Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Citation
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Maine (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-01-26
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
- Mulholland v. Poole, 866 A.2d 122 (2005)
Full Text
506 chars[¶ 9] In the present case, the District Court was convinced by Mulholland’s testimony that his reason for evicting Poole was not retaliation, but rather a desire to use the site differently. Therefore, the court appropriately found that Mulholland was entitled to a writ of possession of the property. See Richard R. Powell, Real Property § 16B.05[2] (2000 ed.) (“the landlord who has no retaliatory motive remains free ... to terminate for any reason, or for no reason at all, that is, even arbitrarily”).