AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute where the plaintiff, a tenant, appealed against a judgment in favor of the defendants, her landlords, following a bench trial. The dispute arose from the absence of a written rental agreement, the imposition of a landlord’s lien on the plaintiff's property, alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and a contested finding of fact regarding the removal of the plaintiff's property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the absence of a written rental agreement constituted a material violation of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA), that the defendants imposed a landlord’s lien on her property, that the defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, that the defendants committed intentional infliction of emotional distress, and contested finding of fact 48 regarding the removal of her property.
• Defendants: The specific arguments of the defendants are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that they contested the plaintiff's claims.

Legal Issues

• Whether the absence of a written rental agreement constitutes a material violation of the UORRA.
• Whether the defendants imposed a landlord’s lien on the plaintiff's property.
• Whether the defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
• Whether the defendants committed intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Whether finding of fact 48 regarding the removal of the plaintiff's property was erroneous.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants on all issues raised by the plaintiff.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge; BOGARDUS, Judge; MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, Judge (concurring in result only): The court found that the absence of a written rental agreement did not constitute a material violation of the UORRA as it did not materially affect health and safety (para 2). The court also found no error in the district court's conclusion that no landlord’s lien was imposed, as the defendants did not hold the plaintiff's belongings to secure payment of overdue rent or compensation for damage (paras 3-6). Regarding the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove such a breach by the defendants (para 7-8). The court rejected the plaintiff's IIED claim due to lack of supporting authority and undeveloped argument (para 9). Lastly, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to properly preserve the argument against finding of fact 48 and, even if preserved, the argument was waived due to lack of specificity (paras 10-12).