US New Hampshire Salesperson License Exam Set Two

No calculation is required for this question. This question assesses the understanding of post-foreclosure rights in New Hampshire, specifically the absence of a statutory right of redemption after a power of sale foreclosure. In New Hampshire, the most common type of foreclosure is non-judicial, conducted under a “power of sale” clause found in the mortgage document, as governed by RSA 479. Before the foreclosure sale occurs, the borrower has an equitable right of redemption, meaning they can prevent the sale by paying the full outstanding loan balance plus any accrued costs. However, this right terminates at the moment of the foreclosure sale. A critical distinction in real estate law is between the equitable right of redemption and a statutory right of redemption. The latter is a right created by state law that allows a borrower to reclaim their property *after* the foreclosure sale by paying the auction price plus interest and other costs within a specified time frame. New Hampshire law does not grant a statutory right of redemption to borrowers following a valid non-judicial power of sale foreclosure. Once the auction is complete and the foreclosure deed is delivered to the winning bidder, the former owner’s interest in the property is permanently and completely extinguished. Therefore, any advice suggesting the possibility of reclaiming the property after the sale is incorrect under New Hampshire law. The finality of the auction sale is a key feature of the state’s foreclosure process.

The landlord’s proposed action constitutes an illegal self-help eviction under New Hampshire law. Specifically, RSA 540-A:3, IV prohibits a landlord from willfully denying a tenant access to their rented premises by any means other than a formal judicial process. Changing the locks, regardless of the tenant’s failure to pay rent, is a direct violation of this statute. The law is designed to prevent landlords from taking matters into their own hands and ensures that any dispossession of a tenant from their home follows a strict legal procedure to protect the tenant’s rights. The only legal recourse for a landlord in a situation of non-payment of rent is to follow the eviction process detailed in RSA 540. This process begins with serving the tenant with a proper Demand for Rent, which gives the tenant seven days to pay the rent owed. If the tenant fails to pay within that period, the landlord may then proceed to file a Landlord and Tenant Writ with the court to begin formal eviction proceedings. Any action outside of this judicial process, such as changing locks or shutting off utilities, is illegal and subjects the landlord to significant penalties, including liability for actual damages or a minimum of $1,000 per violation, plus court costs and attorney’s fees, as stipulated in RSA 540-A:4.

The legal basis for Elara’s claim rests on the creation of an easement by necessity. This type of easement is created by law when a property owner conveys a portion of their land that has no access to a public road except over the remaining land of the grantor or over the land of strangers. In New Hampshire, for an easement by necessity to be recognized, three conditions must be met. First, there must have been unity of title, meaning the dominant and servient estates were once a single parcel owned by the same person. In this case, Amos owned the entire farm before the subdivision. Second, the unity of title must have been severed, which occurred when Amos sold the back parcel to Elara. Third, the severance must have created a strict necessity for the easement at the time of the conveyance. Because the sale left Elara’s parcel completely landlocked, strict necessity for ingress and egress was created at that moment. The right to this easement arises automatically from the transaction and is not dependent on a history of prior use or a specific duration of use. While a prescriptive easement is a possibility given the 21 years of use, it requires proving the use was adverse, which can be a difficult factual burden. An easement by necessity is a stronger and more direct claim because it is based on the public policy against rendering land useless and is established by the facts of the conveyance itself, not by the subsequent actions of the parties over two decades.

\[ \text{Sale Price} = \$485,750 \] \[ \text{Total New Hampshire Real Property Transfer Tax Rate} = 1.5\% \text{ or } 0.015 \] \[ \text{Total Tax Due} = \text{Sale Price} \times \text{Total Tax Rate} \] \[ \text{Total Tax Due} = \$485,750 \times 0.015 = \$7,286.25 \] \[ \text{Seller’s Agreed Share (50\%)} = \frac{\text{Total Tax Due}}{2} \] \[ \text{Seller’s Agreed Share} = \frac{\$7,286.25}{2} = \$3,643.125 \] \[ \text{Amount Rounded to Nearest Cent} = \$3,643.13 \] In New Hampshire, the sale of real estate is subject to a Real Property Transfer Tax as mandated by state law RSA 78-B. This tax is a significant closing cost that a real estate salesperson must be able to accurately calculate for clients. The total tax rate is set at $15.00 per $100 of the sale price, which is equivalent to 1.5% of the total consideration. While the statute specifies that the grantee, or buyer, is responsible for payment, it is a common and standard practice in the state for the buyer and seller to agree contractually to split this cost equally. In such an agreement, each party becomes responsible for half of the total tax, which amounts to 0.75% of the sale price for each. To determine the financial responsibility for one party in this scenario, one must first calculate the total tax liability by multiplying the full sale price by the total tax rate of 1.5% (or 0.015). The resulting total tax amount is then divided by two to find the equal share that each party owes. Any resulting fractions of a cent must be rounded to two decimal places for the final closing figures.

