26
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