1. Whether in regards to a contract for rental housing between a long-term resident of an
extended-stay hotel property and the extended stay hotel property operator, the New
Hampshire statute governing tenant eviction (ie. the NH tenant eviction statute) or the
NH supreme court's interpretation of that statute
i. resulted in an unlawful impairment of a contract for rental housing between a longterm resident of an extended-stay hotel property and the extended stay hotel
property, in violation of the contract clause of the constitution? and whether the
failure or refusal of the NH supreme court to address or consider whether such a
contract existed (or the terms thereof) because of its interpretation of the NH tenant
eviction statute, constitutes an impairment or invalidation of the contract in violation
of the Contract Clause of the Constitution? [NB: sub-classes of this question are as
follows:]

" By refusing to resolve the contract issue and/or seeking to destroy the
contract between two private parties or by ignoring the existence of a tenancy
contract, did the NH supreme court err in not providing a meaningful
opportunity to be heard on the contract analysis issue in this case (i.e. whether
there was a rental contact entered into by the parties that created tenancy
rights in this case).

® Since contracts are a form of property, did the NH supreme court decision
erroneously result in the unjust deprivation of property without due process
of law?

= By ignoring the contract issue, and passively deferring to the statute, did the
lower court caused the state statute to override the contract and was the
petitioner effectively denied the right to contract because the court stated that
the statute states that a hotel can have no tenants (regardless of the fact that a
contract for tenancy existed in this case)?

= — Is the way the state statute is constructed, in saying that an occupancy in a
hotel does not create tenancy rights, make it unconstitutional to the extent
that it destroys the right of the parties to create a contract otherwise and did it
abrogate the petitioner's rights under the contract? Has the statute
unconstitutionally created an irrebuttable presumption that one (including the
petitioner) cannot ever under no circumstances whatsoever have a tenancy in
something that calls itself a hotel? Does the state statute create a 'conclusive
presumption' problem that implicates the constitutional right to contract in
that the statute affords no chance to establish a contract that would trump the
statute, nor does it not envision any possibility that two people could create a
contract for a tenancy in a hotel?

= Similarly, is the state statute unconstitutional because it violates the equal
protection clause in that it arbitrarily and capriciously treats two classes of
tenants differently (i.e. long-term residents in a hotel who have a housing
rental contract versus residents in an apartment who have a housing rental
contract) without any rational purpose or compelling government interest?
And is it arbitrary and capricious for the state statute to say that no one can
ever create a tenancy in a hotel including, for example, someone lives in a
hotel in NH for 20 years, with a 20-year lease or housing rental contract with
the owner of the hotel? Does this arbitrary and capricious application and
classification create a due process violation?

ii. is unconstitutional because it results in disparate impact race discrimination, in
violation of the equal protection clause and/or the commerce clause of the
constitution?

iii. should find that if the petitioner has a lease or rental contract for housing, and/or if

Whether the NH statute governing tenant eviction or the NH Supreme Court's interpretation of that statute resulted in an unlawful impairment of a contract for rental housing, in violation of the Contract Clause