The core of this issue revolves around the nature of property ownership by a legal entity versus a natural person. In New Hampshire, as in other states, a Limited Liability Company (LLC) is recognized as a distinct legal entity, separate from its owners, who are called members. When an LLC acquires real property, the property is titled in the name of the LLC itself. This form of ownership is known as tenancy in severalty, which signifies sole ownership by a single person or a single legal entity. The term “severalty” indicates that the ownership is severed from any other owners. In the case of a single-member LLC, even though there is only one individual involved, that individual does not personally own the real estate. The LLC is the owner. Consequently, upon the death of the sole member, the real estate does not automatically transfer to the member’s heirs as if it were personally held property. Instead, the real estate remains the property of the LLC. The deceased member’s ownership interest in the LLC, which is considered personal property, becomes an asset of their estate. This membership interest will then be distributed to their heirs through probate or according to the terms of their will or trust. The new owner of the LLC membership interest then assumes control of the LLC and its assets, including the real estate. The chain of title for the real property itself is not directly affected by the member’s death, only the control of the entity that holds the title is.

The primary regulatory challenge is compliance with the New Hampshire Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act (SWQPA), RSA 483-B. The property is located on a major lake, placing it squarely within the jurisdiction of this state law, which governs land use within 250 feet of the water’s reference line. The existing cottage is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure because its 40-foot setback is less than the 50-foot primary building setback required by the SWQPA. When a non-conforming structure is voluntarily torn down, its “grandfathered” status is typically lost. Any new construction must then comply with all current SWQPA regulations. This means a new home would need to be built at least 50 feet from the reference line, and it would also be subject to stringent limitations on impervious surface area and other site development standards enforced by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). While local zoning ordinances and the need for a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the non-conforming lot are also significant hurdles, state law under the SWQPA is paramount and often more restrictive in the protected shoreland. Obtaining local approval does not negate the need to comply with the stricter state-level requirements, making the SWQPA the most critical and challenging regulatory framework to navigate for this proposed project.

The correct course of action is determined by New Hampshire RSA 477:4-a and RSA 477:4-d. These statutes govern the disclosure of information related to private water supply and sewage disposal systems for residential properties. The law places the burden of disclosure squarely on the seller. The seller is required to provide the buyer with a written statement detailing the type of water supply and sewage disposal system, its location, any malfunctions, the date of installation, and the date of the most recent water test and servicing. Crucially, if any of this information is not known to the seller, the seller must state that the information is unknown on the disclosure form. The real estate licensee’s primary legal responsibility is to inform the seller of these statutory disclosure requirements and to provide the seller with the proper form. The licensee must ensure the seller completes the form to the best of their actual knowledge and that the completed form is delivered to the buyer prior to the buyer making an offer. The licensee is not required to conduct an independent investigation, pay for inspections, or verify the seller’s statements, unless the licensee has actual knowledge that contradicts the seller’s disclosure. In such a case, the licensee would have a duty to disclose that contradictory knowledge. The core duty is to facilitate a truthful and compliant disclosure from the seller to the buyer.

The situation described involves a request to deviate from the dimensional requirements of a zoning ordinance, not the use requirements. The property is zoned for single-family homes, and the owner intends to build a single-family home, which is a permitted use. The problem is a physical barrier, a granite ledge unique to the property, that prevents compliance with the setback regulations. In New Hampshire, when a property owner faces an unnecessary hardship due to special conditions of their property that prevents them from reasonably using the land in strict conformance with a zoning ordinance’s dimensional rules, the appropriate relief mechanism is an area variance. This is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). The legal standard for a variance is established in New Hampshire RSA 674:33, I(b). For an area variance, the applicant must demonstrate that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed, substantial justice would be done, the values of surrounding properties would not be diminished, and that, owing to special conditions of the property, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. The hardship must stem from the land itself, such as its unique topography or shape, and not from the personal circumstances of the owner. A special exception, or conditional use permit, is for uses that are specifically allowed by the ordinance but only when certain conditions are met. Since a single-family home is already a permitted use, a special exception is not the correct path. A use variance, which allows a use not normally permitted in the zone, is not applicable here and has a much stricter hardship test to meet.

