28
the demised property.”’” (WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526; accord, Bevill v. Zoura, supra,
27 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.)
The three-day notice in this case was deficient in three
respects. First, the notice was titled, “3 Day Notice To Pay Or
Quit,” but it did not state that Eshagian would repossess the
premises if Cepeda did not pay rent prior to expiration of the
three-day notice period. The mere use of the words “pay or quit”
in the title of the document was insufficient to “clearly, positively,
and unequivocally” place Cepeda on notice that he was facing
imminent eviction. (Horton-Howard v. Payton, supra,
44 Cal.App. at p. 112; accord, Hinman v. Wagnon, supra,
172 Cal.App.2d at pp. 27-28.)
Second, the notice did not state when the notice period
commenced or ended, nor did it inform Cepeda that the three-day
period excluded weekends and judicial holidays. The notice
appears to have provided the date it was signed by Eshagian but
not when the notice was served, which commenced the three-day
period. We observe, for example, that the notice is dated
December 19, 2022, but the complaint alleged the notice was
served “[o]n or about December 20, 2022.” Absent this
information, an ordinary tenant would not have reasonably
understood the deadline by which the tenant needed to pay the
rent due to avoid forfeiture of the premises.
Third, the notice was deficient because it did not provide a
clear address where rent could be paid, as required by
section 1161(2). The address listed on the notice was the leased
premises where Cepeda lived. By directing Cepeda to deliver the
rent to Eshagian at the unit where Cepeda lived, and specifying
that the rent could be delivered to Eshagian between 8:00 a.m.