With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". he had prepaid the rents. On November 20, 1991, MTB faxed a response to Barton’s letter and served him with a three-day notice to pay or quit, alleging that Barton was then in default on the November 15 rental payment. Almost immediately, Barton vacated the premises and entered into a new lease elsewhere. He subsequently filed suit, alleging that MTB’s notice to quit constituted a constructive or wrongful eviction and that he suffered damages as a result. MTB filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss Barton’s complaint, arguing that the notice alone did not constitute a constructive eviction. The court granted MTB’s motion and this appeal followed. ANALYSIS Under Utah law, as elsewhere, a constructive eviction “occurs wh 246 Va. 227, 435 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Gibson v. Thisius, 16 Wash.2d 693, 134 P.2d

A: holding that sublessee who vacated upon notice could not recover for constructive eviction in absence of showing that lessor acted in bad faith
B: holding threat by lessor to resort to legal process when made in good faith is not intentional conduct supporting finding of constructive eviction
C: holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith
D: holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error
B.