Subcommittee reviews HP598 amendment to speed certain evictions, spur debate over shorter discretionary stays

Nick Norman, who presented the draft amendment to House bill HP598, told the subcommittee the proposal removes a standalone expedited-eviction section and instead weaves its changes into existing eviction statutes to avoid conflicting with long-established law.

"If the tenant files any post judgment motions including but not limited to a motion for reconsideration, the tenant must pay all rent as it comes due between the date of the motion and the filing final ruling of the motion," Norman said, summarizing the amendment's treatment of post-judgment filings as akin to an appeal.

Norman described several other revisions: requiring motions for continuance to be filed promptly (drafters discussed five days as a guardrail for discovery continuances), codifying that a tenant default (failure to request or appear for a merits hearing) precludes discretionary stays, requiring the court to mail a notice of default the next day and issuance of a writ of possession seven days later in default cases, shortening some discretionary stays from three months to 60 days, and amending RSA 540A language to let judges order immediate vacatur where occupants or guests engage in conduct that ‘‘adversely affects the health and safety of other tenants or the landlord or his representatives.’'

Norman also said drafters set the bill’s effective date to 90 days after passage rather than the start of the next year because they believe the changes impose no fiscal impact on the courts.

Representative Paige pressed for clarifications. "Could you explain a little bit what you're hoping to achieve here and also, maybe walk me through some scenarios?" she asked, noting concern the language could remove judicial discretion in meritorious cases. She and others also sought a clearer definition of "immediately," suggesting the bill use a specific-day approach (for example, seven days for judgments when both parties appeared) to reduce ambiguity.

Mr. Barry, an attendee speaking from experience in eviction practice, said that while judges typically act quickly, a strict 60-day cap on discretionary stays could be problematic in rare but real instances—particularly for elderly or disabled tenants who need more time to secure housing. He urged that any authority to remove only offending individuals be limited and that procedural safeguards remain, recommending landlords provide documentary evidence five days before hearings so tenants have minimal discovery rights.

Steve Tower of New Hampshire Legal Assistance told the committee negotiated 90-day move-out agreements frequently resolve cases for both landlords and tenants and warned that cutting discretionary stays to 60 days would make such settlements harder to reach. He offered to submit drafting edits and a small grammatical fix noted in the text.

Committee members responded that tenants who default still have the right to file motions to strike default within seven days, and that the draft could include language allowing longer stays by agreement of the parties. Members agreed there appeared to be room for compromise on the 540A amendments—seeking language that would allow judges to remove only the perpetrator where appropriate while preserving remedies for serious safety hazards like violent acts, hoarding that creates fire risk, or criminal conduct.

The subcommittee directed drafters and stakeholders to exchange language quickly; members scheduled a reconvening the following Tuesday morning to finalize an amended amendment and, if ready, vote on a recommendation to the executive session on Feb. 3 at 9:30 a.m. The subcommittee adjourned after confirming those next steps.