Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah judges handwrite response deadlines on unlawful detainer summons? Parkside v. Insure-Rite Explained
Summary
Tenant exercised a lease extension option but disputed Landlord’s proposed annual rent escalations. Landlord filed an unlawful detainer action with a summons that lacked the required court indorsement of response time. The trial court granted summary judgment for Landlord, ordering eviction and treble damages.
Analysis
Utah’s unlawful detainer statute requires strict compliance with procedural requirements, including specific summons formalities that practitioners often overlook.
Background and Facts
Parkside Salt Lake Corporation leased commercial space to Insure-Rite, Inc. under an agreement containing an extension option. When Insure-Rite exercised the option, Parkside proposed annual rent escalations that the tenant rejected as contrary to the lease terms. After Insure-Rite remained in possession beyond the original lease term, Parkside filed an unlawful detainer action. The court issued a separate order shortening the answer time to seven days, but the summons itself contained only typewritten text signed by Parkside’s attorney—no judicial indorsement.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the summons complied with Utah Code section 78-36-8, which mandates that “[t]he court shall indorse on the summons the number of days within which the defendant is required to appear and defend the action.” Insure-Rite timely moved to quash the summons, arguing it lacked proper court indorsement.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals emphasized that unlawful detainer statutes require strict compliance because they provide “a severe remedy” and are “in derogation of the common law.” The court held that the indorsement requirement demands “a writing on the summons in the judge’s own hand” of the response deadline, with the judge’s signature or equivalent to show authenticity. A separate order shortening time, even if signed by the judge, cannot substitute for this requirement. Because the summons was defective and Insure-Rite timely objected, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court vacated all orders and remanded for entry of an order quashing the summons.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts will not excuse procedural defects in unlawful detainer proceedings, even seemingly minor ones. Practitioners must ensure judges personally indorse summons with response deadlines—typewritten text or separate orders will not suffice. The court also addressed the underlying lease dispute, ruling that the landlord’s proposed annual rent escalations violated the plain terms of the extension option, which contemplated a single “market rate” for the entire extension period.
Case Details
Case Name
Parkside v. Insure-Rite
Citation
2001 UT App 347
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20000588-CA
Date Decided
November 16, 2001
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A summons in an unlawful detainer action must have the trial court’s handwritten indorsement of the number of days for the defendant to respond, and a separate order shortening time cannot cure this jurisdictional defect.
Standard of Review
Correctness for whether service of process was proper as a jurisdictional issue; correctness for contract interpretation as a question of law
Practice Tip
In unlawful detainer actions, ensure the judge personally indorses the summons with the number of days for defendant’s response—a separate order shortening time will not satisfy this statutory requirement.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.