Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)

Citation
Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)
Parent Document
Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 242 Cal. App. 4th 607 (2015)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2015-11-23

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text

1,170 chars
DISCUSSION
      “According to the statutes governing unlawful detainer proceedings, ‘“a
tenant is entitled to a three-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by
summary legal proceedings ([]§ 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only
if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions.
([]§ 1162.)”’ [Citation.] Stated another way, ‘[p]roper service on the lessee of a
valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an essential prerequisite to a judgment
declaring a lessor’s right to possession under section 1161, subdivision 2.
[Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘A lessor must allege and prove proper service of the
requisite notice. [Citations.] Absent evidence the requisite notice was properly
served pursuant to section 1162, no judgment for possession can be obtained.
[Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425 (Palm Property); see also Liebovich v. Shahrokhkhany
(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511, 513 [“A lessor must strictly comply with the statutorily
mandated requirements for service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.
[Citations.]”] (Liebovich).)