When a landlord-tenant dispute reaches court, both parties understandably want the judge to hear what happened. A landlord may have spent months trying to resolve unpaid rent or a disagreement over the property. A tenant may have records that explain why the landlord’s account is incomplete. Each may arrive expecting that the hearing will be the opportunity to put everything before the court.
An important part of that opportunity depends on what happens before the hearing.
Effective October 8, 2026, House Bill 1598 changes several procedures governing New Hampshire landlord-tenant cases. The amendments place greater emphasis on identifying defenses early and requesting additional preparation time promptly. They also change what happens following a default or a judgment for possession. For both landlords and tenants, the practical lesson is that preparation needs to begin when the court papers arrive. HB 1598, Laws 2026, Chapter 308.
A significant change concerns the tenant’s initial response. A tenant who wishes to contest an eviction must still file an appearance by the return date shown on the writ. The amended law adds a separate requirement: an answer stating the tenant’s affirmative defenses and any counterclaims must be filed no more than five days after the return date. Filing an appearance and filing an answer are distinct requirements. RSA 540:13, II(a).
For a tenant unfamiliar with court proceedings, that distinction may be easy to overlook. The facts that seem most important to the tenant must be considered in relation to the legal grounds for the eviction. A disagreement over the condition of the property, for example, does not answer every possible claim for possession in the same way. Understanding which issues are legally relevant helps determine what should be raised and what records will be needed to support it.
For landlords, an early statement of the tenant’s position can make preparation more focused. It provides an opportunity to examine the disputed issues before the hearing and determine whether additional information is needed.
Both parties retain the right to conduct discovery, the process of obtaining relevant information from the other side. Under the new law, a party requesting discovery must identify the defense, claim, or counterclaim to which the request relates. A motion seeking a continuance to complete discovery generally must be filed within five days after the return date, unless good cause or the parties’ agreement permits otherwise. This deadline concerns the request for additional time; it does not require all discovery to be completed within those five days. RSA 540:13, IV.
The law also addresses defenses first raised at the hearing. If the landlord did not have prior notice of a defense, the landlord is entitled to a continuance of up to seven days, unless the landlord requests longer to prepare a response. The provision gives the landlord time to address an unexpected issue. It also gives both parties a practical reason to identify the dispute clearly before the scheduled hearing. HB 1598, § 308:1.
The consequences of failing to participate also deserve attention. A tenant who fails to file an appearance or attend the hearing on the merits is considered in default, and the amended law requires the court to mail notice of that default the following day. Separately, the law provides that a tenant default precludes a discretionary stay of dispossession. Missing a required step can therefore affect both the opportunity to contest the case and the availability of additional time to move. RSA 540:13, V; RSA 540:13-c, I.
Even when the tenant has participated, the rules concerning additional time after judgment are changing. Previously, the court could grant a discretionary stay of up to three months. The amended statute generally limits that period to 60 days. A stay of up to 75 days requires proof that the longer period will not cause financial harm to the landlord, damage to the premises, or ongoing health or safety threats, together with a demonstrated need for additional time based on circumstances such as age, familial status, disability, or limited English proficiency.
Neither period is automatic. The court must determine that justice requires a stay under the circumstances, and the requirement to pay rent weekly in advance during the stay remains. For tenants, this makes it important to understand what must be shown when requesting time. For landlords, it provides more defined limits while preserving a measure of judicial discretion. RSA 540:13-c.
The act also expressly requires tenants who file postjudgment motions, including motions for reconsideration, to continue paying rent as it comes due from the filing of the motion through the court’s final ruling on it. Anyone considering further proceedings after an unfavorable decision should account for the continuing payment obligations as well as the filing deadlines. HB 1598, § 308:1.
A separate change applies to prohibited-practices proceedings under RSA 540-A, which address matters such as unlawful lockouts and interference with utilities. The amended statute requires the parties to exchange the documents they intend to offer into evidence at least five days before the hearing on the merits. Electronic exchange is permitted. If a party fails to comply, the court must grant a continuance of no more than five days when requested by the party who did not receive the documents. This provision belongs to the RSA 540-A proceeding; it should not be assumed to establish the exhibit deadline for every eviction case. RSA 540-A:4, VII(c).
Taken together, these changes make early attention to the case more consequential. The practical value of legal advice often lies in recognizing what needs to be addressed while there is still time to address it. For a landlord, that may mean preparing to answer a defense that could affect the right to possession. For a tenant, it may mean identifying the legal significance of facts that otherwise seem like background to the dispute. A careful review at the beginning can help either party present a clearer case and better understand whether an agreement is possible before the court must decide.