Geldhof v. Penwood Associates
Decision Date | 12 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 79-099,79-099 |
Citation | 119 N.H. 754,407 A.2d 822 |
Parties | Joseph W. GELDHOF v. PENWOOD ASSOCIATES. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Joseph Geldhof, by brief and orally, for plaintiff.
Jill Garber, law student, and Bruce E. Friedman, Concord (Friedman, orally) filed brief, for amicus curiae Franklin Pierce Law Center Family and Housing Law Clinic.
Stanley, Tardif & Shapiro, Concord (R. Peter Shapiro, Concord, orally), for defendant.
The issue in this case is whether RSA 477:48 (Supp.1977), which requires landlords to pay interest on security deposits, affects deposits tendered under lease agreements executed prior to the effective date of the statute. We hold that it does not.
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Geldhof rented an apartment from Penwood Associates, Inc. on September 11, 1976. The parties executed a lease under which the tenant gave the landlord $140 as a security deposit. The lease did not mention interest. On September 13, 1977, the legislature enacted RSA 477:48 (Supp.1977). Eight months later the parties terminated the tenancy and Penwood, after deducting certain sums from the deposit, and without calculating any interest, returned the remainder to the Geldhofs. Mr. Geldhof then brought an action in Concord District Court to recover the interest accumulated between the effective date of RSA 477:48 (Supp.1977) and the end of the lease, and for other relief not germane to this appeal. The District Court (Waters, S. J.) ruled that the landlord's failure to pay interest violated the statute, and Penwood appealed.
The New Hampshire Constitution states: N.H.Const. pt. I, art. 23. The Geldhofs take the position that RSA 477:48 (Supp.1977) may be applied to a lease contract made before the statute's effective date without violating our constitution. We disagree. In this jurisdiction, the question whether the application of a law violates part I, article 23 of our State constitution is resolved according to an often-stated principle, first articulated by this court in 1826. A statute is retrospective if it "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past . . . ." North American Manufacturing Co. v. Crown Int'l Inc., 115 N.H. 114, 116, 335 A.2d 660, 662 (1975); Woart v. Winnick, 3 N.H. 473, 479 (1826).
The lease in question in this case, signed in 1976, created a one-year term which was automatically renewed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ballou
...187 (1974); and compare with Smith Insurance, Inc. v. Grievance Committee, 120 N.H. 856, 424 A.2d 816 (1980); Geldhof v. Penwood Associates, 119 N.H. 754, 407 A.2d 822 (1979). Such distinctions between the consequences of retrospectivity in the penal and civil spheres should not concern us ......
-
United States v. Ottati & Goss, Inc.
...retrospective. Id. (quoting Society v. Wheeler, 22 F.Cas. 756, 767 (C.C.D. N.H.1814) (No. 13, 156)); see, Geldhof v. Penwood Associates, 119 N.H. 754, 755, 407 A.2d 822, 823 (1979). Norton, 125 N.H. at 415, 480 A.2d 190 (quoting Woart, 3 N.H. at In Norton the court stated that a retrospecti......
-
Opinion of the Justices, 92-131
...alleged, see Smith Insurance, Inc. v. Grievance Committee, 120 N.H. 856, 862-63, 424 A.2d 816, 820 (1980); Geldhof v. Penwood Associates, 119 N.H. 754, 755, 407 A.2d 822, 823 (1979). We therefore understand article I, section 10 and part I, article 23 to offer equivalent protections where a......
-
Appeal of Pennichuck Water Works
...that they affect the rights and obligations of parties who have previously formed a contractual relationship. Geldhof v. Penwood Associates, 119 N.H. ---, 407 A.2d 822 (1979). In Geldhof, we focused on part I, article 23 of our State Constitution which states: "(R)etrospective laws are high......
-
New Hampshire's New Non-Compete Law
...unless the language of the amendment or surrounding circumstances express a contrary legislative intent."); Geldhof v. Penwood Assoc., 119 N.H. 754, 755 (1979) (holding that a statute could not be applied retroactively under part I, article 23 of the State Constitution to change the rules f......