N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. » N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. / Title xxxi / Chapter 358-c
New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-C:2 (2026)

General Prohibition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    358-C:2 General Prohibition. – No debt collector shall collect or attempt to collect a debt in an unfair, deceptive or unreasonable manner as defined in this chapter.

Source. 1975, 437:1, eff. Aug. 18, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2021 · leading case: Moore v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.N.H. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moore v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.N.H. 2012). · cites it 2× “” N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 358-C:2. The Moores allege that Harmon violated this command in that it (a) “made materially false representations as *126 to the status of foreclosure proceedings when [it] initially claimed to represent Saxon”; (b) “knew or should have known that the…”
Farrin v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 2016 DNH 178 (D.N.H. 2016). · cites it 2× “” RSA 358-C:2. Farrin contends that Nationstar violated RSA 358-C:2 by claiming that Farrin still owed the discharged debt and might be liable for additional fees.”
Pruden v. CitiMortgage, 2014 DNH 115 (D.N.H. 2014). “” RSA 358-C:2. Thus, [t]o recover under . .”
Charles R. Estes, et al. v. P ECMC Grp., Inc., 2020 DNH 159 (D.N.H. 2020). · cites it 2× “” RSA 358-C:2; see RSA 358-C:4; see also Dionne, 2016 WL 3264344 , at *9.”
Charles R. Estes, et al. v. P ECMC Grp., Inc., 2021 DNH 117 (D.N.H. 2021). “” RSA 358-C:2; see RSA 358-C:4. ECMC argues that HEA preempts plaintiffs’ UDUCPA claim.”
Estes v. ECMC Grp., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00822 (D.N.H. Sept. 16, 2020). · cites it 2× “” RSA 358-C:2; see RSA 358-C:4; see also Dionne, 2016 WL 3264344 , at *9.”
Estes v. ECMC Grp., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00822 (D.N.H. July 26, 2021). “” RSA 358-C:2; see RSA 358-C:4. ECMC argues that HEA preempts plaintiffs’ UDUCPA claim.”
Judith Tompson v. Michael Feniger, Esq. & a., No. 2017-0356 (N.H. Dec. 21, 2017). “In dismissing the first claim, the trial court reasoned that, to prevail under RSA 358-C:2 (2009), the plaintiff had to establish that Feniger acted in an unfair, deceptive, or unreasonable manner, and that malice could not be inferred merely from the filing of defective liens.”
Curtis Leach v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2019-0359 (N.H. Jan. 31, 2020). “” RSA 358-C:2 (2009). The plaintiff does not allege facts establishing how the defendant attempted to collect the debt in an unfair, deceptive, or unreasonable manner.”
Faiella v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, et al., 2017 DNH 026 (D.N.H. 2017). “June 20, 2016) (quoting RSA 358-C:2). Section 358-C:3 of the UDUCPA, 7 Faiella also contends that Fannie Mae is vicariously liable for Ditech’s actions under the FDCPA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.