Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Citation
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-11-21
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
- Sherryland, Inc. v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262 (2003)
Full Text
1,138 charsIn late July, the defendant and her neighbors, who were experiencing septic problems, received a letter from Sherryland eliminating the incentive discount because it was “not working.” Two days later, they were served with an eighteen-month notice to quit stating as its reason for eviction “discontinuation of the Manufactured House Site as rental site to others.” The defendant continued to apply the incentive discount to her rent obligation following receipt of the July letter because she believed she was entitled to be informed about the specific park rules she was allegedly violating before she lost the benefit of the incentive discount. However, because she continued to apply the discount, Sherryland served her in October with a thirty-day notice to quit for non-payment of rent. In response, the defendant filed a complaint with the board of manufactured housing (board) claiming that Sherryland “unreasonably and unfairly declared [her] ineligible for [the] ‘incentive’ discount” and that the eighteen-month notice to quit “constitute^] an unjustified attempt to require [the] removal of [her] manufactured housing unit[].”