KEENE, N.H. (MyKeeneNow) George Hansel and H.G. Johnson, LLC have responded to cross-claims filed by Jared Goodell in the ongoing lawsuit over the $1.625 million sale of a 10-unit apartment property at 7–15 Aliber Place, with the latest filing continuing a dispute among the parties over who would be responsible if the buyer ultimately prevails.

Hansel and H.G. Johnson filed their answer Sept. 21 in Cheshire County Superior Court. The filing responds to Goodell’s cross-claims seeking contribution and indemnification and includes a demand for a jury trial.

The filing identifies Hansel and H.G. Johnson as the cross-claim defendants and states that they answer Goodell’s allegations separately while asserting affirmative defenses. It does not, on the first page provided, spell out the individual defenses.

The filing comes after Goodell, who is representing himself, sought contribution and indemnification from Hansel and H.G. Johnson in August. Goodell has denied that he is liable to Tatro Road Realty but argued that, if he is found responsible for damages, Hansel and H.G. Johnson should bear some or all of that responsibility.

Goodell’s cross-claim alleges that Hansel and H.G. Johnson prepared and provided marketing materials and other information to Tatro Road while acting as the property’s listing agents. Goodell has specifically disputed responsibility for representations concerning the property’s tenants and financial performance.

Hansel and H.G. Johnson previously took a different position in their response to Tatro’s original lawsuit. In an Aug. 19 filing, they said information they provided about the property came from Goodell and that they reasonably relied on information, financial metrics and disclosures provided by the seller in marketing and selling the property.

That creates competing efforts among the defendants to allocate potential liability.

Tatro Road Realty, a Bedford investment company, sued Goodell, Hansel and H.G. Johnson in June, alleging it was misled before purchasing the property in July 2025. The company is seeking to rescind the transaction and recover the $1.625 million purchase price, along with damages and other relief.

The lawsuit alleges problems involving the property’s tenants, finances and construction.

Tatro claims approximately 60 percent of the occupied units were being used to house residents temporarily displaced by flooding at another senior housing property, rather than representing the stable, long-term tenancy described in marketing materials. The company also alleges that recurring expenses were omitted from financial information provided during the sale.

The lawsuit further alleges that post-purchase engineering testing raised questions about required reinforcing steel in portions of the foundations of three buildings constructed as part of the development.

Hansel had been involved with the property before its sale, representing Goodell during zoning and permitting matters and later serving as a listing agent through H.G. Johnson. The property was placed on the market in May 2025 and was described in marketing materials as a high-performing, turnkey investment with stable, long-term tenants.

The parties have disputed who was responsible for those representations.

Goodell has argued that the allegations themselves point to Hansel and H.G. Johnson as the parties who prepared and transmitted certain information to Tatro. In seeking contribution and indemnification, he essentially argues that any liability ultimately assigned to him should be shared with the real estate professionals if their actions contributed to Tatro’s alleged damages.

Hansel and H.G. Johnson, meanwhile, have maintained that they relied on information supplied by Goodell, their client and the property’s seller. They also have denied allegations that they conspired with Goodell to mislead Tatro.

A separate civil-conspiracy claim is another major point of contention. Tatro alleges Goodell, Hansel and H.G. Johnson acted together to induce the purchase. Goodell has argued that the lawsuit does not establish an actual agreement or “meeting of the minds” to commit fraud. Tatro has argued that the defendants’ business relationships, roles in developing and marketing the property and financial dealings are sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference of coordinated conduct.

One allegation concerns a $100,000 loan from Hansel to Goodell involving another property, 181 Marlboro St. Goodell has argued that the loan and the parties’ other business relationships do not establish a conspiracy.

The latest answer does not resolve those competing allegations. Instead, it formally places Hansel and H.G. Johnson’s response to Goodell’s cross-claims before the court and preserves their defenses as the litigation proceeds.

Hansel and H.G. Johnson have also demanded a jury trial on the claims brought forward through Goodell’s cross-claims. The allegations in the lawsuit and cross-claims have not been proven in court, and the court has not determined liability.