the nature of their tenancy. The trial court
noted that the 2021 seasonal rental lot agreement provided that the plaintiffs
had a right to occupy and use their unit at Hills Park only within a certain time
frame, and not year-round. The trial court therefore ruled that when the
plaintiffs occupied the site during the 2022 season despite the fact that the
defendant did not renew their seasonal rental lot agreement, the plaintiffs
became “holdover tenants,” whose tenancy expired on October 15, 2022. The
trial court reasoned that because the tenancy expired on October 15, 2022, the
plaintiffs were not entitled to an 18-month period to remove their unit under
RSA 205-A:3 “because the removal date in the Notice was October 31, 2022.”
Assuming, without deciding, that the plaintiffs would not have been entitled to
18 months’ notice to remove their unit if their holdover tenancy had expired,
we conclude, for the reasons that follow, that the trial court erred when it relied
on the expiration of the seasonal rental lot agreement to support its ruling that
the plaintiffs had a “leasehold tenancy” for the 2021 tenancy, and, therefore, a
holdover tenancy that expired on October 15, 2022.