Three-day notice to cure or qut in California

A California three-day notice to cure or quit is the topic of this blog post. A landlord in California who alleges that a tenant is violating a material lease term can begin the eviction process by serving the tenant with this alternate form of three-day notice known as a three-day day notice which is also known as a three-day notice to perform or quit, and three-day notice to perform covenant or quit.

California landlords use this kind of notice if they are contending that a tenant is violating terms in the lease or rental agreement and the problem can be fixed.

Examples would include if the tenant has moved in a pet into the unit without permission, is not keeping the unit clean, or is violating some other term of the agreement, the notice must ask the tenant to correct the violation within 3 days or move out.

However, there are specific requirements for a three-day notice to perform covenant or quit. The notice must be in writing; must state the full name of the tenant or tenants; must have the address of the rental property; must state what the tenant did to violate the lease or rental agreement, and contain a very particular statement as to the specific provision in the lease or rental agreement that has been violated; must state that the tenant has the chance to fix the problem or move out in 3 days; and must be signed by the landlord or his or her agent and also state the date of the notice.

California tenants who have been served with a 3 day notice to perform covenant or quit should review the notice carefully to determine if the notice meets the requirements discussed in this blog post.

The law in California is clear that if the breach alleged is nonperformance of conditions or covenants, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint the particular conditions or covenants, neglect or failure to perform, service of a 3-day notice requiring performance or possession, failure to perform within 3 days, and continued possession. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(c)(3), see also McCarty v. Raso (1951) 102 Cal.App. 2d 909, 910.

And a trivial breach of a condition or covenant will not support a termination, the tenant may raise substantial performance as an equitable defense to a UD action. See Hignell v. Gebala (1949) 90 Cal App. 2d 61, 65–66.

Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view a collection of sample documents for use by tenants in California evictions sold by the author can click below.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/4015951/California-unlawful-detainer-eviction-document-collection

Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author can click below.

http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author's weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

 
These materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.