Court Opinion

ID: 9629167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:38:22.786536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:16.275225
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting) :
I dissent since I think the main opinion seems to be deciding issues foreign to and not raised on this appeal.
Western urges wrongful eviction because of failure to give timely notice pursuant to the unlawful detainer statute.1 The pretrial order said:
The trial court is called to determine whether plaintiff’s use of the writ of attachment to close the premises and deprive the defendants from access thereto was improper; whether plaintiff wrongfully evicted the defendants from the premises pursuant to the unlawful de-tainer statute; and if improper conduct is found on the part of the plaintiff, to determine what damages, if any, resulted to defendants from plaintiff’s action.
The trial court found there was a wrongful attachment, and gave damages therefor, and Western does not complain about such award on appeal. Western’s grounds for appeal are only that Freeway violated the unlazvful detainer statute by failing to give proper notice thereunder, and a question as to damages.
Nonetheless, the main opinion decides the issues under the provisions of the forcible entry statute,2 which statute was never mentioned or argued by Western on its appeal. The opinion points out that all an occupant need show for protection against eviction is peaceful possession within five days prior to the unlawful entry,3 under a statute which likewise never was cited by Western nor argued on appeal, but represents a gratuity by this court However, no such gratuity is urged on appeal, — the only argument being that there was a wrongful eviction because required notice was not properly given under the unlawful detainer statute.
Without commenting on the merits under the particular facts of this case, possibly it could be argued the forcible entry was an issue on this appeal, — but Western was not constrained to urge it. Hence this issue is not before us.
True, the main opinion has decided the wrongful attachment issue, raised not by appellant, but by respondent, in its favor, based on insufficiency of the affidavit sup*277porting the attachment order, but that issue was raised somehow by the court here in favor of Western, — not »by the appellant Western. It might be observed parenthetically, that although it was not a matter before this court, the main opinion again gives the appellant an unwanted and unwarranted assist when it says that the statute required that the affidavit should include a statement that the writ “is not sued out for the purpose of vexing or harassing the lessee.” The affidavit in this case said it was not sued out “to hinder, delay or defraud any ■creditor of said defendants.” This affidavit was prepared on a printed form obtainable from the clerk of the court or any number of printers, for a small fee, and has been used without technical objection for decades. In my opinion such affidavit better protects the defendant under the statute, but at least has a connotation that is synonymous with “vexing” or “harassing.” Lawyers will be interested to note that the printed form “Affidavit for Attachment” which they have been using will now subject their clients to an unlawful attachment action or an unlawful detainer action, with a claim for punitive damages if ever again they use such a form.
This court often has refused to consider issues not raised save for the first time on appeal,4 or not properly objected to in the trial proceedings.5 A fortiori, this court has no authority to raise, sua sponte, such issues for the first time on appeal, unless they be jurisdictional ones. This case should be affirmed with no costs awarded because of its novelty.

. 78-36-3(3), Utah Code Annotated 1953.

. 78-36-1, 78-36-2, Utah Code Annotated 1953.

.78-36-9, Utah Code Annotated 1953.

. In re Estate of Ekker, 19 Utah 2d 414, 432 P.2d 45 (1967).

. Porcupine Reservoir Co. v. Lloyd W. Keller Corp., 15 Utah 2d 318, 392 P.2d 620 (1964).