Courtesy of Rental Property Owners Association - Nick Norman, Director of Legistlative Affairs
NH Rental Property Owners
There is so much happening in the legislature of importance in real estate this season it’s really impossible to summarize it all in just a few points. However, what we have done is put a summary of what we feel are the most critical first followed by all the bills that are also important. Further below is a large amount of detail on each bill. Remember it is critical to contact legislators before the scheduled hearing if at all possible.
CRITICAL:
HB1501 01/25/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 305 Please attend hearingTitle: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
$25 “donation” per toilet collected through property tax
HB1602 in subcommittee, please email, call legislators now
Title: removing the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.
Property Owner Position: OpposeMaintenance people will have to pay annual fees, have continuing education and a pesticide license to apply over the counter pesticides. You will too.
HB648 call Senate by mid Tuesday, Senate vote on WednesdayTitle: relative to eminent domain petitions by public utilities.Property Owner Position: Support with Amendment
To protect property rights from being taken by eminent domain of a private business electric power utility
vote for the bill only if it is amended by one of the “property rights protecting” amendments that disallow private business from taking property by eminent domain.
Critical Next week:
SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101 Attend hearingTitle: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.
Property Owner Position: Support
Strengthens landlord position in eviction & small claims tied to eviction.
What we need from you:
1. Please email, or call the legislators regarding these bills, express your opinions (you can reword ideas from the talking points below)
2. Please show up at the hearings attend hearings for ones we flagged out. When you show up you can just sign a card as support or oppose the bill and simply be present (surprisingly just this greatly aids our effort) or you can sign up to speak. (Join our car pool, save on gas and parking and make it more fun).
3. If you sign up to speak at the hearing please consult with other landlords speaking so we present a unified position and utilize our time effectively by each speaking with a focus on a different point.
4. If you speak to a legislator or any one else and learn something not already captured below please notify me so I can continue to get as much info out to every one as possible.
Also important, contact legislators:
There are many bills on eminent domain that are being brought to subcommittee to be reviewed together. Stay tuned.
HB1210 HB1288 & other’sThere is a lot in the legislature on eminent domain mostly relating to the controversy around the “Northern Pass” project which in part is threatening private property rights.
HB1153 01/20/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 302Title: relative to fire protection of floors in certain detached dwellings.
Property Owner Position: Varying view points on this.
More regulation and requirements for multi units.
Please review and let us know your thoughts and real life experience.
HB1161 01/24/2012 at 11:00 AM LOB 308Title: establishing a committee to study permitting nonresident property owners to vote in local elections.
Property Owner Position: Support
HB1634 01/24/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 306Title: prohibiting the state, counties, towns, and cities from implementing programs of, expending money for, receiving funding from, or contracting with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.
Property Owner Position: Support
Talking points, contact info for legislators, much much more detail for all bills below. (including a heads up on other bills you may be interested in).
Love & Light,
Nick Norman
RPOA Director of Legislative Affairs
=======================
Other bills you may be interested in:
Bills we decided to take No Action on at this time but could affect a few of you. Please dig further if you think it may affect your personally.
SB204 01/24/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 102Title: adopting amendments to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code relative to secured transactions.
Property Owner Position: No Action
HB1407 01/24/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 301Title: allowing towns to establish a firefighter commission.
Property Owner Position: No Action
=======
HB648 Last Hearing 05/19/2011 at 01:15 PM Reps HallTitle: relative to eminent domain petitions by public utilities.
Summary: This bill with newest amendments prevents private business from taking property by utility eminent domain.
To protect property rights:Vote against the bill as written or better yet vote for the bill amended by one of the “property rights protecting” amendments that disallow private business from taking property by eminent domain. The DeBlois-Bradley amendment is very simple to the point in a few sentences.
The Bragdon-Forrester Amendment also protects property rights from eminent domain of private business and is very lengthy. The property owners involved highly recommend the Bragdon-Forrester Amendment because they feel the DeBlois-Bradley amendment may leave a loop hole for private business to reorganize themselves as a public entity and still take the property by eminent domain.
The main point is a vote for the bill as originally written takes away property rights, the bill amended as above protects property rights.
Please call and email the senators by mid afternoon Tuesday 1/24/12.
Property Owner Position: Support with Amendment
Email to Committee: matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us; fenton.groen@leg.state.nh.us; jim.luther@leg.state.nh.us; james.forsythe@leg.state.nh.us;
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0648.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill prohibits public utilities from petitioning for permission to take private land or property rights for the construction or operation of certain transmission facilities.