To determine the capital gain, one must first calculate the property’s adjusted basis and the amount realized from the sale. The capital gain is the amount realized minus the adjusted basis. 1. Calculate the Adjusted Basis: This is the original purchase price plus any capital improvements and certain closing costs from the purchase. \[\text{Adjusted Basis} = \text{Purchase Price} + \text{Buyer’s Closing Costs} + \text{Capital Improvements}\] \[\text{Adjusted Basis} = \$350,000 + \$5,000 + \$45,000 = \$400,000\] 2. Calculate the Total Selling Expenses: This includes the commission, the seller’s portion of the New Hampshire Real Property Transfer Tax, and other closing costs. The NH transfer tax is \$15.00 per \$1,000 of value, split equally between the buyer and seller. The seller’s share is therefore \$7.50 per \$1,000. \[\text{Commission} = \text{Sale Price} \times \text{Commission Rate} = \$480,000 \times 0.05 = \$24,000\] \[\text{NH Transfer Tax (Seller’s Share)} = \left(\frac{\$480,000}{\$1,000}\right) \times \$7.50 = 480 \times \$7.50 = \$3,600\] \[\text{Total Selling Expenses} = \text{Commission} + \text{NH Transfer Tax} + \text{Other Seller Costs}\] \[\text{Total Selling Expenses} = \$24,000 + \$3,600 + \$1,500 = \$29,100\] 3. Calculate the Amount Realized: This is the gross sale price minus the total selling expenses. \[\text{Amount Realized} = \text{Sale Price} – \text{Total Selling Expenses}\] \[\text{Amount Realized} = \$480,000 – \$29,100 = \$450,900\] 4. Calculate the Capital Gain: This is the amount realized minus the adjusted basis. \[\text{Capital Gain} = \text{Amount Realized} – \text{Adjusted Basis}\] \[\text{Capital Gain} = \$450,900 – \$400,000 = \$50,900\] The calculation of capital gain is a critical financial concept for property investors and is distinct from simple profit. The starting point is the property’s adjusted basis, which is not merely the purchase price. It includes the initial acquisition cost plus any subsequent capital improvements that increase the property’s value or extend its useful life, as well as certain closing costs incurred by the buyer during the purchase. The amount realized from a sale is the gross selling price less the expenses of the sale. These expenses typically include the real estate commission, legal fees, and state-specific taxes like the New Hampshire Real Property Transfer Tax, governed by RSA 78-B. This tax is levied on the transfer of real property and is calculated based on the sale price. In New Hampshire, the total tax is customarily split between the buyer and seller. Failing to correctly account for all components of both the adjusted basis and the amount realized will lead to an inaccurate determination of the capital gain, which has significant tax implications for the seller.

The situation involves a dispute between two landowners on a non-navigable river in New Hampshire. The core legal principle governing this scenario is the doctrine of reasonable use, which is a cornerstone of riparian rights in the state. New Hampshire, like most eastern states, follows this common law doctrine rather than the doctrine of prior appropriation used in many western states. Under the reasonable use doctrine, each owner of land bordering a river or stream has the right to make reasonable use of the water as it flows through or past their property. This includes uses for domestic purposes, swimming, boating, and fishing. However, this right is not absolute. It is a correlative right, meaning it must be balanced against the rights of all other riparian owners on the same watercourse. An upstream owner’s use is considered unreasonable if it substantially diminishes the quantity or quality of the water flow, thereby interfering with the legitimate and reasonable use by downstream owners. In this specific case, the upstream owner’s diversion of a significant amount of water for a commercial enterprise has directly harmed the downstream owner’s ability to use her property for recreational purposes, specifically her boat dock. The central legal question is whether the upstream owner’s commercial irrigation constitutes a reasonable use when it causes such a substantial impact on the downstream owner. The downstream owner has a valid basis for a claim because the upstream use appears to exceed what is equitable and reasonable, infringing upon her own riparian rights. The dispute does not concern a change in the river’s physical location or public rights on navigable waters, but rather the equitable sharing of the water itself between private landowners.

