Rule 49.Security
Group IX: Provisional and Final Remedies · Last amended October 1, 2013 · Last verified July 14, 2026
Full Text of Rule 49
Amendment History
Adopted May 22, 2013, eff. October 1, 2013.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 49 is a short rule with a narrow purpose: when the person bringing a civil action in New Hampshire superior court lives outside the state, the court can order that plaintiff to post security for costs. The rule leaves the amount and the deadline to the court's own order rather than fixing either in advance.
The reason for a security-for-costs requirement is plain enough even though the rule does not spell it out: a defendant who wins a case is normally entitled to recover certain costs from the losing plaintiff, and that recovery is harder to collect from someone with no assets or presence in the state. Requiring security up front gives the defendant something to draw on if the nonresident plaintiff's claim fails.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who has to post security for costs under Rule 49?
A plaintiff who is a nonresident of New Hampshire. The rule applies specifically to that situation; it does not require security from plaintiffs who live in the state.
How much security does a nonresident plaintiff have to post?
Rule 49 does not set a fixed amount. It directs the court to order security in whatever amount, and within whatever time, the court decides is appropriate for the case.
What happens if a nonresident plaintiff does not post the required security?
The text of Rule 49 does not spell out a specific penalty. It focuses on the court's authority to require security and to set the amount and deadline by order, leaving enforcement of that order to the court.
Does Rule 49 apply to defendants as well as plaintiffs?
No. The rule addresses only the plaintiff, and only when that plaintiff is a nonresident of New Hampshire.
Can the amount or timing of the security be changed after the court sets it?
Rule 49 puts the amount and the time for furnishing security within the court's discretion at the outset, which suggests the court retains control over the terms of that requirement as the case proceeds.