Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 6 — Particular Proceedings; part 78B-6-8 — Forcible Entry and Detainer
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-6-810 (2026)

Court procedures

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In an action under this chapter in which the tenant remains in possession of the property:
the court shall expedite the proceedings, including the resolution of motions and trial;
the court shall begin the trial within 60 days after the day on which the complaint is served, unless the parties agree otherwise;
if this chapter requires a hearing to be held within a specified time and a judge is not available, the time may be extended to the first date after expiration of the specified time on which a judge is available to hear the case;
if this chapter requires a hearing to be held within a specified time, this section does not require a hearing to be held before the assigned judge, and the court may, out of convenience, schedule a hearing before another judge within the jurisdiction; and
if a court denies an order of restitution submitted by a party, and upon a party's request, the court shall give notice to the parties of the reason for denial and set a hearing within 10 business days after the day on which a party submitted the order to the court.
In an action for unlawful detainer, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing, upon request of either party, within 10 business days after the day on which the defendant files an answer or response.
At the evidentiary hearing held in accordance with Subsection (2)(a):
the court shall determine who has the right of occupancy during the litigation's pendency; and
if the court determines that all issues between the parties can be adjudicated without further proceedings, the court shall adjudicate all issues and enter judgment on the merits.
As used in this Subsection (3)(a), "an act that would be considered criminal under the laws of this state" means:
an act that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;
an act that would be considered criminal affecting the health or safety of a tenant, the landlord, the landlord's agent, or other individual on the landlord's property;
an act that would be considered criminal that causes damage or loss to any tenant's property or the landlord's property;
a drug- or gang-related act that would be considered criminal;
an act or threat of violence against any tenant or other individual on the premises, or against the landlord or the landlord's agent; and
any other act that would be considered criminal that the court determines directly impacts the safety or peaceful enjoyment of the premises by any tenant.
In an action for unlawful detainer in which the claim is for nuisance and alleges an act that would be considered criminal under the laws of this state, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing upon request within 10 days after the day on which the complaint is filed to determine whether the alleged act occurred.
The hearing required by Subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall be set at the time the complaint is filed and notice of the hearing shall be served upon the defendant with the summons at least three calendar days before the scheduled time of the hearing.
If the court, at an evidentiary hearing held in accordance with Subsection (3)(a), determines that it is more likely than not that the alleged act occurred, the court shall issue an order of restitution.
If a court issues an order of restitution in accordance with Subsection (3)(c), a constable or the sheriff of the county where the property is located shall return possession of the property to the plaintiff immediately.
The court may allow a period of up to 72 hours before a constable or the sheriff of the county where the property is located makes restitution if the court determines the time is appropriate under the circumstances.
At the evidentiary hearing held in accordance with Subsection (3)(a)(ii), if the court determines that all issues between the parties can be adjudicated without further proceedings, the court shall adjudicate those issues and enter judgment on the merits.
At any hearing held in accordance with this chapter in which the defendant after receiving notice fails to appear, the court shall issue an order of restitution and enter a judgment of default against the defendant, unless the court makes a finding for why the order of restitution or judgment of default should not be issued.
If an order of restitution is issued in accordance with Subsection (4)(a), a constable or the sheriff of the county where the property is situated shall return possession of the property to the plaintiff immediately.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Bichler v. DEI Sys., Inc., 2009 UT 63 (Utah 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bichler v. DEI Sys., Inc., 2009 UT 63 (Utah 2009). · cites it 18× “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-810 (2008)(2)(a). [4] It is at the evidentiary hearing that "the court shall determine who has the right of occupancy during the litigation's pendency.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Martin v. Kristensen, 2019 UT App 127 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “§ 78B-6-810. These provisions are “evidence of a strong desire by the legislature to create a mechanism pursuant to which owners can be restored to possession of their property.”
Martin v. Kristensen, 2021 UT 17 (Utah 2021). · cites it 8× “But it also noted that the unlawful detainer statute includes a “significant safety valve that is designed to protect against excessive damages for unlawful detainer”—in section 78B-6-810, which “allows a person to request a hearing or trial within 60 days and/or otherwise…”
Koerber v. Mismash, 2015 UT App 237 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “7 ¶ 32 Tenants argue that the district court erred in waiting more than two months to hear their motions to dismiss because they were entitled • to have- their claim “expedite[d]’’ under Utah Code section 78B-6-810. Tenants also contend that the district court conducted the…”
Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
State Ex Rel. J.M.S., 246 P.3d 1188 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-810 (2008) (setting penalties for contempt of court).”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(1) — 2 cases
Martin v. Kristensen, 2019 UT App 127 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “§ 78B-6-810. These provisions are “evidence of a strong desire by the legislature to create a mechanism pursuant to which owners can be restored to possession of their property.”
Martin v. Kristensen, 2021 UT 17 (Utah 2021). “But it also noted that the unlawful detainer statute includes a “significant safety valve that is designed to protect against excessive damages for unlawful detainer”—in section 78B-6-810, which “allows a person to request a hearing or trial within 60 days and/or otherwise…”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(2) — 2 cases
Koerber v. Mismash, 2015 UT App 237 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “7 ¶ 32 Tenants argue that the district court erred in waiting more than two months to hear their motions to dismiss because they were entitled • to have- their claim “expedite[d]’’ under Utah Code section 78B-6-810. Tenants also contend that the district court conducted the…”
Martin v. Kristensen, 2021 UT 17 (Utah 2021). “But it also noted that the unlawful detainer statute includes a “significant safety valve that is designed to protect against excessive damages for unlawful detainer”—in section 78B-6-810, which “allows a person to request a hearing or trial within 60 days and/or otherwise…”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(2)(a) — 3 cases
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(2)(b) — 3 cases
Bichler v. DEI Sys., Inc., 2009 UT 63 (Utah 2009). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-810 (2008)(2)(a). [4] It is at the evidentiary hearing that "the court shall determine who has the right of occupancy during the litigation's pendency.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Martin v. Kristensen, 2021 UT 17 (Utah 2021). “But it also noted that the unlawful detainer statute includes a “significant safety valve that is designed to protect against excessive damages for unlawful detainer”—in section 78B-6-810, which “allows a person to request a hearing or trial within 60 days and/or otherwise…”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(2)(b)(I) — 1 case
Bichler v. DEI Sys., Inc., 2009 UT 63 (Utah 2009). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-810 (2008)(2)(a). [4] It is at the evidentiary hearing that "the court shall determine who has the right of occupancy during the litigation's pendency.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(2)(b)(i) — 5 cases
Martin v. Kristensen, 2019 UT App 127 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “§ 78B-6-810. These provisions are “evidence of a strong desire by the legislature to create a mechanism pursuant to which owners can be restored to possession of their property.”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Martin v. Kristensen, 2021 UT 17 (Utah 2021). “But it also noted that the unlawful detainer statute includes a “significant safety valve that is designed to protect against excessive damages for unlawful detainer”—in section 78B-6-810, which “allows a person to request a hearing or trial within 60 days and/or otherwise…”
Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist, 2013 UT 45 (Utah 2013). “Pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-6-810, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine which party would have possession of the Property during the pendency of the litigation.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-810(2)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Bichler v. DEI Sys., Inc., 2009 UT 63 (Utah 2009). “" Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-810 (2008)(2)(a). [4] It is at the evidentiary hearing that "the court shall determine who has the right of occupancy during the litigation's pendency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.