The legal principle central to this scenario is that every parcel of real property is considered unique. Because of this uniqueness, monetary compensation is often deemed an inadequate remedy for a buyer when a seller defaults on a valid purchase and sale agreement. The buyer contracted for a specific property with its own distinct location, features, and attributes, which cannot be exactly replicated elsewhere. Therefore, the buyer’s most powerful legal tool to compel the seller to honor the contract and transfer the property is to seek a court order for specific performance. This equitable remedy forces the breaching party to perform the specific action they agreed to in the contract—in this case, to complete the sale and convey the title of the property. While other remedies exist, they do not achieve the buyer’s primary objective of acquiring that particular piece of real estate. Rescission would merely cancel the contract and return the parties to their original financial positions, which is contrary to the buyer’s goal. Liquidated or compensatory damages would provide the buyer with money, but again, this fails to substitute for the unique property they intended to purchase. A court in New Hampshire is highly likely to grant specific performance to a buyer in such a situation, provided the contract is valid and the buyer has fulfilled their obligations.

The core principle tested here is the enduring nature of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality. Under New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 331-A:25-b, a licensee owes certain duties to their client. The duty of confidentiality is one of the most critical, requiring the agent to protect the client’s personal information, financial status, and motivations. A key aspect of this duty is that it survives the termination of the agency relationship. This means that even after a listing agreement expires or a transaction closes, the licensee is forever bound to keep the former client’s confidences. In this scenario, the seller’s reason for moving, which is his divorce and financial desperation, is confidential information shared within the protection of an agency relationship. It is not a material fact about the property’s physical condition or title. When the agent later represents a new client, their duty to the new client does not override the pre-existing, perpetual duty of confidentiality owed to the former client. Therefore, the agent must not disclose the former client’s personal motivations. While the agent must be loyal and diligent for their new client, this does not include breaking the law or violating ethical duties owed to another. The agent can still provide effective representation by using publicly available information, such as the property’s listing history, to advise the new client on negotiation strategy without revealing protected information.

The core of this scenario revolves around the economic characteristics of real estate, not its physical ones. The subject property itself has not been physically altered; it remains in the same location (immobility), it has not been destroyed (indestructibility), and it is still a unique parcel (non-homogeneity). The change affecting its value is entirely external and relates to its location in relation to the new development. This concept is known as situs. Situs refers to the economic attributes of a location, encompassing factors like employment opportunities, transportation access, public amenities, and the overall desirability of the area. The construction of the bio-technology campus directly modifies the situs of Anya’s land. It could increase its value due to higher demand for housing from campus employees or decrease its value due to potential noise, traffic, or environmental concerns. Regardless of the direction of the value change, situs is the economic principle that describes the impact of location and surrounding land uses on a property’s value. It is considered the most significant economic characteristic of land because it explains why two physically similar properties can have vastly different values based solely on their location and the economic and social fabric surrounding them.

First, the property’s assessed value is adjusted by any applicable exemptions. The Elderly Exemption reduces the value upon which taxes are calculated. \[ \$400,000 \text{ (Assessed Value)} – \$50,000 \text{ (Elderly Exemption)} = \$350,000 \text{ (Taxable Value)} \] Next, the gross tax is calculated by applying the municipal tax rate to this new taxable value. Assuming a hypothetical tax rate of \( \$20 \) per \( \$1,000 \) of value (a mill rate of 20): \[ \frac{\$350,000}{1000} \times \$20 = \$7,000 \text{ (Gross Tax Bill)} \] Finally, any applicable tax credits are subtracted directly from the calculated gross tax bill. The All Veterans’ Tax Credit is a direct reduction of the tax owed. \[ \$7,000 \text{ (Gross Tax Bill)} – \$750 \text{ (Veterans’ Tax Credit)} = \$6,250 \text{ (Final Tax Bill)} \] In New Hampshire, property tax relief measures such as exemptions and credits are applied in a specific order and function differently, a critical concept governed by RSA 72. An exemption, such as the Elderly Exemption, is a statutory reduction in a property’s assessed valuation. It is subtracted from the total assessed value of the property before the local tax rate is applied. This effectively lowers the taxable base of the property. After the tax liability is calculated on this reduced assessed value, a tax credit is then applied. A tax credit, such as the All Veterans’ Tax Credit, is a direct, dollar-for-dollar reduction of the actual tax bill itself. It does not affect the assessed value. Therefore, the correct procedure is to first lower the assessment with the exemption, then compute the tax, and finally subtract the credit from the computed tax. It is permissible for a qualifying property owner to receive the benefits of both an exemption and a credit in the same tax year, provided they meet the eligibility requirements for each as established by state law and adopted by the municipality.

