New Hampshire House Bill HB1171

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/1/25
• Refer: 12/1/25
• Report DNP: 2/9/26
• Report Pass: 3/16/26

Caption

relative to eviction safeguards for tenants whose Social Security payments are disrupted.

Summary

HB 1171 would amend New Hampshire’s landlord-tenant eviction law to create a temporary protection for residential tenants who fail to pay rent because their monthly Social Security benefits were unexpectedly interrupted. Under the bill, a tenant in that situation would receive a 90-day grace period to find alternative shelter or other funding before the nonpayment could proceed in the usual eviction process. The bill is narrowly focused on a specific cause of rent delinquency: an unanticipated halt in Social Security payments. The measure would add a new paragraph to RSA 540:3, the state statute governing eviction-related provisions, and would take effect on January 1, 2027. In practical terms, it would not eliminate the rent obligation, but it would delay the immediate consequences of nonpayment for affected tenants and create a statutory defense or delay period tied to disrupted federal benefits. The bill therefore affects both tenants relying on Social Security income and landlords seeking to enforce timely rent payment. The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears mixed, with the House voting to recommend inexpedient to legislate (ITL) by a vote of 186-154. That vote suggests a substantial number of lawmakers supported the bill’s tenant-protection goal, but a larger coalition opposed creating a special eviction safeguard tied to benefit interruptions. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded vote is the main indicator of legislative sentiment. The main point of contention is likely whether the state should create a targeted eviction delay for tenants whose Social Security payments are disrupted, and whether that protection is too narrow, too broad, or places an unfair burden on landlords. Supporters would likely view the bill as a limited hardship safeguard for vulnerable seniors and disabled tenants who depend on Social Security, while opponents may argue that rent obligations should not be suspended based on a benefit interruption and that existing housing or assistance programs are a better response. Because the bill is specific to Social Security disruptions, it also raises questions about whether similar protections should extend to other income interruptions or public benefits.

Impact

HB 1171 would amend RSA 540:3 by adding a new eviction-related protection for residential tenants whose Social Security payments are unexpectedly halted. It would create a 90-day grace period for those tenants to secure alternative shelter or funding before nonpayment of rent can proceed without that statutory delay. The bill would therefore modify New Hampshire landlord-tenant law by adding a narrow, benefit-specific exception to ordinary eviction timelines, affecting tenants dependent on Social Security income and landlords who lease to them.

Sentiment

The available voting record suggests the bill generated divided but ultimately negative sentiment in the House. The 186-154 ITL vote indicates meaningful support for the concept of eviction safeguards for vulnerable tenants, but not enough to advance the bill. With no committee transcript available, the clearest signal is that lawmakers were split between tenant-protection concerns and reluctance to alter eviction rules for a specific category of missed rent.

Contention

The likely core dispute is whether a temporary eviction grace period is an appropriate response to a sudden interruption in Social Security benefits. Supporters would emphasize housing stability for seniors and disabled tenants who may have no immediate control over benefit disruptions, while opponents may argue that the bill creates a special exemption from rent enforcement and could impose hardship on landlords. Another point of contention is the bill’s narrow scope: it protects only tenants affected by Social Security interruptions, which may prompt concerns about fairness compared with tenants facing other income shocks or benefit delays.