Mountain View Colonial Apartments v. Isais
| Citation | 400 P.3d 1166 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 20160184-CA,20160184-CA |
| Parties | MOUNTAIN VIEW COLONIAL APARTMENTS, Appellee, v. Rebecca ISAIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Utah |
Zachary C. Myers, Salt Lake City, Attorney for Appellant
Charles A. Schultz, Attorney for Appellee
Opinion
¶ 1 Rebecca Isais (Tenant) appeals from the district court's order evicting her from an apartment she leased from Mountain View Colonial Apartments (Landlord). We reverse the district court's eviction order.
¶ 2 Tenant entered a rental agreement with Landlord that included a "Crime and Drug-Free Housing Agreement" prohibiting "drug related criminal activity." On August 4, 2015, police officers searched Tenant's apartment after reports of a marijuana odor. Landlord then taped a "Notice of Infraction" to Tenant's door alleging violations of the rental agreement, including "use of marijuana by [Tenant] and/or guest." Landlord filed a complaint and served Tenant with a three-day summons.1 Tenant filed a pro se answer asserting, among other things, that she had received no notice to quit the premises. Landlord then filed a motion for immediate eviction and a request for an expedited hearing.
¶ 3 On October 2, 2015, the court held an expedited eviction hearing. Tenant testified that police had detected marijuana residue on some "old mason jars" found in the search of her apartment on August 4. She was unaware of the residue before the police alerted her to it and was never charged. Based on this testimony, the court found that Tenant "did admit to illegal activity on the premises" and that "there was illegal activity that took place on August 4th as it relates to drug possession and/or drug use." Landlord's apartment manager testified that she posted the "Notice of Infraction" "[o]n the inside door of the side entrance" to Tenant's apartment. The court found that "notice of eviction ... was provided." The court granted the eviction order, giving Tenant three days to quit the premises.
¶ 4 Tenant filed a motion to amend her answer and a motion to alter or amend the judgment or grant a new trial under rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied both motions, concluding that the eviction order "was not an error of law." Although the district court did not specifically address the notice to quit in its memorandum decision on Tenant's rule 59 motion, the court reiterated its earlier ruling that "[Landlord] provided [Tenant] proper eviction notices." Tenant appeals the eviction order.
¶ 5 Tenant contends that the district court "abused its discretion by ordering the eviction of [Tenant] without proof that a proper notice to quit was served." We read this claim on appeal as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the notice that, the parties agree, Landlord served on Tenant.
¶ 6 Tenant contends that the notice, whose content is undisputed, did not comply with statutory requirements. The claim on appeal thus involves the application of the law to a given set of facts. Our supreme court has stated, "On mixed questions—involving application of a legal standard to a set of facts unique to a particular case—our review is sometimes deferential and sometimes not." Supernova Media, Inc. v. Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss, LLC , 2013 UT 7, ¶ 13, 297 P.3d 599 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The degree of deference we afford depends on the following factors:
(1) the degree of variety and complexity in the facts to which the legal rule is to be applied; (2) the degree to which a trial court's application of the legal rule relies on facts observed by the trial judge, such as a witness's appearance and demeanor, relevant to the application of the law that cannot be adequately reflected in the record available to appellate courts; and (3) other policy reasons that weigh for or against granting discretion to trial courts[.]
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, "the facts are not at issue" and the question is "the legal effect of a given set of facts"—a single document, in fact—the question before the reviewing court is "law-like" and thus reviewed under a non-deferential standard. See Murray v. Utah Labor Comm'n , 2013 UT 38, ¶¶ 39–40, 308 P.3d 461 (internal quotation marks omitted).
¶ 7 As a preliminary matter, Landlord contends that "[t]his court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of [Tenant's] appeal." Landlord argues that "[b]ecause [Tenant] did not file her motion to alter or amend until after she filed her notice of appeal, the motion is invalid, and the district court had no jurisdiction to consider it or rule on it." Landlord argues that Tenant's "second notice of appeal, filed on March 7, 2016, was filed more than thirty days after the district court issued its judgment on October 5, 2015, and that notice of appeal is untimely." Tenant responds that, "[w]hen a Rule 59 motion is filed, jurisdiction stays with the district court until the district court disposes of the motion." Tenant also argues that a "notice of appeal is not deemed to be filed until after the district court rules on a Rule 59 motion."
