[whitjake]

I have lived at my residence for 5 years and have been late a total of 4 times. My landlord has charged me $300 every time I was late. My rent is $1340 a month. Is this legal? In the lease it states she can charge me 20% late charge after 5 days.
NH LAW STATES:
540:9 Payment After Notice. – No tenancy shall be terminated for nonpayment of rent, utility charges, or any other lawful charge contained in a lease or an oral or written rental agreement if the tenant, before the expiration of the notice, pays or tenders all arrearages plus $15.00 as liquidated damages; provided, however, that a tenant may not defeat an eviction for nonpayment by use of this section more than 3 times within a 12-month period.
Source. 1905, 57:1. PL 357:9. RL 413:9. RSA 540:9. 1985, 249:4. 2000, 155:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2001

[LILL]

While 20% seems excessive, it is not illegal under NH law.

The statute you quote is referencing tenants who have received a "notice to pay or quit", it has nothing to do with late fees being charged.

[Fr_Chuck]

While high, it is not unheard of and appears legal under the state law.

Easy way to solve it, just don't be late. Many places also add a per day fee for every day you are late.

[excon]

Hello:

I think it's illegal - the word "unconscionable" comes to mind. You cannot contract away your rights, and in my view, this contract violates your rights to NOT be treated in an unconscionable manner.

In my view, if she does it again, you can sue her, and prevail. You can't sue her for her past discretions, however, because you let them pass. The court will think that if it didn't bother you THEN, why should it bother you now.

If you do sue, you're not going to be living there much longer. But, I think you're contemplating a move now anyway, or this issue would have surfaced LONG ago.

I looked up landlord/tenant law for NH. It makes no mention of late fees. Therefore, one must rely on contract law. If the terms of a contract are found to be unconscionable, the contract will be voided.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

excon

[excon]

Hello again:

For your edification:

UNCONSCIONABLE defined - Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it.

When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.

In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace.

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such contracts.

No standardized criteria exist for measuring whether an action is unconscionable. A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search of drugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples." The Court relied on these general historical and moral traditions as the basis for ruling unconstitutional an unconscionable act.

excon

[stevetcg]

Hello:

I think it's illegal - the word "unconscionable" comes to mind. You cannot contract away your rights, and in my view, this contract violates your rights to NOT be treated in an unconscionable manner.

In my view, if she does it again, you can sue her, and prevail. You can't sue her for her past discretions, however, because you let them pass. The court will think that if it didn't bother you THEN, why should it bother you now.

If you do sue, you're not going to be living there much longer. But, I think you're contemplating a move now anyway, or this issue would have surfaced LONG ago.

I looked up landlord/tenant law for NH. It makes no mention of late fees. Therefore, one must rely on contract law. If the terms of a contract are found to be unconscionable, the contract will be voided.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

excon

How is it unconscionable? She is 5 days late on her rent. The landlord needs that money in order to pay the mortgage who most certainly is going to charge late fees, possibly quite high.

The contract specifically states what the terms of the lease are and given that there is a 5 day grace period, to me, perfectly reasonable. Unconscionable to me would be if the rent was not submitted by the 2nd... 5 days is perfectly reasonable.

My advice - don't renew your lease or don't be late on your rent.

[excon]

How is it unconscionable?

Hello steve:

How high does it have to be before it becomes unconscionable? No limits? I don't think you're that cold, steve. Would YOU charge that much? THAT should be (and IS legally), your guide.

excon

PS> I did add that last legal thingy at the same time you posted. Maybe it'll help.

[Fr_Chuck]

Excon would have hated to be my tenant, I had mostly lower value rentls, but on a 400 a month rental the late fee after 5 days was 100 plus 10 dollars a day for every day late. So if they did not pay before the 15th there was 200 dollars late due.

Most very stiff late payments are there for a reaon, to force the tenant to pay on time, which they are suppose to do anyway.

[excon]

Hello again:

I don't disagree with the IDEA behind late fees. I only disagree with the fees being "unconciencable"...

And, I'm STILL sticking with it.

excon

[stevetcg]

Hello steve:

How high does it have to be before it becomes unconscionable? No limits?? I don't think you're that cold, steve. Would YOU charge that much? THAT should be (and IS legally), your guide.

excon

PS> I did add that last legal thingy at the same time you posted. Maybe it'll help.

I don't know - 200%? It is unconscionable to not pay your rent on time. 20% is a strong deterrent.

And yeah - I would charge that much. Or more.

[excon]

I dunno - 200%? It is unconscionable to not pay your rent on time. 20% is a strong deterrent.

Hello again, steve:

So, there IS a number. Cool. We just don't agree on what it is.

As I said above, there's no standardized criteria for measuring whether an action is unconscionable. While both you and the Padre aren't landlords I'd rent from, should any of your tenants sue you over YOUR late fees, the court will apply ITS conscience, or moral sense. YOURS ain't going to count.

Now, I suppose it's possible for the judge to also be a landlord who just got screwed. If that's so, then ITS conscience ain't going to be too good for the tenant.

excon

[Francess]

I think this is unconscionable an cruel an cruel