Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Citation
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Parent Document
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-05-25
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
- Hutchins v. Peabody, 151 N.H. 82 (2004)
Full Text
623 charsThe plaintiffs filed a writ in Keene District Court seeking to recover possession of the apartment for non-payment of rent. See RSA 540:13 (Supp. 2003). The defendants argued that their eviction was barred by RSA 540:13-d. The trial court disagreed and found that RSA 540:13-d was not applicable because the apartment was in need of rehabilitation that was substantially more expensive and time consuming than the repairs contemplated by the statute. The trial court also found that the defendants *84were entitled- to a reduction in rent “owing to the breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” This appeal followed.