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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3157363/borsuk-v-appellate-division-of-... ↗

Full Text

1,113 chars

4
        We further note that “[a] motion to quash is frequently decided on factual
evidence . . . .” (Landlord-Tenant Practice, supra, § 10.12; see also Weil & Brown, Cal.
Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 3:387
[“Jurisdictional facts must be proved by competent evidence at the hearing on the motion
to quash.”].) Moreover, the California Supreme Court has explained that where service
of the three-day notice is controverted, “the best evidence must be produced which the
nature of the transaction will permit; the testimony of witnesses given in open court
where the adverse party may have an opportunity of cross-examination.” (Lacrabere,
supra, 141 Cal. at p. 556.) The use of a motion to quash to challenge the validity of the
three-day notice therefore may lead to evidentiary hearings and mini-trials before the case
is adjudicated, undermining the summary nature of the unlawful detainer proceeding.
(See Culver Center, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 749 [describing unlawful detainer as a
“summary proceeding to determine the right to possession of real property”].)

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text