New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 511-A:8 (2026)
Exceptions Prior to Hearing
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
511-A:8 Exceptions Prior to Hearing. –
Upon application to the court, in exceptional circumstances, an attachment may be ordered in advance of notice to the defendant if the plaintiff establishes probable cause to the satisfaction of the court of his basic right to recovery and the amount thereof and in addition thereto the existence of any of the following:
I. There is substantial danger the property sought to be attached will be damaged, destroyed, concealed, or removed from the state and placed beyond the attachment jurisdiction of the court.
II. An attachment is necessary to vest quasi in rem jurisdiction of the court.
III. In equity cases for specific performance of an agreement to transfer land or a unique chattel, there is imminent danger of transfer to a bona fide third party. In such land cases, as well as those to perfect a labor and materials lien under RSA 447, a writ of attachment may be filed at a registry of deeds without prior application and notice, provided said writ is in the form of a lis pendens and specifically restricts its application to the particular real estate described in the writ and the return of attachment.
IV. An attachment is necessary to prevent the absolute vesting of title in a purchaser upon the imminent expiration of the notice period under a bulk sale.
V. When necessary to secure an important governmental or general public interest, or when other exceptional circumstances are established to the satisfaction of the court.
In all cases of attachment made ex parte the court may impose reasonable conditions thereon and a hearing shall be granted as promptly as possible upon the subsequent request of a defendant.
Upon application to the court, in exceptional circumstances, an attachment may be ordered in advance of notice to the defendant if the plaintiff establishes probable cause to the satisfaction of the court of his basic right to recovery and the amount thereof and in addition thereto the existence of any of the following:
I. There is substantial danger the property sought to be attached will be damaged, destroyed, concealed, or removed from the state and placed beyond the attachment jurisdiction of the court.
II. An attachment is necessary to vest quasi in rem jurisdiction of the court.
III. In equity cases for specific performance of an agreement to transfer land or a unique chattel, there is imminent danger of transfer to a bona fide third party. In such land cases, as well as those to perfect a labor and materials lien under RSA 447, a writ of attachment may be filed at a registry of deeds without prior application and notice, provided said writ is in the form of a lis pendens and specifically restricts its application to the particular real estate described in the writ and the return of attachment.
IV. An attachment is necessary to prevent the absolute vesting of title in a purchaser upon the imminent expiration of the notice period under a bulk sale.
V. When necessary to secure an important governmental or general public interest, or when other exceptional circumstances are established to the satisfaction of the court.
In all cases of attachment made ex parte the court may impose reasonable conditions thereon and a hearing shall be granted as promptly as possible upon the subsequent request of a defendant.
Source. 1973, 537:1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: Topjian Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Bruce Topjian, Inc., 529 A.2d 391 (N.H. 1987).
Topjian Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Bruce Topjian, Inc., 529 A.2d 391 (N.H. 1987). “The issues presented in this interlocutory appeal concern whether the pre-judgment attachment statute, RSA 511-A:8, requires prior application to the court for an order to attach property to secure a labor and materials lien under RSA chapter 447.”
State v. Bader, 808 A.2d 12 (N.H. 2002). “RSA 511-A:8 (1997) states, in pertinent part: Upon application to the court, in exceptional circumstances, an attachment may be ordered in advance of notice to the defendant if the plaintiff establishes probable cause to the satisfaction of the court of his basic right to…”
H.E. Contracting v. Franklin Pierce Coll., 360 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D.N.H. 2005). “Under RSA 511-A:8, however, courts may grant certain attachments without prior notice to the defendant “if the plaintiff establishes probable cause to the satisfaction of the court of his basic right to recovery and the amount thereof.”
Maine Nat'l Bank v. Baker, 355 A.2d 429 (N.H. 1976). “The plaintiff excepted to orders denying its motion to amend a writ of attachment authorized ex parte on Decern *186 ber 19, 1974, pursuant to RSA 511-A:8 (Supp. 1975) governing ex parte attachments.”
Pine Gravel, Inc. v. Cianchette, 514 A.2d 1282 (N.H. 1986). “Stella was “responsible for said payment,” and that the company and the trust received the benefit of site work and additional work and were unjustly enriched.”
Chagnon Lumber Co. v. Stone Mill Constr. Corp., 474 A.2d 588 (N.H. 1984). “This applicability is apparent in the provision of RSA 511-A:8, III for specific exemptions from the requirement of prior notice.”
Fraser Eng'g v IPS-Integrated, 2018 DNH 067 (D.N.H. 2018). “Under RSA 511-A:8, a court may attach property ex parte if a plaintiff establishes probable cause of its basic right to recovery and the amount of the lien.”
Alex Builders & Sons, Inc. v. Danley, 7 A.3d 1219 (N.H. 2010). “185, 186 (1976) (discussing RSA chapter 511-A, and, in particular, RSA 511-A:8), and the statute affords an enhanced right of recovery in the form of priority over certain other liens, see RSA 447:12-a (2002) (priority over construction mortgages).”
Thomas v. Finger, 679 A.2d 567 (N.H. 1996). “Although RSA 511-A:8 (1983), for example, grants a defendant the right to “a hearing” following an ex parte attachment, it does not specify the type of hearing provided.”
Deasy v. Dernham Co. (In Re Blondheim Modular Mfg., Inc.), 65 B.R. 856 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1986). “Whatever sense this may make in the case of pre-judgment attachments following notice, it makes no sense whatsoever in the case of ex parte attachments made pursuant to RSA 511-A:8 which are, by definition, made without pri- or notice on the defendant.”
P. J. Currier Lumber Co. v. Stonemill Constr. Corp., 415 A.2d 869 (N.H. 1980). “Mechanics’ Liens § 162(b) (1948). If we were to uphold the plaintiff’s attachments as being properly secured, the result would be to deprive the landowners of the statutory notice to which they are entitled.”
Sindt v. Gilfoyle, 469 A.2d 1334 (N.H. 1983). “Both the plain meaning of the words “as of right” in RSA 498:16 and our historical study of that provision indicate that this language, which first appeared in the Public Statutes of 1891, chapter 205, section 11, purports to give plaintiffs in equity substantially *318 greater…”
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 511-A:8(III): 2 cases
H.E. Contracting v. Franklin Pierce Coll., 360 F. Supp. 2d 289 (D.N.H. 2005). “Under RSA 511-A:8, however, courts may grant certain attachments without prior notice to the defendant “if the plaintiff establishes probable cause to the satisfaction of the court of his basic right to recovery and the amount thereof.”
H.E. Contracting v. Franklin Pierce, 2005 DNH 047 (D.N.H. 2005).
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.