Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)

Citation: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Parent Document: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617811/eshagian-v-cepeda/ ↗

Full Text

1,020 chars

25
[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

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text