California notice case law
This information is from the recent case ESHAGIAN v. Cepeda, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 2025. In just a few paragraphs the court cites many issues related to legal proper notice. Failure to serve your tenant with a legally proper notice and service by law may sink your case in court.
“The Unlawful Detainer Act [(§§ 1159-1179a)] governs the procedure for landlords and tenants to resolve disputes about who has the right to possess real property. [Citations.] Given the need for quick, peaceful resolutions of unlawful detainer actions, the statutory procedures must be strictly adhered to, including the stringent requirements for service, notice, and filing deadlines.” (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 394-395; accord, Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 480 [“`The statutory requirements in [unlawful detainer proceedings “`must be followed strictly.‘”‘”]; Sheehan, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 75.)
Section 1161(2) provides that a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer when the tenant continues in possession of a rental property without the permission of the landlord after default in the payment of rent.” (Sheehan, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 75.) When the tenant continues in possession, “service of a `valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action.'” (Ibid; accord, Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 697.) “The notice’s purpose is to inform the tenant of the breach so the tenant can rationally choose whether to cure the breach and retain possession, quit the property, or contest the allegations.” (Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 719, 731.)
Section 1161(2) requires that the three-day-notice be in writing, state the amount of rent due, and include specified information regarding how the rent may be paid.[10] “`[B]ecause of the summary nature of an unlawful detainer action, a notice is valid only if the lessor strictly complies with the statutorily mandated notice requirements.’” (Sheehan, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at pp. 81-82 [three-day-notice was defective because it “[did] not provide the correct spelling or complete name of the corporation to whom rent should be paid“]; accord, Bevill v. Zoura, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 697 [three-day-notice was defective because it stated amount of rent in excess of what was due].) “The Legislature added these informational requirements to avoid confusion and `protect both landlords and tenants alike, by setting forth clear rules for payment to whom and where.‘ (Assem. Com. on Housing and Community Development, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 985 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended July 9, 2001, p. 7.)” (Sheehan, at p. 75; accord, Foster v. Williams (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, 16.)
In addition to requiring specific information regarding how rent is to be paid, the notice “must be framed in the alternative, viz., pay the rent or quit, . . . . `[The statute] clearly requires that a notice first be given to the delinquent tenant . . . that in the event of the failure of the tenant to make payment of delinquent rent . . . the plaintiff will exercise his right under the law to regain possession of the premises.'” (Hinman v. Wagnon (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28; accord, Horton-Howard v. Payton (1919) 44 Cal.App. 108, 112 [notice to quit must “clearly, positively, and unequivocally disclose the intention of the landlord to repossess the premises“]; Delta Imports, Inc v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1036 [“Where the condition or covenant allegedly violated is capable of being performed, the notice must give the tenant the alternative of performing or quitting possession.“].)
Finally, a landlord cannot prevail in an unlawful detainer proceeding unless the three-day-notice was properly served and the tenant has not paid the rent due within the three-day period.[11] (Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 611 [“`[p]roper service on the lessee of a valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an essential prerequisite to a judgment declaring a lessor’s right to possession” under § 1161(2)]; Downing v. Cutting Packing Co. (1920) 183 Cal. 91, 95-96 [forfeiture “does not take place until there has been a failure to pay the rent during the 3 days allowed by the statute“].) Pursuant to section 1161(2), the computation of the three-day notice period excludes weekends and judicial holidays.
If the landlord does not strictly comply with the requirements for a three-day notice, the landlord cannot prevail in an unlawful detainer action, and instead, “`”a landlord’s remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property.”‘” (WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526; accord, Bevill v. Zoura, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.)