SB 164 would create a new section in RSA 356-A to regulate certain service agreements tied to residential real estate transactions. The bill defines a “service agreement” broadly as a contract for services connected to the maintenance, purchase, or sale of residential property, and then declares such agreements “unfair” if they extend beyond two years and purport to run with the land, bind future owners, allow assignment without the owner’s consent, or create a lien, encumbrance, or other real property security interest. It also makes it unlawful to record such an agreement, or a notice or memorandum of it, in the land records.
The bill includes several exclusions, such as home warranties, insurance contracts, options or rights of first refusal, common-interest-community declarations, HOA maintenance agreements, mortgage-related documents, certain UCC security agreements, and regulated utility services. It also preserves mechanics lien rights. If an unfair service agreement is induced, the conduct is treated as an unfair or deceptive act under the state consumer protection law, and recording such an agreement can lead to misdemeanor penalties, refusal of recording by a county registrar of deeds, and civil remedies including a court order declaring the agreement unenforceable, actual damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. The act would take effect January 1, 2026.
In practical terms, the bill would affect homeowners, residential real estate service providers, title and recording practices, and anyone attempting to place long-term contractual obligations on homes that could burden future owners. It would also amend the state’s consumer protection and property-recording framework by giving courts and registrars explicit authority to block or nullify these agreements and by creating a criminal penalty for recording them.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is protective of homeowners and skeptical of restrictive real estate service contracts. The bill’s title and analysis frame the measure as prohibiting unfair agreements, suggesting a consumer-protection purpose rather than a broad restriction on ordinary home-related contracts. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated policy direction.
The main point of contention implied by the text is the scope of the prohibition: the bill targets agreements that can burden future owners or create property interests, but it must also avoid sweeping in legitimate arrangements such as home warranties, HOA agreements, mortgages, and utility services. Another likely issue is the criminal penalty and the ability of registrars to refuse recording, which could raise concerns among service providers and real estate interests about overbreadth, enforceability, and impacts on contract freedom.
SB 164 would add RSA 356-A:16-a to New Hampshire law, creating a new category of prohibited or unenforceable service agreements in residential real estate transactions. It would also amend the state consumer protection regime by deeming attempts to induce an owner into an unfair service agreement to be an unfair or deceptive act or practice under RSA 358-A:2, and it would authorize criminal and civil consequences for recording such agreements. The bill would directly affect residential property owners, service providers, county registrars of deeds, and parties involved in title and recording disputes.
The bill appears to have a generally pro-homeowner, consumer-protection orientation, aimed at stopping long-term or burdensome real estate service contracts from attaching to homes and affecting future owners. The available materials do not include committee testimony or vote results, so there is no recorded evidence of divided debate or formal opposition in the provided context. Based on the text alone, the measure is framed as a corrective to unfair practices rather than a controversial policy expansion.
The likely areas of contention are the breadth of the definition of “service agreement,” the prohibition on agreements that run with the land or create liens, and the criminal penalty for recording a prohibited agreement. Real estate service providers may object that the bill could limit legitimate business models or contract structures, while homeowner advocates would likely support the restrictions as necessary to prevent hidden burdens on property. The bill tries to narrow that tension through explicit exemptions for home warranties, mortgages, HOA-related documents, utilities, and other common arrangements.