Court Opinion

ID: 9538208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:32:26.281787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:38.318830
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur except that I do not think treble damages should be allowed against the defendant, Reichert. Reichert was admittedly not personally served with the notice prerequisite to making in unlawful detainer of the premises; he was not the occupant, and from anything that appears here he may have had to bring an unlawful detainer action himself to get possession.
Section 78-36-7, referred to in the main opinion, simply deals with necessary parties defendant and provides that no person other than the one in actual possession need be joined. It is plain that it was intended to prevent others than the occupant of premises from hiding behind him and then asserting the right of possession after the judgment is entered by claiming the plaintiff “got the wrong pig by the ear.” That is the full import of that statute. It has nothing to do with placing other parties, not served with the statutory notice, in unlawful detainer so as to invoke the treble damage provision against them. Were it so, numerous situations could exist where the *92gravest injustice would inure to such persons without them having the slightest possibility of complying with the notice or exculpating themselves from that onerous and inequitable provision.
Section 78-36-7 makes no reference whatsoever to rent or treble damages, and advisedly so, because persons out of possession, but who may be joined or intervene, claiming possessory rights, would obviously not be liable for either under usual circumstances. It is only by a liberal, if not strained, construction of the statutes that Reichert, who was not in actual possession, and not served with the statutory notice, could be held responsible under the treble damages provision. This is at variance with the uniformly accepted law on the subject: that because the treble damages provision is a harsh remedy, the statute should be strictly construed against him who asserts it, and further, it must be strictly complied with as to the party against whom it is asserted.
A case directly in point which should he controlling here is Perkins v. Spencer, Utah, 243 P.2d 446, wherein this court unanimously held that a husband who was not personally served with the notice was not liable for treble damages, although his wife was served.
Inasmuch as Mr. Reichert appeared in the action, he is, of course, bound by the other portions of the judgment, but for the reasons above stated, it seems to me entirely improper to impose the treble damage penalty against him.