HB1598

Rape kits provide essential evidence, which must be properly handled and preserved in order for victims to have access to to everything which brings them the best chance for justice, and healing.

This erodes tenants rights. This is not acceptable

I think it a shame that 5 people are trying to make the housing crisis worse. In 2023 NH had the highest increase in state homelessness. In 2024 it had gone down by 8%. Do we really need it going back up again and then some? This is not something that needs to be changed right now. In the grand scheme New Hampshire has a lot more important issues to tackle, especially regarding housing. We should be focused on how to get more folks into housing and affordability overall. Not kicking people out of housing.

I oppose this as someone who has been a social service provider for people experiencing homelessness and who has experienced homelessness myself.

As a queer person planning to propose to my girlfriend next year, I want us to be able to legally get married in the state we fell in love in. Please support us and queer people everywhere by ensuring our right to marry the people we love isn't a political debate, but a universal right.

You only create a bigger problem of homelessness in the state of New Hampshire unless you oppose this bill. New Hampshire has no plan for homelessness, it continues to create a more inhospitable state.

This bill unjustly impacts the rights of tenants in private housing conflicts. This bill is NOT needed.

If we don't support tenants basic rights we will have no low-income workers. We need them in order to function.

I oppose this bill because it will absolutely worsen the homelessness situation in New Hampshire, specifically Manchester, and there is a major lack of bills that are helping with the homelessness problem. This will only be worse for Granite Staters

It is truly embarrassing how little we seem to care about others in the 21st century. Why are we focusing our energy and power to allow landlords to kick tenants out easier while also making it impossible for renters to live stable lives? There are no houses to buy and even if there are, no one has the money to buy one except landlords. So they do and then the charge high rent and people need shelter to survive so renters rent. And then they can’t pay bills and will this law it will be easier for the to be homeless. You say you’re trying to solve problems but you are just creating bigger issues. Trying solving homelessness and the housing crisis before making it easier to make others homeless. Care a bit more about your every day residents and your neighbors. That’s all I can ask of you. Care.

This bill will be abused by predatory entities, and will adversely impact those of our loved ones who are disabled, or support disabled family members, elderly, living with serious mental illnesses, and women and children. It will most certainly be abused for predatory purposes, especially to enable housing to be used for more lucrative purposes. We have a housing crisis in the state, and those without stable housing grows each month. Destablizing the law around housing, will work exactly counter to any efforts ongoing within towns, cities, and statewide, to ensure more of our citizens are able to have the most basic of all needs met - a home. This concept of " a home insecurity" is often difficult for those with many resources available to them to feel as real, but it is very very real and in the rural areas, this can be even worse than urban areas. Every entity, from schools, to advocacy groups, to police departments and town halls, will tell you this is real and any laws now that destabilize housing law, and make it easier to put anyone on the street, will worsen a problem and put those of us who attend to and are care givers of disabled people who want to live independently, are more risk to carry out the support we do. Below are points from the Friends Service Committee and these are valid points. What does the bill do? ? Will take a wrecking ball to hundreds of years of New Hampshire landlord tenant law. ? Shortens the time for notice to tenants, time to file appearances, and hearings to be scheduled for non-payment evictions and a newly created category of evictions. ? Sheriffs can lock out tenants within 24 hours of a landlord and tenant hearing, rapidly putting tenants out on the streets and practically eliminating their right to appeal. ? Practically strips Judges of discretion to issue stays to keep tenants housed when there are good reasons to do so. ? Limits defenses that can be raised at a LL/T hearing to the merits of the claim, effectively stripping tenants of rights they enjoy under federal, state, and common law. Eliminated defenses include: o Rent withholding defenses o Refusal to accept rent defenses o Retaliation defenses o Procedural defenses o Plea of title defenses o Violence Against Women Act defenses o Fair Housing defenses Who is impacted? ? Tenants o This bill will significantly impact tenants in private housing. o It will reduce the time that tenants have to get caught up with their rent and risk default judgements. o It will make working with attorneys difficult as the expedited timeline will limit attorney's ability to take cases and diligently investigate and represent tenants. o Tenants will effectively not be able to defend themselves and will lose rights that tenants have enjoyed throughout the state’s history. ? The Court o As noted in the bill’s financial impact statement, this bill will burden the court with a major increase in the number of new hearings that need to be scheduled. o The expedited timeline will frustrate the busier courts’ scheduling abilities and lead to other types of important hearings to be deprioritized at the expense of eviction actions. ? Landlords o The chaos caused by this act is going to at minimum lead to a period of extra appeals for landlords as the courts sort out the scope of the act. o This will lead to uncertainty and additional attorney fees for some landlords. ? Sheriffs o Sheriffs offices will be taken away from their criminal law enforcement duties in order to meet the increase in new evictions and the rapid 24 hour lockout period. ? The State o Homelessness crisis will be greatly exacerbated by a glut of new rapid evictions. o Makes New Hampshire a less appealing place to live in for renters of all incomes.

