Opinion ID: 1406950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Claim of Forcible Entry

Text: Mr. Peay's version of what occurred is that about a week later, on March 12, 1975, a neighbor businessman called and told him that the door to the restaurant was open and the place was unattended. He went there and saw that some of the personal property of the plaintiffs had been removed; and that inasmuch as the plaintiffs had not returned the keys as they had promised, in order to carry out the plan of attempting to re-lease the property, and to protect it, he had the locks changed on the doors. The plaintiffs learned that the locks had been changed, but did not make a request for a set of the new keys, nor for the rest of their personal property still located there. By the end of March 1975, defendant Peay had found new lessees for the cafe, defendants Hall and Hostetter. They took possession on April 1, and proceeded to operate the business. It was then that the plaintiffs brought this action seeking damages for alleged forcible entry; and also for conversion of personal property. As to the first, they place reliance on our forcible entry or detainer statute, Section 78-36-1, U.C.A. 1953, which provides that every person is guilty of a forcible entry who: (2) After entering peaceably upon real property, turns out by force, threats or menacing conduct the party in actual possession. We are in accord with the plaintiffs' contention that under that statute, where one party (plaintiffs) is in peaceable possession of real property, another (defendant) even though entitled to possession by contract or otherwise, is not only forbidden to use force, but he may not use stealth or deception or any other devious means of obtaining possession, and then by deception or force exclude the first from the premises, but must use the processes of law to obtain possession. [1] The difficulty with the plaintiffs' argument is that they assume the facts according to their own version of what happened, rather than as found by the trial court, as they should; and as we are obliged to do on appeal. [2] A necessary predicate to their cause of action for forcible entry is that they were in actual and peaceable possession of the property. [3] They could not be so if there had been abandonment or a surrender of the premises. Whether this had been accomplished was for the trial court to determine from the conduct and expressions of the parties with respect thereto. [4] In accordance with that prerogative, on the basis of the facts hereinabove recited that the plaintiffs had closed the cafe, had left it unattended, and had told the defendants that they could not pay the rent and advised him to attempt to find a new lessee, the trial court expressly found that the plaintiffs had surrendered the premises; and that they were not in peaceful possession thereof when defendant Peay resumed possession. Inasmuch as there is a reasonable basis in the evidence to support that determination, the trial court was justified in rejecting plaintiffs' contention that the evidence compelled a finding in their favor on the issue of forcible entry.