Cited by

Colonial Village v. Pelkey, 157 N.H. 91, 93-94 (2008); Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655, 660-61 (2004).

Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655, 659 (2004); see also State v. Homo, 132 N.H. 514, 516 (1989).

We will uphold the trial court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.

We review questions of law de novo.

We review questions of law de novo.

We review questions of law de novo.

We review questions of law de novo.

With respect to the standard of review in this case, we apply binding precedent from Miller v. Slania Enterprises.

Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655, 659-60 (2004) (concluding that the trial court did not err by awarding damages under a theory not pleaded by the tenant where the landlord did not object to evidence or argument on the theory, responded to the theory in a post-trial memorandum, and otherwise failed to demonstrate any unfair prejudice arising from the

Furthermore, although we have often stated that actions are not willful when taken accidentally or on the basis of a mistake of fact, see, e.g., Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655, 662 (2004), our case law does not “indicate an intent to define ‘willful’ the same in every context,” Morgan, 144 N.H. at 52.

We review questions of law de novo.

Furthermore, in November 2015, the tenants successfully argued to the trial court that, pursuant to RSA 540:13, VII (2007), the landlord’s acceptance of rent payments pursuant to an oral agreement, and without written notice of his intention to proceed with eviction, created a new tenancy.

We will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

We will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

Legal conclusions, as well as the application of law to fact, are reviewed independently for plain error.

Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655, 659 (2004); see RSA 540-A:4, V. Our inquiry is to determine whether the evidence presented to the trial court reasonably supports its findings, and then whether the court’s decision is consonant with applicable law.

BCF argues that based upon Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655 (2004), and Colonial Village v. Pelkey, 157 N.H. 91 (2008), “the landlord must take some affirmative step to put the tenant on notice that the landlord’s acceptance of future rent after claiming a breach and serving an eviction notice will not operate as a waiver of the landlord’s right to proceed with an eviction.” “

He cited Miller v. Slania Enterprises, 150 N.H. 655, 657, 661 (2004), in which we held that a landlord who had obtained a writ of possession, but thereafter accepted *92 future rent and rental arrearages from the tenant, created a new tenancy and was required to bring a new eviction action.

In certain contexts, we have defined a “willful act” as a “voluntary act committed with an intent to cause its results.” Miller v. Slania Enters., 150 N.H. 655, 662 (2004) (regarding landlord-tenant matter); Ives v. Manchester Subaru, Inc., 126 N.H. 796, 801 (1985) (regarding employment matter).

We will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.