Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 21–40 of 127 results

§ 540

Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011) New Hampshire state

fulfilled Flo-Pro's obligation to provide a security deposit. Indeed, Flo-Pro would seem to be estopped from taking that

Cantwell v. J & R Properties Unlimited, Inc., 924 A.2d 355 (2007)

Cantwell v. J & R Properties Unlimited, Inc., 924 A.2d 355 (2007) New Hampshire state

The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment with respect to damages for his receipt claim and with respect to liability and damages for the defendant’s failure to pay interest on his security deposit. The defendant conceded that the plaintiff...

Miller v. Slania Enterprises, Inc., 150 N.H. 655 (2004)

Miller v. Slania Enterprises, Inc., 150 N.H. 655 (2004) New Hampshire state

The landlord next contends that the trial court erred by ruling that the May 31, 2002 security deposit damage letter was untimely. See RSA 540-A:7,1 (1997) (providing thirty days for landlord to return security deposit). As the...

Geldhof v. Penwood Associates, 119 N.H. 754 (1979)

Geldhof v. Penwood Associates, 119 N.H. 754 (1979) New Hampshire state

...1977), which requires landlords to pay interest on security deposits, affects deposits tendered under lease agreements executed prior to the effective date of the statute. We hold that it does not.

§ 11

Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011) New Hampshire state

as the security deposit (though, erroneously, not the second amended version) to Iron Horse. In light of this provision, it is nearly impossible to see

§ 540

Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011) New Hampshire state

19 supra, however, Flo-Pro conceded at the injunction hearing that Iron Horse does not have a security deposit at present. Even without this concession, there is no likelihood that

Dow v. Carter, 122 N.H. 395 (1982)

Dow v. Carter, 122 N.H. 395 (1982) New Hampshire state

...The plaintiff Dow became a tenant of the defendant Carter on or about April 10, 1980, and gave a security deposit of $150. After falling in arrears, the plaintiff paid $300 to cover his rent through May 22, 1980. According...

§ 11

Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011) New Hampshire state

28 expectations' necessarily included that the defendants might sell the [property] to the [third party]"). Second, the estoppel certificate also spells out the parties' respective obligations as to the security deposit

Harrington v. Metropolis Property Management Group, Inc., 162 N.H. 476 (2011)

Harrington v. Metropolis Property Management Group, Inc., 162 N.H. 476 (2011) New Hampshire state

The petitioner first argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for the return of his security deposit. He claims that, by operation of certain provisions of RSA chapters 540 and 540-A, the lease term requiring sixty...

Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011)

Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011) New Hampshire state

security deposit is an irrevocable Letter of Credit from Royal Bank of Canada ["RBC"] in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars. [Flo-Pro] agrees to arrange for [Fenwick] to facilitate the assignment/re­ issuance of the LOC to...

Jerry Gaucher v. Gary E. Waterhouse, Trustee of the Waterhouse Realty Trust & a.; Jerry Gaucher v. Gary Waterhouse & a. (2022)

Jerry Gaucher v. Gary E. Waterhouse, Trustee of the Waterhouse Realty Trust & a.; Jerry Gaucher v. Gary Waterhouse & a. (2022) New Hampshire state

Nonetheless, the trial court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to a “set-off” for his $1,500 security deposit and rejected the Trust’s argument that the LTA sub silentio extinguished his right to the return of his...

Jerry Gaucher v. Gary E. Waterhouse, Trustee of the Waterhouse Realty Trust & a.; Jerry Gaucher v. Gary Waterhouse & a. (2022)

Jerry Gaucher v. Gary E. Waterhouse, Trustee of the Waterhouse Realty Trust & a.; Jerry Gaucher v. Gary Waterhouse & a. (2022) New Hampshire state

Nonetheless, the trial court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to a “set-off” for his $1,500 security deposit and rejected the Trust’s argument that the LTA sub silentio extinguished his right to the return of his...