I oppose HB1598. As a real estate attorney, I believe an expedited eviction action with 5-days notice to quit is a violation of due process because it is not a reasonable amount of time for a layperson to receive actual notice, engage an attorney to defend your possessory rights, and adequately respond. I also believe 3-days after service of a court summons to file an answer or default is a violation of due process because that is not enough time for actual notice, engagement of an attorney, or prepare for a court hearing. This bill will exacerbate an already tight real estate rental market, kicking folks out of their rentals with no alternative rental supply to move into. I believe this is a mistake to shift the power relationship between a landlord and tenant so unfairly towards the landlord without adequate protection of tenants due process rights. As a former landlord’s attorney, I also question whether our circuit courts can move this quickly to docket this many eviction hearings in practicality. My guess is that the courts will not be able to adequately keep pace with this time table, especially under current budgetary restraints. For these reasons, I oppose HB1598 and urge you to vote ITL.

This is a significant erosion of tenants' rights, at a time when housing is increasingly difficult to find and afford.

The Disability Rights Center - NH (DRC-NH) opposes HB 1598 for the following reasons: 1. If passed, HB 1598 would limit a court's ability to consider valid defenses a tenant might raise in an eviction action. Doing so will increase the number of New Hampshire's residents who are homeless as tenants would no longer be permitted to raise a variety of valid defenses to eviction actions, including rent withholding based on the property owner or manager's failure to, among other things,: meet state and local housing standards, accept rent through tender of a local welfare voucher, or comply with anti-discrimination requirements in the federal fair housing act. 2. Under the federal fair housing act (FHA), property owners and managers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities who require such to have equal housing opportunities. Further property owners and managers must permit tenants with disabilities to make reasonable modifications to their dwellings - such as installing a ramp at the tenant's expense-- to ensure physical access to their dwelling units. If HB 1598 passes, property owners and managers would be able to circumvent their obligations under the FHA by, for example, denying reasonable accommodation requests or requests to modify a property for accessibility, and then filing expedited eviction actions against disabled tenants who are entitled to the FHA's protections. For these reasons, DRC-NH urges the committee to recommend that HB 1598 be determined inexpedient to legislate. Thank you for your consideration.

The Members of the NH Council on Developmental Disabilities (NHCDD) believes this bill could have a negative impact on the NH disability community.

This bill creates new grounds for eviction for families where someone is either unlawfully present or has been convicted of a laundry list of crimes. Let’s be clear, landlords can already evict for any health or safety reason. So this just makes it easier-requiring little to no proof. Landlords already have a broad “other good cause” option for eviction that can include failure to disclose information. And nothing obligates a landlord to rent to someone with a criminal record. So this is unnecessary. In 2025, the legislature already made it easier for landlords to evict folks without cause. Why are we continuing to move in this direction, during a housing crisis? Shouldn’t we be trying to keep people housed? Examples, a mixed status family. Mom & kids are US citizens, but dad has an asylum application pending. Do we want them to lose their housing? How about a grandparent who is raising their 19 year old grandchild who was convicted of possession of marijuana? Again, we want them out on the street? Re: “unlawful presence”-this term is a moving target. There is no definition and a definition would be difficult to come by. Immigration status is not fixed or static. Status can change dramatically. There are many interim statuses between “undocumented” and “green card holder.” For example, many young people who have been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile Visas after proving to family courts in New Hampshire that they have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both parents are on a waitlist of six or more years before they can apply for lawful permanent residence. These individuals are lawfully present, have work authorization, and pay taxes. Another example includes individuals granted a U-visa or a bona fide U-applicant status after law enforcement agencies in New Hampshire certified that the applicants have been helpful in prosecuting crimes of violence perpetrated against them in the state. These individuals frequently must wait three to fifteen years before they are eligible for legal permanent residence. Again, these delays are not due to any issue with the individuals’ applications, moral characters, or the law itself, but simply due to administrative waits and limits on visa availability.

Thank you Again to everyone My name is Mary N Georges, I am here today in opposition to HB1598. This bill creates new requirements and restrictions that will have serious unintended consequences for families, low income residents, and vulnerable community members. Instead of solving a clear problem, HB1598 add complexity, increase barriers, risks harming the very people our laws are meant to protect. HB 1598 also places additional burdens on our courts,service providers, community organizations without offering the resources needed to implement these changes responsibly. When legislation creates new mandates without support, the result is confusion, inconsistency, and unequal treatment across the state. Most importantly, this bill does not reflect the lives realities of the families we serve. It risks widening disparities, increasing instability, conflict , insecurity, creating new points of failure in systems that are already stretched thin. For reasons of fairness, practicality, and community well-being, I respectfully urge you the committee to vote “ Inexpedient to legislate “on HB 1598 Thank you for your time and consideration. Rep. Mary Georges Committee member on C FL (603)264-7083

I'm testifying in opposition to HB1598. This bill raises the standard of renters to an unsustainable level, violating the balance of power between tenant and landlord. I urge you to vote no to HB1598.

As a former landlord, I cannot support a bill that makes life harder for tenants during a terrible housing crisis. We want New Hampshire to be a welcoming place, especially for young people looking to start families and establish careers here. They will have a hard time finding homes to buy. Let's not make renting more difficult, too.

This bill would further undermine tenants' rights, at a time when housing prices and shortages are already causing great hardship. Landlords already have plenty of power to evict when they have good reasons. Please oppose this bill.

The war on immigration, all the gaslighting and manufactured crisis, needs to end.

Housing is a basic human right and everyone deserves a roof over their head.

This js unfair. It makes it impossible for tenants to have enough time to seek out legal counsel.

Making it more difficult to keep housing doesn't help with the homeless problem.