Building Monitoring Systems v. Paxton

Utah Supreme Court · Property

PropertyLandlord-TenantRetaliatory Evictionunlawful detainerretaliatory evictiontenant complaintshousing code violationsUtah Fit Premises Act

Facts

Paxton and Lowder rented a month-to-month apartment from Building Monitoring Systems and repeatedly complained about defective plumbing, wiring, appliances, walls, sinks, and carpeting. After they complained to the Health Department and the Department ordered repairs, the landlord served eviction notices, including a second notice one day after receiving notice of a renewed complaint and written repair list. The trial court found the landlord's primary motivation for both notices was retaliation for the tenants' complaints. The tenants were not in breach of the rental agreement when the notices were served.

Issue

Whether retaliatory eviction by a landlord is an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action in Utah, and if so, what definition governs that defense.

Rule

Retaliatory eviction is an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer action in Utah. A landlord takes retaliatory action when the landlord undertakes to terminate a residential tenancy terminable by notice, or refuses to renew a term tenancy, if: (1) a protective housing statute embodying a public purpose to ensure proper housing conditions exists; (2) the landlord is in the business of renting residential property; (3) the tenant is not materially in default under the lease when the landlord acts; (4) the landlord is primarily motivated by the tenant's complaint about the landlord's violation of the protective housing statute; and (5) the tenant's complaint was made in good faith and with reasonable cause. After repairs are made, the landlord may seek eviction, but the landlord must show the tenant was given a reasonable opportunity to procure other housing.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ogden, Dana Kim rents a unit in a 40-apartment building owned by Wasatch Court Homes, a company that leases residential units year-round. After Dana reports exposed wiring and a broken heater to the county health department, the department cites the building for violations. Dana is current on rent and has not violated the lease, but the company serves a month-to-month termination notice two days later.

If the company files an unlawful detainer action, which is the strongest argument that Dana can assert under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority recognized retaliatory eviction as an affirmative defense to unlawful detainer and adopted a five-element test: a protective housing statute must exist, the landlord must be in the business of renting residential property, the tenant must not be materially in default, the landlord must be primarily motivated by the tenant’s complaint about a statutory housing violation, and the complaint must be made in good faith and with reasonable cause. The defense is not automatic after any complaint, does not depend on proving total uninhabitability, and does not eliminate the landlord’s general power to terminate; it bars termination when retaliation is the primary motive. (Derived from Building Monitoring Systems v. Paxton (n.d.).)