🍿

Here we go.

Here's the actual text from the proposal and where it fits into the existing law:

Proposed bill:

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=146&inflect=2

1 New Subparagraph; Termination of Tenancy; Expiration of Term. Amend RSA 540:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (g) the following new subparagraph:

(h) For a lease or tenancy the original term of which is 6 months or longer, or for a lease or tenancy the term of which is less than 6 months but which has been renewed for a total period of 6 months or longer, the expiration of the term of the lease or tenancy, provided that the landlord has provided the tenant with written notice at least 30 days in advance of the termination date of the lease term that the lease will not be renewed and that the tenant must vacate the rental property at the end of the lease term.

​

That gets tacked on to:

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lv/540/540-2.htm

II. The lessor or owner of restricted property may terminate any tenancy by giving to the tenant or occupant a notice in writing to quit the premises in accordance with RSA 540:3 and 5, but only for one of the following reasons:

This only adds "End of Lease" to the list of legal reasons to evict, yeah? I thought this was already the case, but I guess not.

Tenants would have the same protections as when the landlord is evicting to sell the property. 30 days from notice of eviction the place is empty, minus complications like legal challenges and process limits. Those delays can be applied universally across all situations.

I don't love it, but it could be worse. As it stands, a landlord can simply bump the rent way past affordability and their tenant is out in 60 days (minus complications.)

There are changes that need to be made in our tenant/landlord system and this is certainly a move in the wrong direction.

I'm surprised this wasn't already the case too. The lease has an end date, both parties agreed to it. Having the state force the property owner to extend the lease with the same tenant seems to violate the rights of the property owner. If they don't want to extend it further, seems to me that should be their choice.

To play the middle ground here a bit….

I’d love for the notification period to be 90 days, mainly to the difficulty finding housing basically everywhere today. We all know 30 days notice on a non-renewal of lease isn’t enough time generally to find a new place to live.

Not the land owners issue, but some protections on both sides are warranted.

Instead of fixing the housing crisis we get this shit.

Landlords should be able to evict people for any reason they choose within the terms of the lease. The property belongs to them, not the tenant.

Facts

The proletariat is eventually gonna reach its breaking point and it won't be pretty for the capitalists. That is if capitalism doesn't eat itself first

Funny they subsidized house for poor through the courts good luck

"End of lease" is not a means to evict someone. It would be absurd in any other contract that the end date is completely nullified if one party decides they no longer agree to the date they signed for. But that's the case in NH leases.

It's really a problem the NH supreme court created. Since "end of lease" is not one of the outlined reasons for eviction you cannot kick someone out when the lease ends as long as the tenant keeps paying. It effectively means every lease end date only ever applies if the tenant decides to leave.

It's an absurd ruling, but perhaps a correct ruling if you believe lawmakers should do their part and write laws carefully. And here we are with a really simple adjustment to correct the law. It's unfortunate that the author Jeongyoon Han did not take a sentence or two to examine the vary strange current situation and instead used a rather confusing quote from a law maker.

I think it's a step in the right direction, frankly. One of the reasons why so many landlords are bad are because the good ones get the hell out when they learn how difficult of a position the law can put them in.

Good, people should be held accountable for paying their bills on time or else get the boot. It's a simple system.

Lawmakers should be focused on leveling the playing field - we should all become owners or renters. There is no in between. LOL

Everyone gets a troph…err, apartment!

If you had actually read the text of the bill or the article, you would know it has nothing to do with unpaid bills. At all. It's about landlords being able to actually enforce the end dates of leases, because apparently there's a loophole that lets tenants stay forever. It's the most common sense thing I've seen come out of our legislature recently, and I think most people would be surprised to learn that it doesn't already work this way.

Apparently tenants can just... stay forever, even after their lease expires, as long as the tenant keeps paying rent. Like, the end date on a lease means nothing. The landlord can't choose to lease it out to somebody else or take it off the market as long as the checks keep coming.

Thought you were going to rent out your cabin for the winter and then go stay there for a few months in the summer? Think again, because even though the lease ended, the tenant decided they really like it there and would actually like to stay longer, thank you very much. Indefinitely, perhaps. As long as they keep paying the previous rent and aren't subject to other causes for eviction, they can squat there as long as they want and you can't do anything about it.

On paper, sure.

However, landlords generally get the less traumatic end of the 'unexpected moveout' than the tenants. Keeping a person away from their property for an extra thirty days isn't as bad as forcing a person to uproot and find an affordable place to live in four weeks.

The laws should really take that into account.

If you don't have the right to decide under what conditions someone is allowed to stay on your property then you don't really own it now do you?

No landlord wants to get rid of good tenants.

"landlords generally get the less traumatic end of the 'unexpected moveout' "

Seems like something someone who hasn't been a landlord would say.

I had one lady who after not paying her rent for quite a long time decided rather than leave that she would just burn the building down with everyone else inside. It didn't go to plan, thankfully nobody was harmed. Substantial damage to the unit and some very tenants in the rest of the building who I'm sure would have preferred I was able to get her out sooner.

Having to move unexpectedly is an inconvenience that you were aware was possible when you sign the lease and move in. The property owner being able to immediately get rid of people is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of everyone involved. The law should take that into account.

Worked out great for the Bolsheviks.

Don't know about NH but Massachusetts makes it ridiculously difficult to evict anyone. There's no shortage of low life freeloaders out there who game the system. By the time a landlord gets relief from a court ordered eviction they are out many thousands of dollars and most likely their property is trashed. Essentially these type of people are squatters and the laws regarding that are equally insane. When I lived in Florida, an eviction was a matter of a call to the local PD and the evictees were gone in 24 hrs. A little harsh but effective. If a landlord struggles for a year with a legitimate eviction, the next tenants will be paying a whole lot more up front and monthly after that.

