ESA Management, LLC v. Jacob

Filed 3/10/21

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellate Division No.: 37-2019-00200165-CL-UD-CTL Trial Court Case No.: 37-2019-00020104-CL-UD-CTL Plaintiff(s) and Respondent(s), Trial Court Location: Central

v. DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS ROBERT JACOB, (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

Defendant(s) and Appellant(s).

APPEAL from the July 26, 2019 unlawful detainer judgment in favor of ESA Management, LLC, and against Robert Jacob entered by the Superior Court, San Diego County, Ronald F. Frazier, Judge. This matter was scheduled for argument and taken under submission on March 5, 2021. REVERSED and REMANDED. The “60-Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy” was fatally defective and cannot support an unlawful detainer judgment. The notice failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2). Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 provides in pertinent part: A tenant of real property, for a term less than life, or the executor or administrator of his or her estate heretofore qualified and now acting or hereafter to be qualified and act, is guilty of unlawful detainer:

DECISION/STATEMENT OF REASONS (CCP § 77(d)) BY THE COURT

1. When the tenant continues in possession… of the property… after the expiration of the term for which it is let to the tenant; provided the expiration is of a nondefault nature …; but nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as preventing the removal of the occupant in any other lawful manner; but in case of a tenancy at will, it shall first be terminated by notice, as prescribed in the Civil Code.

…2. When he or she continues in possession…after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days' notice, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount which is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment …

(Italics added.) Although the operative notice here listed the reason for termination as “Nonpayment of rent,” it did not include the amount of rent due or any information to permit the tenant to cure the default for nonpayment of rent as required by section 1161(2). Respondent failed to comply with the statutory requirements, which are strictly construed. “Due to the summary nature of such an action, a three-day notice is valid only if the landlord strictly complies with the provisions of section 1161, subdivision 2 (section 1161(2)). [Citation.]” (Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Communications (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038.) “Unlawful detainer is a highly specialized form of litigation. Highly summary in nature, the code requirements must be followed strictly, otherwise 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.” (Cal–American Income Property Fund IV v. Ho (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 583, 585.) The language contained in section 1161(2) is unambiguous, and “‘[i]f there is no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.’ [Citation.]” (Allen v. Sully–Miller Contracting Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 222, 227.) “It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that in attempting to ascertain the legislative intention, effect should be given as often as possible to the statute as a whole and to every word and clause, thereby leaving no part of the provision useless or deprived of meaning. [Citation.]” (Pham v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 626, 634.)