Talking Points: See attached newspaper article from Senators Forrester & DeBlois protecting private property rights from threat of eminent domain by a private developer or project.
Notes from Nick’s conversation with Senator Tom DeBlois.
There is an important bill about protecting property rights from big business take over, HB648 (currently in the Senate). The Senate committee hearing has already passed (this a bill originated last year in the House). This Wednesday the bill will be voted on by the entire Senate body.
This relates to the Northern Pass project.
Hydro Quebec is a private development company aiming to install a high power transmission line from Canada, through the NH White Mountains and tying into the electric grid futher down in NH.
They have the ability to use existing PSNH easements for a large part of the transmission length. However there is a 40 mile length of land missing.
There is a lot of debate over this project with many many bills on eminent domain in the legislature this season. A large amount of the debate is over having huge 80 to 135 towers as a blight on the NH mountains or to put the cable under ground. It is also said that PSNH would receive $50 million annually for leasing its land to Hydro Quebec.
We have not heard all sides on this issue but have heard enough to recognize that it is bumping up against NH constitution article 12a relating to individual’s property rights.
Did you know that under present NH law a private utility company can forcefully take an individuals property using its own eminent domain procedure separate from the government procedure for eminent domain?
Right now NH generates more power than it needs and exports to the grid. So we don’t need or would we receive this power now.
2 power plants in MA & one on Vermont will go off grid in the next few years. 1 is in Marlboro, MA another near the cape in MA, and also Vermont Yankee or course in Vermont.
Some believe the Northern Pass project will end up financially benefiting NH eventually but probably not right away. I encourage all of us to learn more about this project.
There are other solutions to the Northern Pass project, none of which we are well versed on yet. One is to bury the cable, another is to bury the cable along I93 so NH could receive the $50 million. Burying the cable is said to eliminate electromagnetic health risks entirely and though it would likely be more expensive initially it would save future repair and maintenance cost of tower and above ground transmission lines.
We have not heard enough yet to take a strong position on the Northern Pass project. However, we feel it is inherently wrong that a private for profit business entity could use eminent domain to take other’s property for their own profit.
We therefore strongly urge you to contact the entire senate body (only 24) and urge them to protect NH private property rights by voting for SB648 as amended to protect NH private property rights from eminent domain procedures of private business.
…….
Below is an email from a one of the affected property owners and speaking out against the utility eminent domain procedure.
Hi Nick,
I enjoyed meeting you and the other Rotarians.
As I explained yesterday, we oppose the Northern Pass Project as it is proposed to be on Steel Towers, 85 to 135 feet tall every 800 to 1,000 feet for 180 miles through NH.
We want PSNH to bury the cables as is being done or proposed in many, many projects worldwide, including in New York State, Connecticut, and Maine.
The evils of the above-ground cables include:
1) increased chances of childhood leukemia and neurotransmitters and pacemakers fail to work within 100 feet of towers
2) destruction of property values
3) inability to get mortgages or reverse mortgages
4) higher maintenance costs for cables on towers
5) subject to ice storm damage as well as damage from lightening.
6) destruction of vistas and scarring of the White Mountain National Forest
7) will require the use of eminent domain
Next Wednesday (January 25th), our NH State Senators will vote on HB 648 which our NH State Representatives passed with 86% of the vote.
I hope you can support our efforts and can encourage your members to call/write/e-mail as many NH Senators as possible and ask them specifically to support HB 648, The Bragdon-Forrester Amendment. This bill will prohibit a participant funded transmission facility from using eminent domain to seize private property. I am including a list of the key senators to contact (at the end of this e-mail) to try to get them to vote our way. Currently, we believe we have 10 Senators who are definitely with us.
In addition, a letter from your landlord organization would go a long way. There is always strength in numbers.