This scenario does not involve any mathematical calculations. In New Hampshire, the law governing real estate practice, specifically RSA 331-A, establishes strict rules for agency relationships to protect consumers. When a licensee represents a buyer under an exclusive buyer agency agreement, that licensee owes the buyer full fiduciary duties, including obedience, loyalty, disclosure, confidentiality, accounting, and reasonable care. A conflict arises when that buyer wishes to purchase a property listed by the same brokerage firm. This situation creates a potential dual agency, where the brokerage firm would represent both the seller and the buyer in the same transaction. According to NH RSA 331-A:25-d, a licensee is prohibited from acting as a disclosed dual agent without first obtaining the written, informed consent of all parties. This consent is not a mere formality; it must be secured before the dual agency relationship is established, which effectively means before the licensee begins to act on behalf of both parties in the negotiation, such as by preparing or presenting an offer. The written consent form explicitly states that in a dual agency relationship, the agent’s duties of loyalty and disclosure are limited, as they cannot advocate exclusively for one party over the other or disclose confidential pricing information. The primary legal obligation is to formally address this conflict of interest through the state-mandated disclosure and consent process before proceeding with any action that would place the licensee in a dual agency role. While designated agency is an alternative structure, obtaining consent for dual agency is the direct legal requirement that must be met if the firm proceeds without appointing designated agents.

Under New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 331-A:25-b, licensees owe their clients fiduciary duties, including loyalty, obedience, disclosure, confidentiality, reasonable care, and accounting. The duty of disclosure is paramount in situations involving potential conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a licensee has a personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, in a transaction that could compromise their ability to act solely in their client’s best interest. In this scenario, the salesperson’s relationship with her brother-in-law constitutes a significant personal interest, even though the offer is being made through a Limited Liability Company (LLC). The use of a corporate entity does not shield the licensee from their disclosure obligations regarding the true parties in interest. The New Hampshire Real Estate Commission Administrative Rule Rea 701.01(b) explicitly requires a licensee to not buy, sell, or lease property for themselves, a member of their immediate family, or their own firm without making their true position known in writing to all parties. The disclosure must be made promptly, at the first reasonable opportunity, which in this case is before or at the time of presenting the offer to the client. This written disclosure ensures the client is fully informed and can make a decision with complete transparency, either by consenting to proceed, seeking new representation, or taking other actions. Failing to disclose this relationship is a serious violation of fiduciary duty and state regulations.

The core issue revolves around the strict deadline within a financing contingency clause in a New Hampshire Purchase and Sale Agreement. The buyer’s protection under this contingency is conditional upon meeting specific deadlines. When Anya’s conventional loan is denied, she has not yet failed the contingency, but the clock is ticking. Her obligation is to make a good faith effort to obtain financing as specified. The suggestion of an FHA loan is a viable alternative path, but it does not alter the existing contractual deadline. Simply proceeding with the FHA application without addressing the 45 day deadline is a significant risk. If the deadline passes without either securing a loan commitment or formally terminating the contract, Anya would likely be considered to have waived the contingency. This would place her earnest money deposit in jeopardy if she subsequently fails to secure the FHA loan and cannot close. The most prudent and legally sound action is to proactively manage the contract. This involves formally requesting a written amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement to extend the financing contingency deadline. This request should be made to the seller before the original deadline expires. Doing so preserves Anya’s rights under the contingency, allows her the necessary time to pursue the alternative financing, and demonstrates her continued good faith effort to complete the purchase. If the seller agrees to the extension, the contract is modified, and her deposit remains protected. If the seller denies the extension, Anya can then make an informed decision to either terminate the contract before the deadline or proceed at her own risk without the contingency’s protection.

The governmental action described is an exercise of police power. The state of New Hampshire, through its agencies like the Department of Environmental Services, has the inherent authority to enact laws and regulations to protect the public’s health, safety, and general welfare. The Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act is a clear example of this power in action. Its purpose is to protect the ecological integrity of the state’s public waters, which benefits the entire public. This is achieved by regulating private land use within a certain distance of these waters, including setting limits on construction, vegetation removal, and septic systems. This is distinct from eminent domain, where the government would physically take the property for a public use, such as building a road or a park, and would be required to pay just compensation through a process called condemnation. In the scenario, the government is not taking title or possession of the land; it is restricting its use. While a severe regulation that eliminates all or nearly all economic value of a property may give rise to a legal claim for compensation under the doctrine of inverse condemnation, the underlying authority the government is exercising is its police power. The action is not taxation, as no fee is being levied, nor is it escheat, which only applies when a property owner dies without a will or legal heirs.

