Court Opinion

ID: 9629166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:38:22.782783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:16.274165
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting):
Defendants’ basic point on appeal is that they were not served with a notice to quit until the sixth of October, 1966, and that plaintiff commenced its action September 26, 1966; therefore, defendants were wrongfully evicted for plaintiff’s failure to comply with Section 78-36-3(3), U.C.A.1953. Defendants’ argument is without merit, since plaintiff’s action in September was to enforce an alternative remedy, namely, the enforcement of a landlord’s lien by a writ of attachment.* Under these circumstances, the requirements of the unlawful detainer statute were irrelevant..
To further clarify this matter, the landlord pursued two remedies in sequence. First, plaintiff filed a complaint for rentals due, for a writ of attachment and restitution. Ah affidavit was filed contemporaneously with the complaint, and a writ of attachment was granted by the court. A praecipe was issueci to the sheriff instructing him to attach all personal property located on the premises, to change the locks, to remove all persons located therein, and to take possession thereof. Subsequently, defendants furnished an undertaking, and on October 6, 1966, the attachment was dissolved, and the defendants’ bond was substituted therefor. On October 6, 1966, plaintiff served a three-day notice to pay rent or terminate the tenancy, and on the lith of October, plaintiff amended its complaint to include an unlawful detainer action.
Defendants have elected not to appeal in regard to their counterclaim for wrongful attachment for which the trial court awarded them damages. Their sole claim of error involves an alleged wrongful eviction-which they attribute to plaintiff’s failure *276to serve a notice to quit prior to filing its complaint. Since the initial complaint did not involve an unlawful detainer action, a notice to quit was not a prerequisite. The damages to which defendants claim they are entitled on appeal resulted from a wrongful attachment and not a wrongful eviction. Since they have not appealed the award therefrom, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

 See Sections 38-3-1 and 38-3-35 U.C.A. 1953.