2003-807, MANSFIELD ADAMS, JR v. WOODLANDS OF NASHUA

the plaintiff moved into the building, he was not made aware of the problem at treat the entire building for roaches. Though the problem had existed before the property, and the defendant had hired a professional pest control service to complex since November 2002. Prior to that, a roach problem had existed at children, has lived in a twenty - four unit building in the defendant’s apartment The record reflects the following facts. The plaintiff, who has two young

his tenancy. We reverse. (amended 2003), for willfully violating the plaintiff’s right to quiet enjoyment of Adams, Jr., $26,000 in liquidated damages, see RSA 540 - A:4, IX (1997) ruling of the Nashua District Court (Ryan, J.) awarding the plaintiff, Mansfield DALIANIS, J. The defendant, Woodlands of Nashua, appeals from a

Bisson on the b rief, and Mr. Cronin orally), for the defendant. Cronin & Bisson, P.C., of Manchester (John G. Cronin and John F.

Mansfield Adams, Jr., pro se, filed no brief.

No. 2003 - 807 Nashua District Court

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. O pinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

refrain from interference with the tenant’s possession during the tenancy. See upon the common law doctrine that the covenant obligates the landlord to does not further define a tenant’s right to quiet enjoymen t; however, we rely be subject to the civil remedies set forth in RSA 358 - A:10 . . . .” RSA 540 - A: p. 2 2 landlord . . . who violates RSA 540 - A:2 or any provision of RSA 540 - A:3 shall to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy . . ..” Pursuant to RSA 540 - A:4, IX, “Any RSA 540 - A:2 provides, “No landlord shall willfully violate a tenant’s right

387, 389 ( p. 2 2001). add words that the legislature did not include. Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. words or phrases. We will not consi der what the legislature might have said or provision is at issue, we will focus upon the statute as a whole, not on isolated language of the statute itself. Where the language of a particular statutory review de novo. The starting point in any statutory interpretation case is the The trial court’s interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we

540 - A: p. 2 2. We agree. had disturbed the plaintiff’s right to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy under RSA defendant argues tha t the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant A:2 (1997), and ordered damages pursuant to RSA 540 - A:4, IX. On appeal, the plaintiff’s and his family’s right to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy, see RSA 540 - The trial court found that the defendant had willfully violated the

evicting the tenant and changing pest control compan ies. testified that the defendant had now taken steps to remedy the problem by flourish despite the pest control service’s treatments. That employee further improperly maintained b y its tenant. This caused the roach population to was that a single unit, within the twenty - four unit building, had been An employee of the defendant testified that the nature of the problem

that the third treatment had failed and he had seen numerous roaches. same treatment. As of October 16, p. 2 2003, the date of trial, the pl aintiff testified defendant, for a third time, had the pest control service return to perform the Nashua code enforcement officer who then contacted the defendant. The performed. Once again, this procedure failed and the plaintiff contacted the returned on May 20, 2003, to perform the same procedure it had previously infested by roaches. The defendant notified the pest control service, which Two months later, the plaintiff reported that the apartment was again

service treated his apartment. appointment was scheduled for March 19, p. 2 200 p. 3 3, at which time the pest control was noticed. The plaintiff reported seeing a roach on March 11, 2003, and an be performing an i nspection and to contact the property manager if any activity received a notice in February 2003 stating that the pest control service would the time he signed his lease, and did not become aware of the problem until he 3

concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., a nd NADEAU, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ.,

not further discuss this issue. made no finding with regard to the implied warranty of habitability, we need occupancy in the unsafe, unsanitary or unfit condition. Id. As the trial court rent and the fair rental value of the premises as the y were during the tenant’s be an award of damages measured by the difference between the agreed upon implied warranty of habitability. Id. The proper remedy in such a case would unsanitary may have a remedy because such conditions could violate the Further, as we stated in Crowley, a tenant whose premises are unsafe or infestation could cause a tenant to lose the use of part or all of the premises. covenant of quiet enjoyment, as there may be circumstances where a pest We do not hold today that no pest infestation claim could vio late the

premises without consent). See Crowley, 147 N.H. at p. 3 391. utility service, denying tenant access to rented premises, and entering rented (amended 2003) (prohib iting landlord from, among other things, interrupting not similar in scope to the specific acts described in RSA 540 - A:3 (Supp. 2003) caused the plaintiff to lose the use of his premises. Furthermore, this claim is find, nor would the record have supported a finding, that the insect infestation right to quiet enjoyment under RSA 540 - A:2 because the trial court did not rodent infestation claim made in Crowley, does not constitute a violation of the We now hold that the insect infestation claim made in this case, like the

also constitute a basis for damages under RSA 540 - A:4, IX. Id. at p. 3 391. prohibited by former RSA 540 - A:3 (1997) (amended 1998, 2001, 2003), which terms, that the claims made by the tenant were not similar in scope to those ordinarily construe a general te rm in a statute in light of related, specific A:4, IX. Id. at 388, 390. We further held, relying upon the principle that we under RSA 540 - A:2, so as to constitute a basis for damages under RSA 540 that could be construed as violating that tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment a finding that the tenant lost any use of the premises, did not constitute claims falling ceiling plaster, leaking roofs and walls, and structural problems, absent plumbing problems, electrical problems, a residual garbage problem, loose and In Crowley v. Frazier, we held that a tenant’s claims of rodent infe station,

premises); see also Crowley, 147 N.H. at p. 3 389. substantially interferes with tenant’s beneficial use or enjoyment of the (holding th at breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment occurs when landlord Echo Consulting Services v. North Conway Bank, 140 N.H. 566, 571 (1995)