This is a conceptual question and does not require a mathematical calculation. The practice described is a form of illegal steering under both the federal Fair Housing Act and New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination, RSA 354-A. Steering is not limited to explicitly refusing to show properties in certain neighborhoods. It also includes the more subtle practice of influencing a buyer’s choice of community by providing different information, services, or encouragement based on their membership in a protected class. In this scenario, the licensee, Kenji, provided one set of clients with comprehensive information about school districts and family-centric amenities while directing another set of clients, who are members of a protected class, toward different areas based on assumptions about their lifestyle preferences tied to their protected status. By selectively filtering information and emphasizing different neighborhood features based on race or national origin, Kenji is illegally influencing and limiting their housing options. The licensee’s intent, whether malicious or misguidedly helpful, is irrelevant. The action itself has a discriminatory effect, which is what constitutes the violation. Providing equal professional service to all clients means offering the same complete and unbiased information, allowing them to make their own informed decisions without being guided by the licensee’s stereotypes.

The Truth in Lending Act, implemented by Regulation Z, aims to ensure that creditors provide consumers with meaningful information about the cost of credit. This allows consumers to compare credit terms from different sources. In the context of real estate advertising, TILA imposes strict rules on what can be stated without triggering the need for further detailed disclosures. Certain specific statements, known as “triggering terms,” require the advertisement to also include a full set of disclosures. These disclosures typically include the amount or percentage of the down payment, the terms of repayment, and the annual percentage rate or APR. Triggering terms are specific credit terms. Examples include the amount of a down payment (e.g., “5% down”), the amount of any payment (e.g., “payments of $1,200 per month”), the number of payments (e.g., “360 monthly payments”), or the period of repayment (e.g., “30-year term”). The use of any such specific term in an advertisement legally obligates the advertiser to provide the full set of disclosures. In the given scenario, stating that monthly principal and interest payments are under a specific dollar figure constitutes the mention of a specific payment amount. This action crosses the threshold from general advertising to specific credit advertising, thereby activating the TILA disclosure requirements. Conversely, general phrases like “low down payment,” “easy financing,” or stating the APR by itself are not considered triggering terms and do not necessitate the full disclosures.

The core of this problem lies in distinguishing between different types of zoning relief available to a property owner in New Hampshire. A zoning ordinance establishes what uses are permitted by right in a given district. In this scenario, the Lakeshore Residential district permits single-family and two-family homes. The proposed boutique inn with a public cafe does not fall into this category. The next step is to consider special exceptions. A special exception, governed by RSA 674:33, IV, is a use that is explicitly listed in the ordinance as being allowed in a district, but only if the applicant demonstrates to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) that specific, pre-determined conditions are met. Here, a “bed and breakfast” is a special exception, but a boutique inn with a separate public cafe is a more intensive commercial use that likely falls outside the scope of that definition. When a proposed use is neither permitted by right nor listed as a special exception, the only remaining path for approval is a use variance. A use variance, governed by RSA 674:33, I(b), is a request to use the property in a manner explicitly forbidden by the ordinance. To obtain a use variance from the ZBA in New Hampshire, the applicant must satisfy a stringent five-part test to prove “unnecessary hardship.” This includes showing that the variance is not contrary to the public interest, the spirit of the ordinance is observed, substantial justice is done, surrounding property values are not diminished, and, crucially, that due to special conditions of the property, the literal enforcement of the ordinance results in hardship, meaning no reasonable use can be made of the property. Therefore, Anja’s only procedural path under the existing ordinance is to apply for a use variance and meet this very high legal standard.

This question does not involve a mathematical calculation. The solution is based on the application of New Hampshire property law principles regarding easements. An easement in gross is a legal right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose, where the right benefits a particular person or entity rather than a parcel of land. In New Hampshire, a critical distinction is made between commercial easements in gross and personal easements in gross. Commercial easements, such as those granted to utility companies, are generally considered assignable and transferable. However, a personal easement in gross, which is granted to an individual for their personal use and enjoyment, is treated differently. Unless the document creating the easement explicitly states that it is assignable or inheritable, a personal easement in gross is tied directly to the individual grantee. It is considered a personal privilege that cannot be transferred to another person, nor can it be inherited by the grantee’s heirs. Consequently, this type of easement automatically terminates upon the death of the individual who holds the right. In the given scenario, the right was granted specifically to Leo for his personal activity of painting. The creating instrument did not specify any rights of inheritance or assignment. Therefore, upon Leo’s death, the personal easement in gross was extinguished by operation of law. His son does not inherit the right, and the easement is no longer an encumbrance on Beatrice’s property.

