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

Citation: Harrington v. Metropolis Property Management Group, Inc., 162 N.H. 476 (2011)
Parent Document: Harrington v. Metropolis Property Management Group, Inc., 162 N.H. 476 (2011)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2011-09-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093357/harrington-v-metropolis-propert... ↗

Full Text

1,051 chars

The petitioner argues that the trial court relied on a mistaken finding of fact regarding when Metropolis offered him. a different apartment. However, based on our review of the record and the trial court’s order, we find no misapprehension of fact by the trial court. Rather, the trial court described Metropolis’s numerous efforts to address the petitioner’s complaints, including talking to both Carson and the petitioner about his noise complaints, offering to move the petitioner into a different apartment in the complex, and later to grant him a right of first refusal on any available unit in the complex. Moreover, the evidence shows that the trial court’s recitation of Metropolis’s efforts does not evince any misunderstanding of the underlying facts. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in its ruling that the petitioner failed to establish a willful violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Accordingly, we need not reach the petitioner’s argument on the trial court’s loss of use ruling.

Other Sections in This Document (26)

Full Text