Fourth Judicial District Court · Provo, UtahCase No. 260402421Harding v. Hancock d/b/a Sub-Zero Ice Cream
The documented record of a commercial eviction
The tenant held the option. The landlord could only accept.
Jerry Hancock has a valid lease. Its first page — Section 2.5, boxed at right — gave him the
option to renew for five more years, and he exercised it in writing after the landlord herself invoked it.
He was evicted anyway — not for breaking the lease he has, but for refusing to sign a new one he never
agreed to: a rewrite that converted the deal to triple-net, cut the term, and stripped his Right of
First Refusal. When he wouldn't sign, her law firm went silent for 77 days, refused his rent
with a handwritten note, broke a written stipulation to continue a hearing, and locked out a ten-year tenant
after a one-minute default hearing. This is the record.
▼ scroll the record
Exhibit One · The lease, page 1 of 12 · executed November 18, 2015 · reproduced from the signed document
The clause as it appears in the executed lease — “Tenant shall have the option…”
01
The option belongs to the tenant
“Tenant shall have the option.” Not the landlord. Renewal was Jerry's election to make —
the landlord's consent was never required.
02
The landlord's only role: a rent number
Once the tenant elects to renew, the landlord's sole remaining part under §2.5 is proposing the market
rent — itself subject to the tenant's agreement.
03
The complaint pretends it isn't there
The eviction complaint never acknowledges §2.5 — as if the front page of the landlord's own lease
did not exist. The correspondence shows her counsel knew of it throughout.
04
No negotiation was ever required
An exercised option needs no new lease. The 16 months of talks were a courtesy — and declining to sign
a rewritten deal that removed the tenant's rights is not a default. It is the option working.
10yrs
of tenancy & building stewardship
$300k
tenant investment in the landlord's building
16mo
of renewal negotiations — initiated by the landlord
77
days of verified silence from the landlord's law firm
4
months of rent accepted at the renewal rate, Jan–Apr 2026
31
days the May rent check was held before being refused
1min
length of the hearing that produced the writ
0
judgments entered — the court "reserves all other claims"
I
A Decade Downtown
November 2015 — December 2024
In 2015, Jerry Hancock — inventor of flash-frozen nitrogen ice cream — signed a ten-year lease
for a historic storefront on Provo's Center Street and turned it into Sub Zero's flagship. For ten years he was,
in the landlord's own attorney's words, a good tenant who took good care of the building.
Nov 18, 2015
The lease is signed
Ten-year term (Jan 1, 2016 – Dec 31, 2025) at $2,500/month. The lease grants the tenant
two five-year renewal options (§2.5) and a Right of First Refusal (§22.1) if the landlord ever sells.
Remember those two clauses — the right to stay and the right to buy. Everything that follows
is about getting them off the table.
2016 →
$300,000 invested in the building
Build-out, electrical, HVAC, structural repairs, a roof security camera — a decade of tenant investment
in a building he didn't own.
Oct 23, 2021
The Window Box Gallery
Jerry proposes a public art gallery in the storefront windows; Judy Harding approves it.
The relationship is cooperative, even warm, for years.
2016 – 2026
In the landlord's own words
Written statement · landlord's attorney · Jan 13, 2026
"You have been a good tenant and she has enjoyed the business relationship."
— Randall L. Jeffs, counsel for the landlord
Written statement · landlord's attorney · Jan 14, 2026
"She definitely does not want to lose you as a tenant."
Nine months before any deadline, it was the landlord who raised renewal.
What followed was sixteen months of negotiation in which Jerry said — in writing, repeatedly — that he wanted to stay,
and the landlord's side negotiated as if the tenancy would continue. Because it would.
Jan 17, 2025
Judy opens the conversation
Text message · landlord to tenant
"You have the option of moving or signing another 5 year lease."
A paper deadline passes — the lease is active for ten more years
The lease's formal 90-day notice date passes while both sides are actively negotiating the renewal the
landlord herself initiated. Nobody declares anything lapsed. The talks simply continue — for five more months.
Under §2.5 and Utah waiver law (Geisdorf v. Doughty, 972 P.2d 67 (Utah 1998)), the option had been exercised by conduct
and the landlord had waived strict compliance with the notice formality.
The lease is active for ten more years.
Nov 2025
The landlord's attorney calls Jerry — and asks him to write the new lease
Randall Jeffs calls Jerry and says the landlord wants to formalize a new lease. He then asks Jerry —
a non-lawyer, the tenant — to draft the document himself. Jerry does so in good faith,
producing a proposed 10-year term that he delivers to Judy's attorney the following month.
Dec 30, 2025
Jerry sends a 10-year lease draft
Two five-year terms, drafted by the tenant at the landlord attorney's own request, delivered to the landlord.
Jan 9, 2026
The landlord's lawyer rewrites the deal
The response converts the lease to triple-net, cuts the term to five years, adds an unlimited personal guaranty —
and strips out the tenant's Right of First Refusal. Look at what the rewrite removes: precisely the two
rights that stood between the landlord's side and a building free of its tenant — the right to stay and the right
to buy — while her side simultaneously maintained there was no intent to sell. Nothing is ever signed,
so none of these new terms ever attached. Jerry stood on the lease he had.
