Court Opinion

ID: 9630616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:15:39.815612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:32.088776
License: Public Domain

Galway, J.
dissenting. Because I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the term “ceiling,” I respectfully dissent.
“As is the case with any contract, the interpretation of a condominium’s declaration is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Nordic Inn Condo. Owner's Assoc. v. Ventullo, 151 N.H. 571, 575 (2004).
When interpreting a written agreement, we give the language used by the parties its reasonable meaning, considering the circumstances and the context in which the agreement was negotiated, and reading the document as a whole. Absent ambiguity, however, the parties’ intent will be determined from the plain meaning of the language used in the contract.
Ryan James Realty v. Villages at Chester Condo. Assoc., 153 N.H. 194, 197 (2006) (quotation omitted).
The majority concludes that the uppermost surface of the attic space cannot constitute a ceiling for purposes of establishing a townhouse unit’s boundary because there is no “inside lining.” I disagree. In order to reach this conclusion, the majority discounts the attic’s existing uppermost interior surface, the underside of the roof, and requires the use of some other material, such as drywall, to line the space. I do not believe such additional material is necessary to constitute a ceiling. Along with the “interior lining” definition used by the majority, WEBSTER’S defines “ceiling” as “woodwork lining the roof____[and] an uppermost surface of a cavity or chamber.” WEBSTER’S THIRD New INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 358 (unabridged ed. 2002). These definitions do not define ceiling solely in terms of what the surface is comprised of, as the majority does, but considers its position as the uppermost surface of a particular area. My interpretation is also supported by the condominium declaration’s definition of a unit’s boundary, which specifically allows an unfinished surface to serve in this capacity. Therefore, I believe that the underside of the roof directly above the attic space would constitute a “ceiling.”
Article 2-301 of the condominium declaration establishes the “horizontal boundary” of each townhouse unit. The record here does not demonstrate *412whether the attic space in question is in fact horizontal, such that the attic’s ceiling would serve as the unit’s horizontal boundary. However, this determination is irrelevant under the majority’s interpretation of ceiling. Applying the majority’s interpretation, the attic’s uppermost surface could never constitute a ceiling, even if it was in a horizontal position, because the surface does not include some material beyond the interior of the roof. I believe such an outcome is incorrect, as it improperly focuses on the material, rather than the position, of the uppermost interior surface. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
DUGGAN, J., joins in the dissent.