## Facts

- Mansfield Adams, Jr. rented an apartment in a 24-unit building owned/managed by Woodlands of Nashua and lived there with his two young children starting in November 2002.
- A roach problem existed in the building before Adams moved in; the landlord had retained professional pest control to treat the building.
- Adams was not informed of the infestation when he signed the lease and learned of it after receiving a notice in February 2003 about an inspection and reporting pest activity.
- Adams reported a roach sighting on March 11, 2003; pest control treated his apartment on March 19, 2003.
- About two months later, Adams again reported infestation; the landlord arranged a second treatment on May 20, 2003.
- After continued roach activity, Adams contacted a municipal code enforcement officer, who contacted the landlord; a third treatment was performed.
- By the October 16, 2003 trial date, Adams testified the third treatment had failed and he continued to see numerous roaches.
- The landlord presented evidence that one improperly maintained unit was the source, and that it later evicted that tenant, retained a new pest control service, and sealed floors and walls in the problem unit to prevent spread.

## Issues

1. Whether a persistent insect infestation, on these facts, constituted a willful violation of the tenant’s statutory right to quiet enjoyment under RSA 540-A:2.
2. Whether the tenant was entitled to liquidated damages under RSA 540-A:4, IX absent proof the infestation caused a loss of use of the premises.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the infestation did not establish a statutory quiet-enjoyment violation because there was no finding, and the record would not support a finding, that Adams lost the use of the premises.
- Because there was no violation of RSA 540-A:2, the $26,000 liquidated damages award under RSA 540-A:4, IX was improper and had to be reversed.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory claim for interference with quiet enjoyment under RSA 540-A:2 requires substantial interference with the tenant’s use of the premises; discomfort alone is insufficient.
- Insect infestation does not, by itself, establish a quiet-enjoyment violation without proof the tenant lost use of the premises.
- Liquidated damages under RSA 540-A:4, IX depend on an underlying willful violation of RSA 540-A:2; absent such a violation, statutory liquidated damages are unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a roach infestation, though persistent and unpleasant, did not constitute a statutory violation of quiet enjoyment without evidence the tenant was substantially deprived of use of the apartment, and it therefore reversed the liquidated damages award.


Adams v. Woodlands of Nashua, 151 N.H. 640, 864 A.2d 322 (N.H. 2005)