Westmont Residential LLC v. Buttars, 340 P.3d 183

Defendants Buttars and Miller sought early termination of a one-year residential lease; Westmont required an early-termination fee and prepared a Notice of Intent to Vacate setting the move-out/inspection for Sept. 29, 2011. Defendants signed but received a copy on Sept. 30.
On Sept. 28 Westmont’s manager entered the unit (after an odor complaint and absent tenants) and observed most belongings removed and the unit dirty.
Westmont performed a move-out inspection on Sept. 29 in Defendants’ absence; Defendants mistakenly believed the date was Sept. 30. On Sept. 30 Westmont employees were packing Defendants’ property, denied access, and charged a $100 packing/inventory fee; Defendants paid and retrieved belongings.
Westmont sued for cleaning and repair costs (~$2,169 plus surcharge) and for defamation per se after Miller posted an online review calling Westmont “crooks.”
The trial court largely denied Westmont’s claims: it found Defendants had not vacated on Sept. 29, rejected most cleaning charges, offset minor repair damages with the improper $100 inventory charge, and dismissed the defamation per se claim (calling “crooks” rhetorical hyperbole).
Westmont’s post-trial motions (recusal, Rule 59, Rule 60(b)) were denied; Westmont appealed. The Court of Appeals affirms.

Issue	Westmont's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether the Notice of Intent to Vacate modified the lease so possession transferred on Sept. 29	Notice, signed by both parties, amended the lease and set move-out/possession as of Sept. 29	No mutual assent to modify lease; House Rules still required surrender of keys and a signed walkthrough before relinquishing possession	Notice did not modify the lease; trial court findings that tenants had not vacated on Sept. 29 are not clearly erroneous
Whether the nature of items left showed abandonment permitting entry/cleanup on Sept. 29	Remaining items were junk/abandoned; Westmont could treat the unit as vacated and proceed	Items had value to tenants; packaging and charging to retrieve items show they were not abandoned	Items not junk; trial court’s credibility findings supported rejecting abandonment claim
Whether Miller’s online post calling Westmont “crooks” is defamation per se	Term implies criminality or business-incongruent conduct and is per se defamatory	Term is rhetorical hyperbole/opinion in a consumer review context and not stating provable false facts	“Crooks” in context is nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole; defamation per se claim dismissed
Whether trial judge erred by denying recusal and post-trial motions	Judge should have recused; Rule 59/60 errors	Motions lack merit and were inadequately briefed on appeal	Appellant’s recusal and post-trial arguments were inadequately briefed; appellate court declines to reach merits

West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994) (context-driven assessment of defamatory meaning)
Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (U.S. 1970) (rhetorical hyperbole is nonactionable)
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1988) (exaggerated language of opinion not defamatory)
Jacob v. Bezzant, 212 P.3d 535 (Utah 2009) (defamation per se covers false statements alleging criminal conduct or conduct incompatible with lawful business)
O'Connor v. Burningham, 165 P.3d 1214 (Utah 2007) (court may independently assess whether language is defamatory as a matter of law)