Adams v. Woodlands of Nashua
151 N.H. 640, 864 A.2d 322, 2005 N.H. LEXIS 4 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's failure to remedy a pest infestation does not violate a tenant's statutory right to quiet enjoyment unless the infestation is so severe that it causes the tenant to lose the use of the premises.
Facts:
- In November 2002, Mansfield Adams, Jr., along with his two young children, leased an apartment from Woodlands of Nashua in a building with a pre-existing roach problem.
- Woodlands of Nashua was aware of the infestation prior to Adams' tenancy but did not disclose it to him when he signed the lease.
- On March 11, 2003, Adams reported seeing a roach, and the landlord had the apartment treated by a pest control service.
- Two months later, Adams reported that the apartment was infested again, prompting a second, equally unsuccessful treatment.
- After Adams contacted a city code enforcement officer, the landlord arranged for a third treatment, which also failed to resolve the infestation.
- An employee for Woodlands of Nashua testified that the infestation originated from a single, improperly maintained unit and that the landlord had since begun eviction proceedings against that tenant.
Procedural Posture:
- Mansfield Adams, Jr. filed a lawsuit against his landlord, Woodlands of Nashua, in the Nashua District Court (trial court).
- The trial court found that Woodlands of Nashua had willfully violated Adams' right to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy.
- The trial court awarded Adams $26,000 in liquidated damages under RSA 540-A:4, IX.
- The defendant, Woodlands of Nashua, appealed the trial court's judgment to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's failure to remedy a persistent roach infestation, without a finding that the tenant lost the use of the premises, constitute a willful violation of the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment under RSA 540-A:2?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalianis, J.
No. A landlord's failure to remedy a roach infestation does not violate a tenant's right to quiet enjoyment under RSA 540-A:2 where the tenant has not lost the use of the premises. The court reasoned that the common law doctrine of quiet enjoyment obligates a landlord to refrain from substantially interfering with a tenant's beneficial use or enjoyment of the premises. Citing its precedent in Crowley v. Frazier, the court held that habitability issues like rodent or insect infestations, while potentially violating the implied warranty of habitability, do not violate the right to quiet enjoyment absent a finding that the tenant lost the use of the property. The court further noted that the pest infestation was not similar in scope to the specific acts prohibited by the related statute RSA 540-A:3, such as interrupting utilities or denying a tenant access, which would also provide a basis for damages.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of New Hampshire's statutory right to quiet enjoyment by distinguishing it from the implied warranty of habitability. It establishes a high threshold for tenants seeking damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment based on the physical condition of a property, requiring proof of an actual 'loss of use' rather than mere inconvenience or unsanitary conditions. The ruling directs tenants with habitability claims, such as pest infestations or plumbing problems, towards a breach of warranty claim, which typically provides a different remedy (rent abatement) rather than the potentially larger statutory damages available for a willful violation of quiet enjoyment.
Unlock the full brief for Adams v. Woodlands of Nashua