Stan Katz Real Estate, Inc. v. Chavez
Utah Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceCrockett, Justice
I agree that at least there should be a hearing in regard to defendant’s residence. But I would go further.
It is my view that the defendant’s statement in his affidavit under oath that he did not reside at that address and had not received the summons stands unrefuted. The notation on the return of summons quoting the statement of a third party (his mother) is hearsay as to the defendant and not binding upon him. In the absence of a challenging pleading of equal dignity with his affidavit, there is no basis upon which the court could find contrary to his averment. In accordance with what has…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Paul W. Larsen Contractor, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1975
- Bylund v. CrookUtah Supreme Court · 1922