Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Kruger v. Reyes (2014)

Citation
Kruger v. Reyes (2014)
Parent Document
Kruger v. Reyes (2014)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2014-12-17

Full Text

2,552 chars

         Bonini, P.J., Arand, J., and Williams, J.
        1
         We take the facts from the verified pleadings and attachments and the reporter‟s
transcript from the court trial.
                                                 1
the premises to operate a medical-marijuana cooperative. The lease initially required
Appellants to pay as rent $2,800 per month due in advance on the first day of each calendar
month during the lease term. Among other things, the lease provided that “Landlord may issue
a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit after the rent continues to be unpaid after four days
after the date it is due.” Beginning June 1, 2013, the monthly rental rate was increased to
$2,968 per the lease terms. By separate agreement or practice of the parties, the manner in
which Appellants paid rent was by direct deposit into Kruger‟s bank account.
       At some point, a dispute arose between the parties about the way in which Appellants
were conducting business on the premises. Kruger generally contended that illegal activities
were taking place in violation of the lease. On March 27, 2013, she filed an unlawful detainer
action seeking to remove Appellants from the premises for these alleged violations (“the prior
action”). Despite the pendency of that action, and as more particularly described below,
Appellants continued to pay rent in advance for the months of April through September 2013 by
deposit directly into Kruger‟s bank account. Kruger maintains that she periodically returned
those funds to Appellants either in cash or by check. As of June 21, 2013, Kruger considered
the lease terminated, acknowledged that rent was no longer due, and confirmed she would no
longer accept it.
       On September 9, 2013, on Kruger‟s request, the court dismissed the prior action. That
same day, Kruger served Appellants with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2). The notice appears to have demanded back rent
for a six-month period from April 2013 through September 2013—the period for which
Appellants had timely made advance direct deposits for payment of rent. The estimated amount
of rent claimed to be due on the notice was originally $17,472 but, because of a calculation
error, it was later reduced to $14,672. Before the three-day notice period expired, Appellants
made a partial payment of $8,400 that Kruger accepted. On September 13, 2013, the fourth day
after service of the notice, Appellants made an additional payment of $9,400, which Kruger
rejected.