BUATTI v. Prentice, 27 A.3d 849

Tenant Prentice rented an apartment from Landlord Buatti in Pittsfield, NH.
On Sept. 7, 2010, Landlord served a rent demand claiming arrears of $1,520 for July 18–Sept. 11, 2010.
On Sept. 12, 2010, Landlord served a notice to quit demanding total rent and $15 liquidated damages under RSA 540:9.
District Court found tenant not current on rent but could not determine the exact arrearage; Landlord awarded possession.
Tenant appealed, but no transcript was provided; court reviewed for errors of law and reversed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the demand complied with RSA 540:8 not to exceed arrears	Buatti argued demand was timely and appropriate under RSA 540:8.	Prentice argued the demand potentially exceeded the actual arrearage.	Landlord failed to prove the amount of arrearage and thus failed to prove RSA 540:8 compliance.
Whether the court could sustain the writ without a specific arrearage amount proved	Buatti contends any arrearage amount proven would support eviction.	Prentice contends the amount was not proven, so writ should be denied.	Reversed; the landlord must prove the exact amount due and did not here.
Proper remedy when arrearage amount is not proven	Buatti seeks eviction based on alleged arrears.	Prentice should not be evicted without a proven amount due.	The proper remedy is denial of the writ; other remedies discussed but not decided due to lack of amount.

Nowell v. Wentworth, 58 N.H. 319 (1878) (demand must not be for a greater sum than due)
Lavoie v. Szumiez, 115 N.H. 266 (1975) (statutory requirements for eviction notices and compliance)
So. Willow Properties v. Burlington Coat Factory of N.H., 159 N.H. 494 (2009) (strict compliance with RSA chapter 540)
Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248 (2004) (review for sufficiency when transcript absent)
Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396 (1997) (errors-of-law review in eviction appeal)