Must Utah judges handwrite response deadlines on unlawful detainer summons? Parkside v. Insure-Rite Explained

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.