Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)

Citation: Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
Parent Document: Wells Fargo Bank v. Schultz, 164 N.H. 608 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093508/wells-fargo-bank-v-schultz/ ↗

Full Text

725 chars

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. He argues that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a possessory action under RSA 540:12 because the plaintiff failed to prove that it was the “owner” of the Property. The issue presents a question of statutory interpretation. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Kevlik, 161 N.H. 800, 802 (2011). ‘We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.” Id. ‘We first examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used.” Id. We review the trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo.” Id.

Other Sections in This Document (17)

Full Text