KEY SENATORS TO CONTACT:
District 8 - Bob Odell (R) 863-9797, 271-6733 - Acworth, Alstead, Charlestown, Claremont, Gilsum, Goshen, Langdon, Lempster, Marlow, New London, Newport, Roxbury, Stoddard, Sullivan, Sunapee, Sutton, Unity, Walpole, Washington, Westmoreland
District 10 - Molly Kelly (D) 357-5118, 271-2166 - Chesterfield, Dublin, Fitzwilliam, Hinsdale, Keene, Marlborough, Richmond, Surry, Swanzey, Troy, Winchester
District 12 - James Luther (R) 465-3471, 271-2246 - Brookline, Hollis, Mason, Nashua
District 13 - Gary Lambert (R) 883-7990, 438-6333, 271-2735 - Nashua
District 15 - Sylvia Larsen (D) 225-6130, 271-2675 - Concord, Hopkinton, Pembroke
District 16 - David Boutin (R) 203-5391, 271-2709 - Bow, Candia, Dunbarton, Hooksett, Manchester
District 18 - Tom DeBlois (R) 493-2281, 271-4151 - Litchfield, Manchester wards 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
District 19 – Jim Rausch (R) 898-0080, 271-3091 – Derry, Hampstead, Windham
District 20 - Lou D'Allesandro (D) 669-3494, 271-2117 - Goffstown and Manchester
District 21 - Amanda Merrill (D) 868-2491, 271-8567 - Dover, Durham, Epping, Lee, Rollinsford
District 22 - Chuck Morse (R) 898-7705, 271-4980 - Atkinson, Pelham, Plaistow, Salem
District 24 - Nancy Stiles (R) 601-6591, 271-6933 - Greenland, Hampton, Hampton Falls, New Castle, Newington, North Hampton, Portsmouth, Rye
Thank you for your help and your concern,
Mike
…
Mike Marino said you could send question for further info to him at marinolee@aol.com.…….
Other Bills of Interest
HB1602 01/19/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 306Title: removing the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.
Summary: This bill as stated removes the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing meaning our maintenance staff and ourselves will have to be licensed. This means maintenance personnel will not be able to spray over the counter pesticides to handle simple exterminations. The is very troublesome for property owners and maintenance staff. Please oppose it and follow it closely.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Email to Committee: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1602.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill removes the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.
Notes: Some of our information on this bill comes from direct convesations with the prime sponsor. The bill is now in subcommittee and you have time to contact the legislators to get in your input. Write to the entire committee with the email listed so as to be sure to the get the subcommittee and every one else. These bills can move very quickly so get in your input to oppose this bill now.
Talking Points:
As mentioned above, if this bill passes, with out a license, a maintenance person can not set off a flea bomb, set ant traps, spray ""Raid"" on a roach, spray wasp killer on a yellow jacket at an apartment where occupants are deathly allergic to bee stings.
This will cost more money and aggravation for maintenance staff and property owners. Or will landlords just give the over the counter pesticides to tenants who can apply it themselves with out a license, and most likely less care for its proper use, or will landlords simply just not treat because of the added headache.
The license will require a $20 annual fee, studying material and passing a test then taking 15 hours of continuing education every 5 years which I’m sure you would have to pay for. According to the information we’ve been given a supervisor could be licensed to supervise staff but the added requirements for that level of licensing makes it better to have every person licensed.
So in the end every maintenance person or landlord applying over the counter pesticides would have to get and maintain this license.
You probably are aware how bureaucracy grows. So if we start with this level license now where do we end up in 10 years?
More notes from the prime sponsor directly below.
…….
Notes from Nick’s phone conversation with prime sponsor Rep. Suzzane Smith
Intent of HB1602 is to make it so that “Janitor” is required to have a “Commercial not for hire pesticide applicator license”.
“Not for hire” is a classification of people that are not in the business of extermination and is the least stringent license requirement.
This DOES mean that maintenance staff will NOT be allowed to apply over the counter pesticides that you would buy at hardware stores, walmart, etc with out the license. However, she says it would not apply to cleaning products.
It seems the impetus behind the bill is from inexperienced people putting down pesticides to attempt to handle the bed bug issue and tenants getting sick.
Suzanne said the essentials of the license are $20, I don’t know if that is per year or once, reading some literature and taking a test plus 15 hours of continuing education every 5 years.
She said there are some provisions for business to have one person licensed and supervising other non-licensed workers. However, there may be a requirement that the supervisor must be on site.
Link to more info on “Commercial not for hire pesticide applicator license” provided in separae email below from Suzanne. That license is administered by the Agriculture Department.
Interestingly from my reading of the bill and law with other landlords, it would seem that tenants would not have any licensing requirement for treating their own space.
Suzanne said she would email me more info.
She also said the Agriculture Department wanted to administer this idea through rules and that this legislature tends to be against additional licensing.
The bill was heard and has gone to a subcommittee of the EDA, Executive Departments And Administration Committee. So if we act quickly we still have time to get in our input.
HB1210 01/20/2012 at 08:30 AM LOB 304
Title: applying the procedures of the eminent domain procedures act to cases of eminent domain concerning public utilities.
Summary: Change law so that public utilities will have to use part of the part of the government eminent domain law instead of only the public utility eminent domain law.
