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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6456928/melissa-natal-v-gmpm-company-a/ ↗

Full Text

1,206 chars

Because the statute does not define the meaning of the terms within RSA
540-B:1, we look to the dictionary for guidance as to the ordinary meaning of
those terms. See RSA 21:2; State v. Ruff, 155 N.H. 536, 539 (2007). The verb
“share” is defined as “to partake of, use, experience, or enjoy with others: have
a portion of <~ a room>.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2087
(unabridged ed. 2002). Moreover, the term “in common” is defined as “that is
shared, experienced, or possessed together or equally.” Id. at 458. In light of
these definitions, we conclude that the plain meaning of RSA 540-B:1 requires
use and enjoyment by both the owner and the occupant of “one or more
significant portions of the facility in common.” RSA 540-B:1, I (emphasis
added). The inclusion of the term “in common” demonstrates that the owner
must use and enjoy the common areas of the premises in the same manner as
the occupants — namely, “for residential purposes.” Id. Because an owner
cannot use and enjoy the facilities in the same manner as the occupants
without residing at the property, we further conclude that the owner must
reside at the premises to qualify as a shared facility under RSA 540-B:1, I.

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text