Building Monitoring Systems, Inc. v. Paxton
276 Utah Adv. Rep. 31, 905 P.2d 1215, 1995 Utah LEXIS 68 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord may not evict a tenant in retaliation for the tenant's good-faith complaint to housing authorities about violations of a protective housing statute. Such retaliatory action constitutes an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action.
Facts:
- In December 1991, Michael Paxton and Amy Lowder rented an apartment from Building Monitoring Systems, Inc., on a month-to-month basis.
- Shortly after moving in, Paxton and Lowder notified the resident manager of necessary plumbing and wiring repairs, but the conditions remained unacceptable despite minor repair attempts.
- On August 9, 1993, they complained to the Salt Lake City and County Health Department about an inoperable refrigerator, leaking sinks, and other deteriorating conditions.
- The Health Department found violations and ordered Building Monitoring Systems to make repairs by September 7.
- On September 1, Building Monitoring Systems served Paxton and Lowder with an eviction notice, but later reinstated the tenancy by accepting October rent.
- On or about October 12, Paxton and Lowder made another complaint to the Health Department and also provided a written list of needed repairs to Building Monitoring Systems.
- One day after receiving notice of the second complaint, Building Monitoring Systems served Paxton and Lowder with another eviction notice, demanding they vacate by October 31.
Procedural Posture:
- Building Monitoring Systems, Inc. brought an unlawful detainer action against Michael Paxton and Amy Lowder in the trial court to compel them to vacate the premises.
- Paxton and Lowder asserted that the eviction was retaliatory and should be enjoined.
- The trial court found that the eviction was retaliatory but declined to recognize retaliatory eviction as a legal defense in Utah.
- Paxton and Lowder, the defendants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Utah Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is retaliatory eviction an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action in Utah?
Opinions:
Majority - Howe, Justice
Yes, retaliatory eviction is an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action in Utah. Allowing landlords to evict tenants for reporting housing code violations would frustrate the public policy embodied in the Utah Fit Premises Act and local health regulations, which are designed to ensure safe and healthy housing. Tenants would be reluctant to report violations if they feared reprisal, rendering enforcement of these housing standards ineffective. While a landlord may evict for any legal reason or no reason, they cannot evict for the primary purpose of retaliating against a tenant for exercising their right to report violations. The court adopted the five-part test from the Restatement (Second) of Property to define when an eviction is retaliatory. Once an eviction is found to be retaliatory, the landlord must remedy the code violation and provide the tenant a reasonable opportunity to find other housing before a new eviction can proceed.
Analysis:
This decision judicially established the affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction in Utah, a state that lacked a specific statute on the issue. By grounding the defense in the public policy of existing housing statutes, the court created a significant common law protection for tenants. The adoption of the five-part test from the Restatement (Second) of Property provides a clear and structured framework for lower courts to apply, balancing the tenant's right to safe housing against the landlord's property rights. This ruling aligns Utah with the majority of jurisdictions and significantly impacts the landlord-tenant relationship by deterring landlords from punishing tenants who report legitimate housing code violations.