A property is appraised for $450,000, which is also the agreed-upon sale price. The buyer secures a loan for $414,000. The loan-to-value (LTV) ratio is calculated by dividing the loan amount by the value of the property. In this case, the value is the appraised value, as it is the same as the sale price. The calculation is as follows: \[ \text{LTV} = \frac{\text{Loan Amount}}{\text{Appraised Value}} = \frac{\$414,000}{\$450,000} = 0.92 \] To express this as a percentage, the result is multiplied by 100, which equals 92%. The loan-to-value ratio is a critical metric used by lenders to assess the risk associated with a mortgage. A higher LTV, such as 92%, signifies that the borrower is contributing a smaller down payment and has less equity, or “skin in the game,” from the outset. From the lender’s perspective, this lower equity position increases the financial risk. If the borrower were to default on the loan and property values were to decline, the lender might not be able to recover the full outstanding loan balance through a foreclosure sale. To mitigate this heightened risk on conventional loans, lenders typically require the borrower to purchase private mortgage insurance, commonly known as PMI. This insurance policy protects the lender, not the borrower, against losses in the event of a default. This requirement is a standard industry practice and is not mandated by a specific New Hampshire state statute, but rather by the underwriting guidelines of lenders and secondary mortgage market entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The LTV is always based on the lesser of the property’s appraised value or its sale price, which is a crucial detail for licensees to understand when advising clients.

Step 1: Identify the legal status of the body of water. Under New Hampshire RSA 4:40-a, any natural pond with a surface area of 10 acres or more is classified as a “great pond.” A 25-acre lake falls into this category. Step 2: Apply the Public Trust Doctrine. In New Hampshire, the water in great ponds and the land beneath it are held by the state in trust for public use. This means the lakebed is not private property owned by the abutting landowner. Step 3: Analyze the rights of the littoral landowner. Anja, as an owner of land abutting a lake, has littoral rights. These rights include the right to access the water, use the water for recreation, and the right to “wharf out” (build a dock or pier). However, these rights are not absolute. They are considered qualified privileges subject to state regulation and the superior rights of the public. Step 4: Evaluate the proposed construction. Building a permanent, substantial structure like a 100-foot pier and a boathouse involves placing a private structure on public trust land (the state-owned lakebed). This action is not a right but a privilege that must be granted by the state. Step 5: Determine the primary regulatory authority. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) has jurisdiction over such activities under RSA 482-A, the Fill and Dredge in Wetlands Act. Anja must obtain a permit from NHDES. The agency will evaluate the proposal’s impact on public access, navigation, safety, and the environment. The permit can be denied if the structure is deemed contrary to the public interest. While local zoning and public access along the shore are relevant concerns, the most fundamental legal impediment is the state’s ownership of the lakebed and the requirement for a state permit to build upon it. The legal framework in New Hampshire surrounding great ponds is a core component of state property law. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that the state holds title to the water and underlying land of these ponds for the benefit of all citizens. This doctrine ensures public rights for activities like fishing, boating, and swimming. A littoral property owner, one whose land borders a lake or pond, possesses certain rights, but these are subservient to the public’s rights and state authority. The right to build a dock or other structure into the water is not an inherent property right but a regulated privilege. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is the primary state agency tasked with managing these public trust lands under statutes like RSA 482-A. Any proposed construction, such as a dock, pier, or boathouse, requires a thorough review and a permit from NHDES. The agency assesses whether the proposed structure would unreasonably infringe upon public recreational and navigational rights or harm the ecological health of the water body. Therefore, the state’s ownership and regulatory control represent the most significant legal consideration for any littoral owner planning to build on or over a great pond.

The landlord’s policy of refusing to rent to unmarried couples constitutes illegal discrimination based on marital status under New Hampshire RSA 354-A. The owner-occupant exemption in New Hampshire, as defined in RSA 354-A:10, is narrower than the federal “Mrs. Murphy” exemption. The state exemption applies only to the rental of a unit in a two-family house where the owner occupies the other unit, or the rental of a room in an owner-occupied single-family dwelling. Since the property in question is a four-unit building, it does not qualify for this exemption, and the landlord is fully subject to the provisions of RSA 354-A. Therefore, the rejection of the applicants based on their unmarried status is a violation of New Hampshire fair housing law. New Hampshire law provides protections beyond the seven federally protected classes. Under RSA 354-A, the Law Against Discrimination, it is unlawful to discriminate in housing based on age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, race, color, familial status, disability, religion, or national origin. The inclusion of marital status is a key distinction from federal law. This means that a housing provider cannot make a decision based on whether a person is single, married, separated, divorced, widowed, or part of an unmarried couple. In this scenario, the landlord’s policy explicitly creates a preference for married couples over unmarried couples, which is a direct form of discrimination based on marital status. Even though the landlord occupies one of the units, the four-unit size of the building places it outside the scope of New Hampshire’s limited owner-occupant exemption. A real estate licensee must be aware of these state-specific protections and exemptions to properly advise clients and conduct their own business in compliance with the law.

