Cited by

A breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment occurs when the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant’s beneficial use or enjoyment of the premises.

To constitute a breach of the implied warranty of habitability, the violation must “render[] the premises unsafe or unsanitary, and thus unfit for living therein.” Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 391 (2001) (emphasis added); see also Kline, 111 N.H. at 93.

at 8); see Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 389 (2001) (“The right to or covenant of quiet enjoyment is a common law doctrine.

The covenant of quiet enjoyment is a common law doctrine that obligates the landlord to refrain from interferences with the tenant’s possession during the tenancy.

Neither insect infestation, see Adams v. Woodlands of Nashua, 151 N.H. 640, 642 (2005), rodent infestation, or “numerous violations of the statutory minimum housing standards that result[ ] in unhealthy and hazardous living conditions,” Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 389, 390 (2001), constitutes a violation of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, unless it causes the tenant to lose the use of the premises.

Adams, 151 N.H. at 642; Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 390 (2001).

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.

Because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law, we review *726 the trial court’s decision de novo.

The starting point in any statutory interpretation case is the language of the statute.

We will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include.

The trial court’s interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

The trial court’s interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.

Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 389 (2001) (quotations and brackets omitted).

“The starting point in any statutory interpretation case is the language of the statute itself.” Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 389 (2001).

We review the trial court’s interpretation of the statute de novo.

The probate court’s interpretation of a statute is a *756 question of law, which we review de novo.

“The trial court’s interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 389 (2001).

“We will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include.” Crowley v. Frazier, 147 N.H. 387, 389 (2001) (quotation omitted).