Hynes v. Hale

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed a dispute over a manufactured housing park rule requiring a tenant to replace portions of a six-foot fence with four-foot fencing. The court held that the New Hampshire Board of Manufactured Housing had jurisdiction over the tenant’s statutory complaint and that the evidence supported a finding of implied prior permission to maintain the fence at its original height. The court nevertheless reversed the portion of the lower court’s order affirming injunctive relief because the board lacked authority to issue an injunction.

Holdings

1. The statutory scheme did not violate the separation of powers doctrine because the Board's dispute-resolution authority was linked to its regulatory function over manufactured housing park rules and owner conduct, and it resolved disputes arising under statutory rights rather than common-law claims.
2. The Board had jurisdiction over Hale's complaint because RSA 205-A:27, II divests it of jurisdiction over evictions, not over complaints that relate to a possible eviction, and no eviction action had been filed when Hale brought her complaint.
3. The Board's finding that Hale had implied permission to maintain the fence at its original height was reasonably supported by the evidence and was not legally erroneous. RSA 205-A:2, VIII(d)'s reference to prior permission does not require express permission.
4. The Board lacked statutory or inherent authority to issue injunctive relief, and the superior court erred by affirming an injunction imposed by the Board.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory scheme establishing the New Hampshire Board of Manufactured Housing violated the separation of powers provision of the New Hampshire Constitution.
2. Whether the Board lacked jurisdiction because Hale's complaint related to a potential eviction.
3. Whether the Board's finding that Hale had implied permission to maintain the fence at its original height was supported by the evidence and legally correct under RSA 205-A:2, VIII(d).
4. Whether the Board had authority to issue injunctive relief.

Disposition

other