5
of the trial court. (Bookout v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2010) 186
Cal.App.4th 1478, 1486.)
In an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent, the plaintiff must prove that the
tenant has defaulted on the payment of rent, the tenant was properly served with written notice
to pay rent or quit the premises of at least three days, and the tenant failed to pay rent and
remained in possession of the property after the notice period expired. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1161, subd. (2); Frazier v. Superior Court (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 7 (Frazier).) “A
valid three-day pay rent or quit notice is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action.
[Citations.] Because of the summary nature of an unlawful detainer action, a notice is valid
only if the lessor strictly complies with the statutorily mandated notice requirements.” (Bevill v.
Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 697.) A three-day notice must specify the amount of rent
due, and a notice demanding rent in excess of the amount due will not satisfy this requirement.
(Ibid.)
A fee is not considered rent. (See Heffesse v. Guevara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 74,
82-83 [assessing whether payment of a code enforcement fee is considered rent under the Los
Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance].) Thus, a three-day notice that includes late fees in the
past-due rent calculation is an overstatement of rent which renders the notice void. (Del Monte
Properties & Investments, Inc. v. Dolan (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th Supp. 20, 24-25.) A claim that
the notice overstates rent owed is an affirmative defense. (Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169
Cal.App.3d 746, 752, disapproved on another ground in Minelian v. Manzella (1989) 215
Cal.App.3d 457, 464.) Affirmative defenses require proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 724, 731.) The preponderance
of the evidence standard “requires the burdened party ‘to convince the trier of fact that the
existence of a particular fact is more probable than its nonexistence . . . .’” (Beck Development
Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1205.)
In the case sub judice, the lease included a $50 fee for any late rent payments. The
complaint alleged defendant owed $7,236 in unpaid rent accumulated between June 2023 and
April 2024. Manoochehri testified he personally calculated the amount of unpaid rent due as