Cited by

We will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 267 (2003) (“When a trial court reaches the correct result, but on mistaken grounds, this court will sustain the decision if there are valid alternative grounds to support it.”).

Instead, it quoted and adopted the standard set forth in Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 265 (2003).

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 267 (2003) (“When a trial court reaches the correct result, but on mistaken grounds, this court will sustain the decision if there are valid alternative grounds to support it.”).

We have construed this provision to be in the 5 nature of a penalty imposed upon a landlord for the landlord’s retaliatory conduct in violation of the statute.

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 267 (2003) (“When a trial court reaches the correct result, but on mistaken grounds, this court will sustain the decision if there are valid alternative grounds to support it.”).

In this case, the fact that the trial judge had presided over a criminal matter involving the tenant did not render her biased against him.

We will not disturb the trial court’s findings unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

We will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless they lack evidentiary support or are erroneous as a matter of law.

We address each argument in turn.

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 267 (2003) (“When a trial court reaches the correct result, but on mistaken grounds, this court will sustain the decision if there are valid alternative grounds to support it.”).

A trial judge is per se disqualified when he has pecuniary interests in the outcome, when he has become personally embroiled in criticism from a party before him, when he has heard evidence in secret at a prior proceeding, or when he is related to a party.

The liquidator also points out that we may sustain a trial court’s decision, though made upon erroneous grounds, so long as there are valid alternative grounds to support it, see Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 267 (2003), and urges us to do so here.

Further, we will review all questions of law de novo and uphold all findings of fact unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or erroneous as a matter of law.

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 267 (2003) (where trial court reaches correct result on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support the decision).

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, *498 267 (2003) (when trial court reaches correct result, but on mistaken grounds, we will affirm if valid alternative grounds support result).

Sherryland v. Snuffer, 150 N.H. 262, 265 (2003) (citations omitted); see also RSA 540-A4, V (1997).