This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, who has two young children, has lived in a twenty-four unit building in D's apartment complex since November 2002. Prior to that, a roach problem had existed at the property, and D had hired a professional pest control service to treat the entire building for roaches. P was not made aware of the problem at the time he signed his lease and did not become aware of the problem until he received a notice in February 2003. P reported seeing a roach on March 11, 2003, and an appointment was scheduled for March 19, 2003, at which time the pest control service treated his apartment. P reported roaches again and the pest control service returned on May 20, 2003, to perform the same procedure it had previously performed. The treatment failed to fix the issue. P contacted the Nashua code enforcement officer who then contacted D. The pest control service returned to perform the same treatment. As of October 16, 2003, P still sees numerous roaches. An employee of D claimed that the problem was that a single unit had been improperly maintained by its tenant. By the trial, D had evicted the tenant and changed pest control companies. The court found a willful violation of P's and his family's right to quiet enjoyment of his tenancy. P was awarded damages of $26,000 and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.