he had prepaid the rents. On November 20, 1991, MTB faxed a response to Barton’s letter and served him with a three-day notice to pay or quit, alleging that Barton was then in default on the November 15 rental payment. Almost immediately, Barton vacated the premises and entered into a new lease elsewhere. He subsequently filed suit, alleging that MTB’s notice to quit constituted a constructive or wrongful eviction and that he suffered damages as a result. MTB filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss Barton’s complaint, arguing that the notice alone did not constitute a constructive eviction. The court granted MTB’s motion and this appeal followed. ANALYSIS Under Utah law, as elsewhere, a constructive eviction “occurs wh 246 Va. 227, 435 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Gibson v. Thisius, 16 Wash.2d 693, 134 P.2d
holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error holding threat by lessor to resort to legal process when made in good faith is not intentional conduct supporting finding of constructive eviction holding that sublessee who vacated upon notice could not recover for constructive eviction in absence of showing that lessor acted in bad faith holding that wjhen a wrongful demand or notice to quit or vacate leased premises is made by a lessor or landlord and is followed by immediate surrender of possession by the lessee or tenant a constructive eviction has been accomplished