Miller v. Slania Enterprises, Inc.

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed an award of damages arising from a landlord’s unlawful eviction. It held that the landlord’s acceptance of payment for rent through the end of the lease term created a new or renewed tenancy, requiring compliance with eviction procedures before removing the tenants. The court also upheld damages for the unlawful eviction and unjust enrichment based on the landlord’s retention of May rent.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not commit reversible error by considering the statutory new-tenancy issue even though the plaintiff had not expressly pleaded it.
2. Regardless of whether RSA 540:13, VII applied after entry of judgment and issuance of the writ, acceptance of the $3,200 payment and the agreement allowing the tenants to remain until May 25 created a new or renewed tenancy.
3. A landlord may not use a writ of possession issued for a terminated tenancy to evict tenants from a new or renewed tenancy, even if the new tenancy incorporates prior lease terms and the tenants allegedly violated those terms.
4. The evidence supported the finding that the landlord acted willfully in violating the tenants' rights and circumventing lawful eviction procedures.
5. The landlord was not entitled to retain the $2,000 May rent or recover that amount under the savings clause or general contract law, and retaining it after the unlawful eviction constituted unjust enrichment.
6. Any error in ruling that the May 31 security-deposit itemization was untimely was harmless because the trial court awarded no damages for the late notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court could award relief based on the landlord's violation of RSA 540:13, VII when the theory was not expressly pleaded but was litigated without timely objection.
2. Whether acceptance of the April rent arrearage and May rent after issuance of the writ of possession created a new or renewed tenancy requiring the landlord to follow new eviction procedures.
3. Whether the landlord acted willfully in violating the tenants' statutory right to quiet enjoyment and in circumventing lawful eviction procedures.
4. Whether the trial court's ruling concerning the timeliness of the security-deposit itemization constituted reversible error.
5. Whether the landlord was entitled to May rent damages under the original lease's savings clause or general contract law, and whether retaining the May rent constituted unjust enrichment.

Disposition

affirmed