4
element of its case in chief, that defendant failed to demonstrate the rent demand in the three-
day notice was overstated, and that “plaintiff testified that they complied with [section 1962],
and the defendant didn’t produce any evidence to the contrary.” Judgment was entered in favor
of plaintiff and against defendant for possession of the premises, $7,236 in unpaid rent,
damages of $9,825.83, costs, and unspecified attorney fees.5
DISCUSSION
Overstatement of rent
Defendant claims the rent demanded in the three-day notice was overstated in that it
wrongly included “illegal late fee[s],” making the notice defective and requiring reversal of the
judgment. It is defendant’s position that the legal adequacy of the notice is a pure question of
law reviewed de novo. Plaintiff counters that we review the judgment for substantial evidence.
Neither party has articulated the correct standard of review applicable to this case.
“‘“In the case where the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party
with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals, it is misleading to
characterize the failure-of-proof issue as whether substantial evidence supports the judgment
. . . .”’ [Citation.] Instead, ‘“the question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence
compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law”’ because ‘“the appellant’s
evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a character and weight as
to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.’”’”
(Lent v. California Coastal Com. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 812, 837.) This court does not reweigh
conflicts in the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses—tasks that are the province