Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Schulman v. Vera, 108 Cal. App. 3d 552 (1980)

Citation
Schulman v. Vera, 108 Cal. App. 3d 552 (1980)
Parent Document
Schulman v. Vera, 108 Cal. App. 3d 552 (1980)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1980-07-24

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text

803 chars
The third argument appears to be that because the unlawful detainer action first filed, in which no request was made for termination of the lease, was still pending when lessees were served with the June 2 notice, which stated that the lease would be terminated, lessees were confused and the June 2 notice should somehow be held to be ineffective with respect to termination of the lease. Not so. Lessors dismissed the first action on the same day they filed the instant unlawful detainer action. It is the June 2 notice upon which the instant action is based and it was not ambiguous in the least with respect to termination of the lease. It was incumbent upon lessees to pay the rent that was due. Had they done so the lease would not have been terminated. Credit for Advance Rental Payment of $3,000