Property Owner Position: unsure of our position; we need to know more.
Email to Committee: ~HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1210.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill requires the public utilities commission to apply the procedures of the eminent domain procedures act to cases of eminent domain concerning public utilities.
Talking Points:
Many bills relating to eminent domain and the Northern Pass issue. Stay tuned.
Unsure of the implications of this bill. One of us may attend the hearing to gain a better understanding.
=====================
HB1153 01/20/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 302Title: relative to fire protection of floors in certain detached dwellings.
Summary: Requires new minimum fire protection standards for floors in new const OR substantially rehabilitated one or 2 unit dwellings. Looks like this could be costly for those rehabbing properties.
Property Owner Position: Varying view points on this. Please review and let us know your thoughts and real life experience.
Email to Committee: ~HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1153.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes minimum fire protection standards for floors of detached single and 2-family dwellings.
Talking Points:
This bill will require for all single family and two family dwellings built or renovated after January 1, 2013 to put 1/2 sheetrock or other fire retardant materials under the floor joints and to seal the penetrations. This is probably submitted by the fire marshal’s office since sprinklers are not going to be required in these buildings. It basically outlaws only having a suspended ceiling except for 80 square feet per story. The intention appears to prevent fires from spreading so quickly that firefighters do not have a chance to arrive and evacuate the building.
Caution: we start by allowing this. What increased requirements happen next year?
(Position 1)
I feel that we should not take a position on this bill. It effects builders and buyers of new homes and new duplexes. It does make buildings safer, and since most rooms have sheet rock ceilings in new construction, I do not feel that it adds heavily to the costs of construction. Given the safety issues involved, and that 1/2 sheet rock is said to be less expensive now than 3/8 sheetrock and is common practice, Since the only new expense is o have ""all penetrations sealed with a fire rated sealant"", I am not sure how much it will raise the cost of construction vs the potential loss of life. Sheet rock is also more pleasing to the eye than suspended ceilings.
(Position 2)
This has to do with requiring owners of existing (substantial renovation), and builders of single and 2 family dwellings to install fireproofing on floors. Although I am not a fire expert, this sounds like an annoying and overreaching law. It could cost a few multi family owners extra money.
We have varying view points on this. Please review and let us know your thoughts and real life experience.
=====================
HB1288 01/20/2012 at 01:15 PM LOB 304Title: relative to protection of private property from the use of eminent domain.
Summary: This makes changes to a public utility's ability to acquire land through the use of eminent domain. It doesn't directly affect landlord and tenant law but it appears to strengthen property owners rights somewhat.
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseScienceTechnologyandEnergy@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1288.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill makes changes in statutes relating to eminent domain to conform to part 1, Article 12-a of the New Hampshire constitution.
Talking Points:
Many bills relating to eminent domain and the Northern Pass issue. Stay tuned.
The bill only deals with eminent domain actions by public utilities. It actually requires more of the utilities than current law, most of the changes appear to make sure there is more due process in the procedure. This includes notification to property owners, appointment of a guardian ad litum for residential property when the owner is unknown or uncertain. This is actually a good bill as it does add protection to property owners. (The main talking point is protection of property owners rights).
We do not think that passage of the bill will effect our memberships to any large degree as with the other bills reviewed regarding eminent domain actions by utilities, as most of our properties are not in locations where the utilities will be building new power lines.
=====================
SB204 01/24/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 102Title: adopting amendments to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code relative to secured transactions.
Summary: Updates Commercial Code for changes in technology, legal entities, etc.
Property Owner Position: No Action
Email to Committee: represcott@represcott.com; raymond.white@leg.state.nh.us; tom.deblois@leg.state.nh.us; matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; andy.sanborn@leg.state.nh.us;
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S37
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0204.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill makes changes to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, relative to secured transactions, as proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Talking Points:
Dropped from our watch list. If this affects you please continue to follow it and respond to legislators.
The bill, assuming the stated analysis is correct, merely adopts changes in the code proposed by the body who originally wrote the code. When the code was written, there was no internet, computers were not used as they are today, and Limited Liability Companies did not exist. The changes, without spending hours of study, deal with the changes in technology, legal entities, and doing business.
=====================
HB1407 01/24/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 301Title: allowing towns to establish a firefighter commission.
Summary: The bill gives municipalities the authority to put to the voters if they want a commission to manage firefighters, and then sets forth the duties of the commission if the voters approve.
Property Owner Position: No Action
Email to Committee: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1407.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill allows towns to establish a firefighter commission.
