6
expressed in the rent ledger and that the amount of rent due in the notice excluded all late fees.6
The defense ineffectively cross-examined Manoochehri on this point and presented no
affirmative evidence that the statement of rent in the notice included even a penny in late fees.
Defendant testified that he was charged late fees and he objected to them, but his testimony did
not address whether the statement of rent in the notice included those late fees. There is no
evidence in the record to support defendant’s position that he satisfied his burden to prove the
defense of overstatement of rent. Thus, defendant’s evidence was not uncontradicted,
unimpeached, and of such character and weight as to leave no room for judicial determination
that it was insufficient to support the court’s finding. (Lent v. California Coastal Com., supra,
62 Cal.App.5th at p. 837.)7
Compliance with Section 1962
Defendant contends it was plaintiff’s burden to prove compliance with section 1962 as
part of its case in chief and that it failed to satisfy this burden. Alternatively, defendant
maintains that even as an affirmative defense, there was insufficient evidence to support the
court’s determination that plaintiff complied with the statute.
Section 1962 is an Affirmative Defense
“In reviewing questions of statutory interpretation, ‘“‘our fundamental task is “to
ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” . . . We
begin by examining the statutory language because it generally is the most reliable indicator of
legislative intent. We give the language its usual and ordinary meaning, and “[i]f there is no
ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the
language governs.” . . . If, however, the statutory language is ambiguous, “we may resort to
extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history.”