Jan 28, 2026
Agreement on a ten-year term
Email · landlord's attorney
"She has agreed to do a ten year term, rather than 5."
— Randall L. Jeffs, Jan 28, 2026
The same attorney had written two weeks earlier: "Your points do make good business sense. Switching tenants is expensive."
Then the landlord's law firm simply stopped writing. For 77 straight days — zero emails.
Verified by forensic search of both tenant mailboxes, every folder, including spam and trash.
The landlord's side would later blame the tenant for the delay.
Feb 27 – May 13, 2026
The blackout
Gmail records searched via API: from:jeffslawoffice.com after:2026/02/27 before:2026/05/13 in:anywhere
→ zero messages. The claim that Jerry "blew off the efforts to get a new lease for nearly five months"
is refuted by the sender's own empty outbox — and it inverts the law besides. Jerry was never required to
negotiate anything. The option had been exercised; the only open term was rent. Sixteen months of talks were a
courtesy, and declining to sign a brand-new lease is not a default — it is the option working.
Jan – Apr 2026
Meanwhile, the landlord cashes the rent
Throughout the silence, the Hancocks keep paying — and the landlord accepts $3,327.15 for four consecutive
months at the renewal rate. No check returned. No other amount demanded. No objection of any kind.
The landlord's own rent ledger, filed with the court, confirms it.
IV
The Reversal
May 10 — May 21, 2026
In a span of four days in May, the same landlord whose family said "we definitely would like you to stay"
posted an eviction notice on the shop door — demanding a "holdover" rate that had never once been invoiced.
May 10, 2026
May rent goes in the mail
Check No. 1406 — $3,327.15, memo line "May 2026 rent" — mailed to Judy Harding, exactly as the previous four months' rent had been.
May 11, 2026
A 3-day notice built on an invented rate
The landlord's firm signs a notice claiming a $7,828.75 arrearage at 150% of rent — a rate never billed,
never mentioned while four months of ordinary rent were being accepted. The lease requires notice by personal delivery
or certified mail and gives five days to cure; this was posted on the public door with three.
May 12, 2026
The landlord's own family: stay
Text message · landlord's daughter, one day after the notice was signed
"We definitely would like you to stay and we can definitely work this out."
— Cori Harding to Naomi Hancock, May 12, 2026
May 13–14, 2026
Notice by ambush
The termination notice is emailed buried inside an old, unrelated email thread and taped to the store's door.
The next day, the landlord's attorney calls the decade-long tenant "unworkable."
May 18–21, 2026
Jerry keeps trying to close the renewal
"We are not trying to delay this" (May 18). Signed renewal documents delivered to Judy's address (May 21).
The tenant never stopped trying to stay.
"we do reject any rent"
Handwritten note returned with the untouched May rent check · held 31 days · never deposited · June 10, 2026
V
Rent Refused, Then "Nonpayment" Claimed
May 10 — June 10, 2026
The May rent check sat somewhere for a month. Then it came back — uncashed, unendorsed —
with four handwritten words that undo the entire nonpayment theory: not a dispute over the amount, but a rejection of rent itself.
Jun 10, 2026
The check comes back
Thirty-one days after it was written, Check No. 1406 is returned with the note "we do reject any rent."A landlord who refuses tendered rent cannot simultaneously evict for failure to pay it.
The claimed arrearage collapses on this fact alone.
VI
The Lawsuit
June 1 — June 15, 2026
Nine days before the check was even returned, the eviction complaint was already on file —
built around a lease that does not exist, and served on a sixteen-year-old.
Jun 1, 2026
A complaint resting on a phantom lease
The Complaint cites a "May 1, 2025" lease as the operative agreement. No such lease exists.
A forensic search of both tenant mailboxes for March–August 2025 — every folder — found no reference to any such document.
Elsewhere, the same Complaint correctly cites the real November 2015 lease, contradicting itself.
Jun 2, 2026
Served on a 16-year-old
The summons is handed to Jerry's sixteen-year-old son at the shop. The constable's own affidavit records that
Jerry was home but could not come to the door — he was recovering from a finger amputation and related medical emergency.
Jun 5, 2026
Jerry answers alone
Unable to retain counsel on days' notice, Jerry files a pro se Answer with counterclaims — including specific performance
of the renewal the landlord negotiated for sixteen months.
Jun 15, 2026
The landlord's own ledger proves the acceptance
Plaintiff's initial disclosures include a rent ledger showing $3,327.15 accepted in January, February, March, and April 2026 —
the renewal rate, four months running, before any notice ever issued. Judy Harding is listed as the sole witness.
VII
"Yes We Will Stipulate"
June 19 — June 27, 2026
With a hearing set for June 26, Jerry's newly retained counsel — K. Paul MacArthur and George Chingas
of MacArthur Heder & Metler, Provo, Utah — asked opposing counsel to agree to a short continuance.