¶ 8 The "initial inquiry of any court should always be to determine whether the requested action is within its jurisdiction." Allred v. Allred , 835 P.2d 974, 977 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "We independently determine whether the appeal is proper when reviewing a jurisdictional issue." Id.
¶ 9 Rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in part that if a party timely files a rule 59 motion, "the time for all parties to appeal from the judgment runs from the entry of the dispositive order." See Utah R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(D). Thus, "[a] notice of appeal filed after announcement or entry of judgment, but before entry of an order disposing of [the rule 59 motion], shall be treated as filed after entry of the order and on the day thereof, except that such a notice of appeal is effective to appeal only from the underlying judgment." See id. R. 4(b)(2). In other words, "[a] timely motion filed pursuant to Rule 59 tolls the time for appeal pending resolution of the motion." Allred , 835 P.2d at 977 (citing Utah R. App. P. 4(b) ).
¶ 10 Generally, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is 30 days. Utah R. App. P. 4(a). However, in an unlawful detainer action, the deadline to file a notice of appeal is 10 days. Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-813(1) (LexisNexis 2012).2
¶ 11 Here, Tenant filed her first notice of appeal on October 5, 2015, the same day that the district court ordered eviction. Tenant filed a timely rule 59 motion 10 days later. Her initial notice of appeal was later dismissed on procedural grounds. The district court issued its memorandum decision and order on the rule 59 motion on February 26, 2016. The time to appeal ran from the date the district court entered the order disposing of Tenant's rule 59 motion. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(D). Rule 59 thus tolled the time to appeal the underlying judgment until the district court resolved her motion. See id. R. 4(b)(2) ; Allred , 835 P.2d at 977. Tenant filed a second notice of appeal on March 7, 2016, within the 10–day window.3 Because Tenant filed her second notice of appeal within 10 days of the district court's order disposing of the rule 59 motion, her appeal is timely, and this court has jurisdiction. See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-813(1).
¶ 12 Tenant's contentions on appeal rely on provisions of the unlawful detainer statute. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-6-807, -810 (LexisNexis 2012). Landlord responds that Tenant "falsely claims that this case is an ‘unlawful detainer’ case." Landlord asserts that Tenant "was evicted for nuisance violations under [ Utah Code section] 78B-6-1107 and [ Utah Code section] 78B-6-1108, for possessing, using, and allowing others, at the apartment she was renting from [Landlord], to possess and use unlawful drugs." Thus, as a threshold matter, we must decide whether Landlord acted to evict Tenant under the unlawful detainer statute or under the nuisance statute.4
¶ 13 "Utah's unlawful detainer statute provides landowners with a summary remedy to recover possession of their property from their tenants who may be in violation of a lease provision." Osguthorpe v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L . C . , 2010 UT 29, ¶ 22, 232 P.3d 999 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The unlawful detainer statute is a summary proceeding" that "provides a severe remedy" and "must be strictly complied with before the cause of action may be maintained."
Sovereen v. Meadows , 595 P.2d 852, 853 (Utah 1979). "To be guilty of unlawful detainer, a party must be a tenant in possession of real property and must have violated a term of the lease, committed waste, remained on the property beyond the legal term of the lease, or engaged in any such acts enumerated in Utah Code sections 78B-6-802(1)(a)–(h) [.]" Osguthorpe , 2010 UT 29, ¶ 21, 232 P.3d 999. In an unlawful detainer action, a landlord may serve a tenant with a three-day summons and request an expedited evidentiary hearing at which the court may immediately order eviction. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-6-807, -810. In sum, the unlawful detainer statute constitutes "a mechanism for quickly and clearly resolving conflicts over lawful possession of property between landowners and tenants." See Osguthorpe , 2010 UT 29, ¶ 22, 232 P.3d 999.
¶ 14 The nuisance statute allows any citizen residing in the county where a nuisance is located to "maintain an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to abate the nuisance and obtain an order for the automatic eviction of the tenant." Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1108(1) (LexisNexis 2012). "A nuisance is anything which is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial