Foster v. Williams case reversing unlawful detainer Judgment in California

The case of Foster v. Williams recently decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, California is the topic of this blog post.  The decision in this case which was filed on September 9, 2014 has been certified for publication.  The decision reversed the judgment entered against the defendant Keith Williams and one of the grounds was that it failed to specify the physical address where rent had to be paid, instead listing only a name and directing the tenant to pay the rent online at www.erentpayment.com.

The slip opinion at page 2 states that the judgment was reversed because “The three-day notice did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, (erroneously listed as 1162 in the slip opinion) subdivision (2)’s requirement that the notice provide the “address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made” because the notice listed a uniform resource locator (URL) address, as opposed to the address of a physical place where the rent had to be paid. The notice also did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, (erroneously listed as 1162 in the slip opinion) subdivision (2), because it failed to state that payment could be made pursuant to a previously established electronic funds transfer procedure.”

The opinion at page 2 states regarding the three-day notice at issue that “Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action proceeded to trial based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The three-day notice indicated it was served on defendant on June 24, 2013, and required him to pay $1,350 in rent for the month of June 2013. The notice also provided, “Your rent payment should be made payable to: Guest House Management and payment shall be delivered to: [¶] Name: Rick at the following address: www.erentpayment.com,” and listed a telephone number. On the day set for trial, defendant made an oral motion arguing the three-day notice was defective because it included a “web address” instead of a “physical address.” The court denied the motion, determining Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), did not specifically require a physical address to be listed, and a “web address” constituted an “address” under the statute.”

The Appellate Division decision then went to discuss in detail the reasons for the requirements of a three-day notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2) and on pages 3 and 4 of the slip opinion states in part that, “A judgment must be reversed when it is based on a three-day notice which lacks the information required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2).”

I have seen many three-day notices as I have been working in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and prior to that I worked in both commercial and residential property management for several years. 

This case is just one more reason that any California tenant who is served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit should closely examine the notice to determine if it meets the requirements discussed in this blog post. If the three-day notice is defective than a demurer can be filed objecting to the complaint on the grounds that the three-day notice is defective or the defective notice can be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of an 11 page sample demurrer to an unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint in California objecting to the complaint on several grounds, including that the three-day notice is defective, with memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and proof of service by mail sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample demurrer to eviction complaint in California

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

To view over 300 sample legal documents for sale by the author of this blog post visit the following link: http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

View sample legal document packages for sale by going to: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

The 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.

 

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.2 notice of unlawful detainer in California

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/code-of-civil-procedure-section-1161-2-notice-of-unlawful-detainer-in-california/

Continue trial date in California unlawful detainer (eviction) case

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/continue-a-trial-date-in-an-unlawful-detainer-case-in-california/

Code of Civil Procedure section 1179 motion for relief from lease forfeiture in California

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/motion-for-relief-from-lease-forfeiture-in-california/

Defense of constructive eviction in California

The defense of constructive eviction in California is the topic of this blog post. The affirmative defense of constructive eviction is essentially a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment that is implied in every rental agreement.  Tenants in California may assert constructive eviction as an affirmative defense to an unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint when the actions or omissions of the landlord interfere so much with the right of the tenant to peaceful and beneficial possession of the rental unit that the unit or a portion of it becomes uninhabitable. 

Examples from published California cases include cases where extreme rain damage to one or more rooms of a unit was caused by a leaky roof that the landlord refused to repair;  very noisy renovations at the premises at unreasonable hours; and persistent harassment of the tenant by the landlord.

And constructive eviction may be asserted as an affirmative defense by all California tenants including commercial tenants.

In a California Court of Appeal case that involved the issue of parking spaces being necessarily useful for occupancy by the lessee and were expressly or by implication included in the lease, the Court held that, “It is well established that the intention of the parties as to just what property was to be occupied as essential to the use and enjoyment of the described premises is to be ascertained from the circumstances at the time the lease is entered into.” Seirad v. Lilly (1962) 204 Cal.App. 2d 770, 773. (citing text).

Seirad v. Lilly, supra involved a case where parking spaces adjacent to front of motel office and in private driveway on north side of lessee's liquor store, space for lessee's compressor plant in the rear and free water and additional storage space in rear for liquor stock, were reasonably necessary for useful occupancy by lessee and were expressly or by implication included in lease, the Court found that the lessee was constructively evicted from leased premises when the lessor sold motel premises without any reservation of the parking space and without providing water and additional storage space and without reservation of space for compressor.

In Clark v. Spiegel (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 74, 78, a continued breach of a covenant to maintain parking lot lights constituted a constructive eviction of a tenant whose Laundromat business was adversely affected by a dark parking lot.      

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample answer to a California eviction complaint that contains 15 affirmative defenses including constructive eviction that is sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample answer to eviction complaint for California

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 235 sample legal documents. Visit his website at LegalDocsPro website
and his Facebook page at Facebook page

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link:
Subscribe to FREE weekly newsletter

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.

The 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. 

California tenant defense document collection

Are you a California tenant being evicted? Fight back by doing it yourself and save big $$$! 

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.

 

Affirmative defenses in unlawful detainer (eviction) proceedings in California

Affirmative defenses which may be used by a defendant (tenant) in an unlawful detainer (eviction) action in California are the topic of this blog post. 

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/affirmative-defenses-to-an-unlawful-detainer-complaint-in-california/