The answer came back in writing: yes. Then the landlord's co-counsel walked into the hearing anyway —
and took a default in about sixty seconds.
Jun 22–23, 2026
Jerry retains defense counsel
K. Paul MacArthur and George Chingas of MacArthur Heder & Metler (Provo, Utah; (801) 377-1900)
enter the case. Counsel reviews the facts, confers with opposing counsel Randall Jeffs about the pending hearing,
and immediately seeks a brief continuance to prepare a proper defense.
Jun 24, 2026
The written agreement
Email · landlord's attorney · reproduced in the court record
"Yes we will stipulate…"
— Randall L. Jeffs, to defense counsel K. Paul MacArthur, agreeing to continue the June 26 hearing
Defense staff reach out the same day to coordinate the joint call to the court. The landlord firm's paralegal never responds.
Jun 26, 2026 · 10:40 AM
The one-minute hearing
Relying on the stipulation, no one appears for Jerry. The landlord's co-counsel appears anyway.
Per the court's own minutes, the hearing runs from 10:40 to 10:41 — the court grants a 5-day order of restitution
and "reserves all other claims." No judgment is entered. That same morning, the landlord firm's paralegal writes:
"I wasn't aware I was supposed to be spearheading this. Didn't the hearing already take place?"
Jun 27, 2026 · 3:18 PM
The writ is signed
A ten-year tenant is ordered out in five days — on the strength of a sixty-second default hearing held in violation
of opposing counsel's own written stipulation.
VIII
The Writ Crisis
June 28 — July 6, 2026
The writ names Jerry Hancock individually — but it was never handed to Jerry.
It was left with a shift-lead employee of a corporation that isn't even a party to the case.
K. Paul MacArthur and George Chingas (MacArthur Heder & Metler) moved immediately to set it aside.
Jun 29, 2026
"Service" on a shift lead
The writ is left with "Millie," an employee of non-party Sub Zero Franchising, Inc. — not Jerry's agent,
not a household member. Jerry learned of the writ from his attorney the evening of July 2 and first saw the papers
the morning of July 3.
Jun 29, 2026
Motion to Set Aside the Writ
Filed by K. Paul MacArthur, MacArthur Heder & Metler, the next business day — expedited disposition requested.
Grounds: the written stipulation, the appearance taken in violation of it, the absence of any entered judgment,
and defective service on a shift-lead employee of a non-party — citing opposing counsel's duty of candor to the court.
Jul 1, 2026
Statutory hearing demanded
Defense invokes Utah Code §78B-6-812(5); the court must set a hearing within ten calendar days.
Jul 4–6, 2026
Holding the line
With lockout imminent and the motion unruled, the defense prepares an emergency stay with a bond offer —
asking only that the status quo hold, with the landlord fully secured, until the court can hear the claims it has
already reserved. Meanwhile: the equipment, inventory, and records inside the store belong to a corporation
that was never sued — beyond the lawful reach of any writ in this action.
Jul 6, 2026
The lockout
With the Motion to Set Aside still unruled, a constable executes the writ and posts a
"DO NOT ENTER — criminal trespass" notice on the door of the store Jerry Hancock built over ten years.
A decade-long tenancy — renewed under the lease's own first page — ends at the door, before any court has heard
the merits of anything. The fight to undo it is already filed.
The Defense in Brief
Seven pillars, each anchored in documents
№ 01
The option was the tenant's — and it was exercised
Section 2.5, page one of the lease: "Tenant shall have the option." Renewal required no landlord approval —
her only role was the rent number. Jerry elected to renew in writing; the landlord initiated the renewal nine months early,
negotiated sixteen months, agreed in writing to a ten-year term, and accepted four months of renewal-rate rent.
Under Utah law, a lessor's waiver excuses strict option formalities
(Geisdorf v. Doughty, 972 P.2d 67 (Utah 1998)). Nothing new was ever signed — the 2016 lease and its option govern.
№ 02
Tender & refusal
May rent was tendered and categorically refused: "we do reject any rent."A landlord cannot refuse rent and then evict for nonpayment.
№ 03
The phantom lease
The Complaint's operative "May 1, 2025 lease" does not exist — forensically verified.
The Complaint contradicts itself by also citing the real 2015 lease.
№ 04
The broken stipulation
"Yes we will stipulate" — in writing — followed by a default taken at a one-minute hearing
at which no judgment was entered and all other claims were reserved.
№ 05
Defective service, twice
A summons handed to a sixteen-year-old while the defendant recovered from an amputation;
a writ left with a shift-lead employee of a non-party corporation.
№ 06
Two hats
Jerry Hancock is the tenant personally. The equipment, inventory, and records belong to
Sub Zero Franchising, Inc. — not a party to this lawsuit — beyond the reach of any writ in this action.
№ 07
An invented rate
The claimed $7,828.75 arrearage rests on a 150% "holdover" rate never once invoiced — computed
from the wrong base rent under the lease's own Exhibit C schedule, where specific terms control
(Wilburn v. Interstate Elec.).
