Christine Westgate v. Stephen Dennis ( 2016 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2016-0135, Christine Westgate v. Stephen
Dennis, the court on December 23, 2016, issued the following
order:
Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm
in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The plaintiff, Christine Westgate (tenant), appeals an order of the Circuit
Court (Tenney, J.) in her action against the defendant, Stephen Dennis
(landlord). She contends that the trial court erred by: (1) not finding that the
landlord violated RSA 540-A:6, II(a) (2007), governing the holding of security
deposits, see Cantwell v. J & R Props Unlimited, 155 N.H. 508, 514 (2007)
(stating substantial compliance with RSA 540-A:6, I (1997) (amended 2006)
sufficient); (2) not finding that the landlord unlawfully entered the apartment, see
RSA 540-A:3, IV-a (Supp. 2015) (authorizing landlord to enter to make
emergency repairs); RSA 540-A:3, V (2007) (prohibiting tenant from refusing
landlord access to premises for reasonable functions after adequate notice); (3)
finding that the tenant had vacated the apartment before the landlord changed
the locks; and (4) awarding the landlord attorney’s fees in the amount of $750 in
connection with his emergency motion to quash a subpoena.
As the appealing party, the tenant has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s order, the tenant’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and
the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the tenant has not
demonstrated reversible error on these issues. See id.The tenant further contends that the trial court erred by not ordering the
landlord to pay interest on her security deposit. See RSA 540-A:6, IV(a) (2007).
The landlord “concede[s] that [the tenant] was entitled to the interest earned on
the $830 security deposit.”
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order only to the extent that it did
not award the tenant interest on her security deposit and direct the trial court,
upon remand, to determine the amount of the interest to which the tenant is
entitled, and award her such interest. Upon remand, the trial court may also
consider the landlord’s allegation that the tenant has not satisfied its award of
$750 in attorney’s fees associated with his motion to quash a subpoena, and his
request to set off any interest award against the attorney’s fee award. As to these
issues, we leave to the trial court’s discretion whether a further hearing is
necessary.
Affirmed in part; vacated in
part; and remanded.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2