Can landlords use self-help remedies to exclude defaulting tenants from leased premises? Aris Vision v. Wasatch Property Management Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Aris Vision v. Wasatch Property Management reinforced a fundamental principle of landlord-tenant law: landlords cannot resort to self-help measures to exclude tenants from leased premises, even when tenants default on rent payments.

Background and Facts

Aris Vision operated a laser eye surgery center in Murray, Utah, under a lease with JDJ Properties. When Aris fell behind on rent and began winding down operations, it entered negotiations to sell equipment and transfer the lease to the doctors who had been performing surgeries at the facility. During these negotiations, defendants prevented Aris from removing its equipment, changed the locks twice without providing keys, threatened to call police, and only allowed supervised access to the premises. Defendants claimed Aris had abandoned the premises, justifying their actions.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three primary issues: (1) whether Aris abandoned the premises under Utah Code section 78-36-12.3, (2) whether defendants committed forcible detainer under Utah Code section 78-36-2 and wrongful eviction, and (3) whether defendants converted Aris’s equipment and whether damages were properly calculated.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found no abandonment under either statutory or common-law definitions. Although Aris failed to pay January rent and did not directly notify defendants of absence, the doctors continued performing surgeries using Aris’s equipment while negotiations proceeded. This constituted “reasonable evidence” of continued use beyond mere presence of personal property, defeating the statutory presumption of abandonment. The court determined Aris never intended to terminate its contractual rights to possession and control.

Finding no abandonment, the court held defendants liable for forcible detainer under Utah Code section 78-36-2(1) by using “force, or menaces and threats of violence” to unlawfully hold possession. The court awarded treble damages totaling $563,062.90, including equipment depreciation, missing property, and laser damage.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores that landlords must follow judicial procedures rather than self-help remedies when dealing with defaulting tenants. The severe consequences—treble damages under the forcible detainer statute—make proper legal process essential. The case also demonstrates that ongoing negotiations and continued use by third parties can prevent findings of abandonment, even when rent payments cease.