Opinion ID: 1226769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violations of the Act

Text: Section 13-11-4(2) of the UCSPA enumerates several acts which are considered deceptive per se. Under that section, the tenant asserts that the landlord engaged in a deceptive act by indicating that the premises were of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model when they were not. As a conclusion of law, the trial court found that the evidence would not warrant a finding of any deceptive act or practice on the part of [the landlord], as contemplated by the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The UCSPA requires that the supplier act with intent to deceive. Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-4(2). Implicit in a legal conclusion that there is or is not a deceptive practice or act under the UCSPA is a factual finding that the requisite intent to deceive was either present or absent. The determination of whether a person had the intent is one of fact for the lower court. See Fitzgerald v. Corbett, 793 P.2d 356, 358 (Utah 1990); Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848, 851 (Utah 1981). A finding of fact can be set aside by this court on appeal only if it is found to be clearly erroneous. Utah R.Civ.P. 52(a). A finding is clearly erroneous only if it is against the great weight of evidence or if the court is otherwise definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Bountiful v. Riley, 784 P.2d 1174, 1175 (Utah 1989). To challenge a finding of fact, the challenger must marshal all the evidence supporting the finding and then demonstrate that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding. See In re Estate of Bartell, 776 P.2d 885, 886 (Utah 1989); Doelle v. Bradley, 784 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Utah 1989). In this case, the tenant has not attempted to marshal the evidence or demonstrate its legal insufficiency. Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence that the landlord knew of the problem with the sewer connection when he rented the premises. There is therefore no reason for us to disturb the trial court's findings. See id. at 1178-79; Ashton v. Ashton, 733 P.2d 147, 150 (Utah 1987). We would let stand the trial court's conclusion that the landlord did not engage in a deceptive act under the UCSPA. The tenant also asserts that the landlord's actions were unconscionable under section 13-11-5 of the UCSPA. [17] Under the statute, unconscionability does not require proof of specific intent but can be found by considering circumstances which the supplier knew or had reason to know. Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5(3) (emphasis added). The determination of unconscionability is a question of law. Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5(2). This court is therefore free to review the record and make its own conclusions as to this determination. See State ex rel. Div. Consumer Protection v. Rio Vista Oil, Ltd., 786 P.2d 1343, 1347 (Utah 1990); Henretty v. Manti City Corp., 791 P.2d 506, 510 (Utah 1990). In Resource Management Co. v. Weston Ranch and Livestock Co., 706 P.2d 1028 (Utah 1985), we discussed the doctrine of unconscionability at length. The discussion was based on standards articulated in the Uniform Commercial Code, see U.C.C. § 2-302, comment 1, and on contract law in general. The principles there discussed are, for the most part, applicable here. In Resource Management, the court distinguished substantive and procedural unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability focuses on the manner in which the contract was negotiated and the circumstances of the parties, 706 P.2d at 1041, and can be characterized as the absence of meaningful choice and a gross inequality of bargaining power. Id. at 1042 (quoting Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445, 449 (D.C. Cir.1965)). Substantive unconscionability examines the relative fairness of the obligations assumed; it requires terms so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party, Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1041 (citing Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Huth, 664 P.2d 455, 462 (Utah 1983)); Bill Stremmel Motors, Inc. v. IDS Leasing Corp., 89 Nev. 414, 514 P.2d 654, 657 (1973), or an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain, Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Huth, 664 P.2d at 462. Under contract law, unconscionability is determined as of the time the parties enter into the contract. See Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1043. In contrast, under the UCSPA, an unconscionable act or practice may occur before, during or after a consumer transaction. In this case, therefore, consideration can be given to the landlord's actions during the course of the tenancy, as well as to his act of renting the premises initially. As discussed above, there is no evidence that the landlord knew when he rented the premises that there was a problem with the sewer connection, nor is there any indication that he had reason to know of the problem at that time. Further, although the water was not turned on, the tenant had the opportunity to inspect the premises before she rented the house. By her own testimony, she did not go down into the basement when she first looked at the house. Thus, at the time the lease was signed, the tenant had a meaningful choice in whether or not to rent the house, and the bargaining power of the parties was relatively equal since both had the same opportunity to inspect the premises. As a matter of law, the landlord did not act unconscionably in renting the premises to the tenant initially. The relative positions of the parties changed dramatically, however, once the tenant moved into the house, discovered the problems, and informed the landlord. According to the housing inspector's testimony, by December 1988 the premises exhibited `dozens' of violations of the Utah Housing Code which posed substantial dangers to the health and safety of the occupants, including the presence of raw sewage on the sidewalks, and stagnant water in the basement with a foul odor. The landlord's repeated failure to repair the sewage problem after he had knowledge of its existence was unconscionable. At that point, the tenant's only choice was either living without hot water, with foul odors permeating her residence and standing water and raw sewage in the basement, or moving out of the house and incurring the substantial expenditure of time, energy, and money that relocation requires. This amounted to no meaningful choice at all. See Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1042. Substantively, from that point until the premises were ordered vacated, the bargain became one with terms so one-sided as to oppress the tenant, id. at 1041, creating an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain. Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Huth, 664 P.2d at 462. The division investigated the premises twice during December 1988. The tenant testified that she called the housing inspectors once, presumably in November or early December. The evidence indicates that it was the landlord who called the inspectors the second time. The purpose of that second call, by the landlord's own admission, was to have the house condemned so [the tenant] would move out. The landlord's efforts were successful; the second inspection resulted in a notice ordering vacation of the premises until the life-safety threats were corrected. Those threats included the lack of connection to the sewer system, the presence of stagnant water in the basement, and other critical problems. Id. The landlord's direct admission that he had the house effectively condemned for the purpose of evicting the tenant rather than repairing the sewer system is shocking. Tenants in Utah have a right to be evicted only by judicial process. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-36-12. The landlord's actions violated state policy disfavoring selfhelp evictions. He also abused the building inspection process. His acts were unconscionable under the UCSPA. Once the tenant had moved into the house and discovered the unsafe and unsanitary conditions, her only choice was to live with those conditions or incur the burdens of moving. That is a result which no decent, fair-minded person would view... without being possessed of a profound sense of injustice. Resource Management, 706 P.2d at 1041 (quoting Carlson v. Hamilton, 8 Utah 2d 272, 332 P.2d 989, 991 (1958)). Thus, the author and Justice Zimmerman would hold that the landlord's conduct was unconscionable under the UCSPA. A consumer has an express statutory right to bring an action under the UCSPA even if he seeks or is entitled to damages or otherwise has an adequate remedy at law. Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19(1). The tenant in this case should not be precluded from bringing an action under the statute and under the common law warranty of habitability.