Talking Points:
We don’t know why the bill was proposed. Without more information, we feel we should not take a position on this bill.
If you learn more and think it is an issue please contact us.
=====================
HB1161 01/24/2012 at 11:00 AM LOB 308
Title: establishing a committee to study permitting nonresident property owners to vote in local elections.
Summary: Title is self evident.
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseElectionLawCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H36
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1161.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes a committee to study permitting nonresident property owners to vote in local elections.
Talking Points:
The bill does exactly what the stated analysis says. It does charge the committee to ""consult with and solicit testimony from members of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers and other similar organizations.""
We recommend contacting legislators in support of the bil and that “other similar organizations” include property owner organizations.
We support the bill. We pay taxes in communities were we do not reside. We should be able to participate in choosing the government of those communities. We are impacted just as much as resident taxpayers by decisions of the local governments. This would include increasing taxes, services to all properties in the community such as police and fire, and changes in local building and health codes.
The bill only establishes a committee, and does not change any existing laws. It will be up to the committee to determine if this is an idea that should be enacted, or should we stay with the status quo.
=====================
HB1634 01/24/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 306
Title: prohibiting the state, counties, towns, and cities from implementing programs of, expending money for, receiving funding from, or contracting with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.Summary: prohibits the state and political subdivisions from implementing programs of, funding, receiving funding from, or contracting with, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1634.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill prohibits the state and political subdivisions from implementing programs of, funding, receiving funding from, or contracting with, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Talking Points:
The bill does exactly what the stated analysis says, prohibiting that state and municipalities from being involved with the ICLEI. We googled the organization, and there are articles both in favor of the organization and against it. In two articles against the organization the authors felt that this international council directed (perhaps dictated) green type policies to communities stepping on individual rights.
If communities become members of this organization, more restrictions could eventually be imposed upon us, including reducing emissions from our heating systems, use of pesticides, and even sanding and salting our parking lots. Given the type of projects listed in one of the articles, changing a 4 lane road to two lane and two bicycle lanes, would potentially increase our taxes, when the money needs to go to schools, police and fire protection.
=====================
HB1501 01/25/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 305
Title: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.
Summary: $25 “donation” per toilet collected through property tax.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
Email to Committee: ~HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopment@leg.state.nh.us
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H22
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1501.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants, replace failing septic systems, and reduce nitrogen discharge.
Talking Points:
This will require every municipality when mailing tax bills to ask taxpayers to voluntarily contribute $25. per toilet into a fund that would help utilities upgrade wastewater treatment plants, replace failing septic systems and reduce nitrogen discharge. Would anyone actually contribute to this fund? Cities and Towns would incur the costs of soliciting the money, and if any is collected, the accounting costs and forwarding the funds to the state.
What about the excessively large number of people who’s property taxes are escrowed with their mortgage payments. Would their bank not even look at the bill and end up paying the “donation” leaving the property owner paying higher taxes with out knowing it. The property owner would now need to know to intercept the bill and communicate to the bank servicing agent to not pay or not pay the donation. What a hassel, fraught with problems and communication difficulties.
Is it really practical? Will the municipalities collect more money than their costs? This may raise our taxes without any real benefit other than reducing the unemployment rate as new people will be needed to administer the funds.
====================="
SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.
Summary: Many improvements to eviction and eviction-small small claims
Property Owner Position: Support
Email to Committee: matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us; fenton.groen@leg.state.nh.us; jim.luther@leg.state.nh.us; james.forsythe@leg.state.nh.us;
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0301.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill:
I. Requires 7 days notice for eviction from residential property, regardless of the grounds for the eviction.
II. Allows the landlord to amend a writ of summons to correct minor procedural defects.
III. Increases the amount of damages available in landlord-tenant disputes from $1,500 to $10,000.
IV. Requires former tenants to execute a financial affidavit and provide a forwarding address if they have been found liable for damages to the landlord.
Notes: Hearing Date: January 26th 2012 at 13h45
Room: Legislative Office Building, Room #101
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
This bill:
I. Requires 7 days' notice for eviction from residential property, regardless of the grounds for the eviction.
II. Allows the landlord to amend a writ of summons to correct minor procedural defects.
III. Increases the amount of damages available in landlord-tenant disputes from $1,500 to $10,000.
IV. Requires former tenants to execute a financial affidavit and provide a forwarding address if they have been found liable for damages to the landlord.
Talking Points:
Sorta obvious. But we will develop more before the hearing.
=====================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.