Muse v. Merrimack Valley National Bank

4 Citing cases

  1. PVP-Salem Associates v. Parlex Corporation

    Civil No. 04-cv-386-JD, Opinion No. 2006 DNH 028 (D.N.H. Feb. 28, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    These facts preclude the determination, as a matter of law, that Parlex breached the lease by failing to vacate and surrender the premises on time. See, e.g., Gooding Realty Corp. v. Bristol Bay CVS, Inc., 763 A.2d 650, 653-54 (R.I. 2000) (noting that tenant's retaining key and maintaining utilities for premises beyond lease termination did not permit ruling as matter of law that occupancy continued); Centurian Development Ltd. v. Kenford Co., 400 N.Y.S.2d 263, 266 (N.Y.App.Div. 1977) (ruling that tenant surrendered premises "despite its retention of a key and the sporadic re-entry by its employees to sell or inspect the tools and furniture which continued to be stored there"); cf. Muse v. Merrimack Valley Nat'l Bank, 114 N.H. 700, 702 (1974) (noting, without discussion, that tenant's leaving trailer in mobile home park after eviction created holdover tenancy). B. Whether Parlex Failed to Remove Alterations, to Remove Other Items, or to Leave the Property in Good Order and Condition

  2. Laro v. Leisure Acres Mobile Home Park Associates

    139 N.H. 545 (N.H. 1995)   Cited 5 times
    Finding no unsustainable exercise of discretion in a trial court's grant of a pre-summary judgment motion in limine to exclude expert testimony

    [2] When the plaintiffs left their mobile home in the defendant's park after their eviction, they became holdover tenants. Cf. Muse v. Merrimack Valley Nat'l Bank, 114 N.H. 700, 702, 327 A.2d 719, 721 (1974) (eviction from trailer park). Had the defendant permitted the mobile home to remain in its park, the plaintiffs would have remained its tenants despite the eviction.

  3. Carroll v. Daigle

    123 N.H. 495 (N.H. 1983)   Cited 9 times
    Adopting as more persuasive "the decision of other jurisdictions which hold that a purchase option which may be exercised only during the term of the lease does not carry over into the holdover tenancy."

    Treating a holdover tenancy as a new tenancy is consistent with the fact that, at the outset of the holdover tenancy, the landlord may elect to treat the tenant "as a trespasser, evict him or hold him as a tenant." Muse v. Merrimack Valley Nat'l Bank, 114 N.H. 700, 702, 327 A.2d 719, 721 (1974). Although this court has not previously ruled on the precise issue before us in this case, courts in other States have had the opportunity to determine whether an option to purchase contained in a written lease with no renewal provision continues as a term of a holdover tenancy.

  4. Tober's Inc. v. Portsmouth Housing Auth

    367 A.2d 603 (N.H. 1976)   Cited 6 times

    The record indicates that the plaintiff could in fact have remained in possession on a month-to-month basis. The authority was under no greater obligation to it. 815 Mission Corp. v. Superior Court supra; see Muse v. Merrimack Valley Nat'l Bank, 114 N.H. 700, 327 A.2d 719 (1974). The order to vacate, which prompted the Tobers to leave, was reasonable in all respects since no duty to allow Tober's, Inc., to remain in possession until eviction can be inferred from either the statutory mandates of the housing authority, or the particular relationship of the parties.