Under New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 331-A:25-b, a disclosed dual agent has specific duties to both the seller and the buyer. A critical duty is that of confidentiality. The dual agent shall not disclose confidential information to one party about the other, including the price, terms, or motivation of either party, without prior written consent. In this scenario, Mr. Chen’s disclosure about carrying two mortgages and needing to sell quickly is confidential information related to his motivation. When Maria asks about the sellers’ motivation and price flexibility, the agent, Kenji, is put in a position where he must balance his duties. Revealing the Chens’ financial pressure would violate his duty of confidentiality to them. Conversely, he still owes a duty to the buyer, Maria, to treat her honestly and to present all offers. The proper course of action is to uphold the duty of confidentiality by not revealing the sellers’ private circumstances. He must explicitly state that he cannot share such information. At the same time, he fulfills his duty to the buyer by encouraging her to formalize her interest in a written offer, which he is then obligated to present to the sellers. This maintains neutrality and adheres strictly to the limitations and responsibilities of a disclosed dual agent as defined by New Hampshire statute.

In a transaction utilizing designated agency within a single brokerage in New Hampshire, the principal broker assumes the specific legal role of a dual agent. According to New Hampshire Real Estate Practice Act, RSA 331-A:25-d, when designated agents are appointed, the principal broker is considered a dual agent. A fundamental duty of a dual agent is the duty of confidentiality to both the seller and the buyer. This duty obligates the dual agent to not disclose confidential information obtained from one party to the other party. Confidential information includes a client’s financial condition, motivations for buying or selling, and the minimum or maximum price they are willing to accept. In this scenario, the information about the seller’s potential foreclosure is confidential financial information. Therefore, the principal broker, Ananya, is legally prohibited from sharing this information with Chloe, the designated buyer’s agent, or the buyer. Her obligation is to protect the seller’s confidentiality, just as she would be obligated to protect the buyer’s confidential information if she were to learn it. This legal structure allows the designated agents to provide undivided loyalty to their respective clients while the principal broker oversees the transaction in a neutral, confidential capacity. A breach of this confidentiality by the principal broker would violate her duties as a dual agent.

In New Hampshire, the duties an agent owes to a client are defined by state law, specifically RSA 331-A. While most fiduciary duties terminate upon the conclusion of the agency relationship, the duty of confidentiality is a notable exception. This duty survives the termination or expiration of the listing agreement. Confidential information includes any details shared by the client that are not a matter of public record, that the client has not authorized for disclosure, and that, if revealed, could materially harm the client’s bargaining position. Examples include the client’s financial situation, their reasons for selling, or the minimum price they would be willing to accept. An agent is prohibited from disclosing such information, even after they no longer represent the client. This obligation is absolute unless the agent is required by law to disclose it or the former client gives express written permission for the disclosure. Interacting with a new potential buyer, even as an unrepresented customer, does not negate this pre-existing and enduring duty to the former client. The agent must treat the information with the same level of secrecy as they did during the active agency period, ensuring the former client’s negotiating leverage is not compromised by the agent’s past access to sensitive details.

In New Hampshire, an easement by implication, also known as a quasi-easement, arises when a landowner severs a parcel of land and a pre-existing use by the grantor continues for the benefit of the grantee’s new parcel. For this type of easement to be judicially recognized, several specific conditions must be met. First, there must have been a unity of ownership of the original parcel, which was then severed into two or more parts. Second, the use that gives rise to the easement must have been in place, apparent, and continuous for a long period before the severance occurred. This means the use was not temporary or sporadic. Third, and most critically, the easement must be reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant estate, the parcel benefiting from the use. This standard of “reasonable necessity” is less stringent than the “strict necessity” required for an easement by necessity, which typically only arises when a parcel is completely landlocked. An easement by implication acknowledges that the parties likely intended for the pre-existing, obvious, and important use to continue after the sale, even if it was not explicitly written into the deed. It is distinguished from an easement by prescription, which requires a 20-year period of adverse, open, and notorious use against the interest of the landowner, not a use that was established by the landowner themselves prior to a sale.