Yeah, NH laws are terrible for both landlords and renters. How can that be? Easy. Landlords get so f$$ked by bad renters who don't pay and often trash the place to tune of $5k-10k+ that those cost increase the rents and cause people to lose interest in renting, particularly smaller landlords. I know first hand.

If people want more places to rent at better prices two things must occur 1. It becomes cheaper for landlords to rent, and two it becomes easier for landlords to rent. Both can be accomplished by harshy penalizing by the few renters who dramatically increase costs and can't be removed for many months, then just move on and do the same thing at the next apartment.

One reason more apartment buildings aren't built is the enormous costs of building and operating them above and beyond the costs of single family homes. While the land for the home is more of the costs, for an apartment building of virtually any size one must have a sprinkler system, 24/7 alarm monitoring company, elevator, trash pickup (most towns with two pickup won't pick up a new apartment buildings, so they pay twice - in taxes and to a private company), etc, etc.

Yeah yeah yeah, sprinkler systems might be critical to some, but people have to consider they're tens of thousands to install, and several thousand per year to inspect and maintain. Which is why you don't usually see any 4, 6, 9, even 12 unit apartment buildings going up. It's just not cost feasible.

Why should renters be required to be MORE protected them single family homeowners?

On the other hand, if the eviction laws and process were easier for landlords then maybe the elderly lady I knew from church,used to live with (I lived with her for ten months and moved because she had a ton of untreated psych issues and the stress became too much) wouldn't have ended up with a shit tenant after I left. This tenant moved in and promised to pay her back taxes and mortgage as the rent amount..he had her entire second floor(two bedrooms, a bathroom and office) to himself and basically destroyed the entire floor and took over the entire house..he physically abused her, psychologically abused her, financial abuse, emotional abuse, stole treasured possessions from her and pawned them..she called the cops and they told her it was a civil issue, I called Adult Protective services on her multiple times and she refused the help. She was afraid to kick him out because she was terrified of being homeless and giving up her elderly dog(her only living link to her deceased husband besides the house). She finally had enough and went to evict him but couldn't because she couldn't afford an attorney and she couldn't afford the court fees.

He ended up being served eviction notice by the state after she was forced into a nursing home and the bank foreclosed..but at that point he'd made the interior of her house non inhabitable. Which was a shame. It was a nice house

Imagine not being based and housepilled

You're talking about eviction with cause. That's not what the person you are responding to was talking about.

The person above you was referencing non-renewal without cause. If the tenant is being forced out through no fault of their own, they deserve enough time to find a new place. 90 days is much more realistic than 30 days.

It doesn't appear to me that people are considering cause at all in this thread.

Nobody just kicks out a good tenant for no reason. There are undoubtedly a whole variety of reasons why someone would not renew a lease. We can argue about how justifiable each one might be but it's important for everyone involved to know when and how the agreement can end.

Everyone knows what the terms of the lease are at the beginning. You don't just have 30 days, you have the whole term of your lease. If it's important to you to remain longer than your lease you can request to renew your lease. If you wait until there's only 30 days left to address that issue that's on you as much as anyone else.

Housing is a human right, did you know?

Yeah the chances that a person is going to snap and resort to burning something down is directly proportionate to the the amount of options they can see moving forward.

Most evictions don't end that way despite the inherent stress involved. Most people can find a place to go or aren't so entrenched in debt that they simply collapse.

There should be a way for landlords to get these tenants out but give them someplace to go and recover.

Also, people should have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of something beyond that. Life requires shelter.

The law would allow landlords to evict good tenants in order to increase the rent for the next one. This process usually takes 60 days (plus complications.) The new law allows for them to be booted in 30.

This law shaves 30 days off of the process of price-gouging tenants.

Actually, a lot of good tenants are being kicked out. People who always pay their rent, keep the place nice, and don't bother other tenants. Because landlords can and will kick someone out without cause. They're doing this to avoid any possible legal issues that arise from raising the existing tenant rent by $500 or more

I just bought a place in Somersworth with intent to rent.

I have to day, I'm not unhappy with this.

Albeit, it's a duplex and I'm not a slumlord. I'm keeping the rent at "pay off my mortgage" levels, and renting to a couple friends. Prices are stupid, and too many people I know are struggling.

Considering how badly landlords were screwed due to leftist covid policy, need to move the needle back towards the center

If their lease is up couldn't they raise their rent? Leases I have signed generally state a rate for a given period. Often both parties will choose to just continue past that, but in a high inflation environment you can't really expect that.

Landlords aren't the reason prices are high. Prices are high in part because more people want to be where there is less housing than will house that many people so they bid it up, and in part because of inflation. Both factors are in no small part influenced by the FED.

Housing is not a high margin industry (for most common housing). The cost of everything has been going up a lot. Labor, hardware, power, loans..... You don't want companies waiting until they need the money to try and get the money. That's what happened to SVB, and what will probably happen to a lot of companies in the next couple years. Especially ones with high debt. Can you think of an industry that involves holding a lot of debt?

My community has career criminals that know all the ins and outs of abusing the system. Lied and scammed their way through the application process and haven’t paid a cent for 18 months. I don’t want the struggling single parent of 3 kids to be on the street after being late one month (not that the bill is suggesting such) but they do have to find some middle ground

That seems like an argument, but you didn't back it up with anything. Do you have some inside knowledge about what legal counsel is telling property managers? If so can you establish that this the common cause across the industry?

Yes, they can raise the rent. However, the tenant has 30 days to 'decide' if they 'want' to stay and then another 30 days to vacate if that's what they choose.

Which is fair, depending on the increase. There is no limit in NH to how much a landlord can increase the rent, so this can be used as a method to evict a tenant who follows the rules but asks the landlord to make repairs and such.