Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Citation
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Parent Document
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2022-04-01
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
- Melissa Natal v. GMPM Company & a. (2022)
Full Text
761 charsFollowing the hearing, the circuit court issued an order concluding that the defendant wrongfully evicted the plaintiff. The circuit court found that the “testimony was clear” that the defendant “does not occupy the premises but that [the defendant’s agent] . . . visit[s] the property to clean and for maintenance.” Based upon that finding, the court determined that the property was not a shared facility, and, therefore, RSA chapter 540-B did not provide a basis for the defendant to remove the plaintiff from the property. The court further determined that the plaintiff was “a normal tenant” under RSA chapter 540, which provides protections for tenants of residential property. The court concluded that, by removing the plaintiff from the property without