3
In an appeal from an unlawful detainer judgment, the appellate court reviews the trial court‟s
findings of fact, whether express or implied, to determine whether they are supported by
substantial evidence. (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th
1419, 1425; SFPP, L.P. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. (2004) 121
Cal.App.4th 452, 462.) To the extent the court below drew conclusions of law based upon its
findings of fact, the appellate court reviews those conclusions of law de novo. (Palm Property
Investments, LLC v. Yadegar, supra, at pp. 1425-1426.)
III. Analysis
A. Mootness
As a preliminary matter, Kruger contends the appeal is moot because possession of the
premises is no longer at issue, Appellants having vacated. She cites Vasey v. California Dance
Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 747 (Vasey) [in unlawful detainer, the sole issue before the court
is right to possession]. But nothing in Vasey can be construed as holding that an appeal is moot
where, as here, a tenant has lost possession of the property because of the unlawful detainer
judgment, and the tenant challenges the award of money damages on appeal.2 An appeal from a
trial court‟s judgment in unlawful detainer proceedings is not rendered moot by a defendant‟s
relinquishment of possession of property pending appeal. (Old National Fin. Servs. v. Seibert
(1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 460, 468.) At oral argument, Appellants acknowledged they do not now
seek possession of the premises. Instead, they pursue this appeal to challenge the award of
money damages, attorney fees, and costs. We accordingly conclude the appeal is not moot and
proceed to the merits.
B. Service of the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit Was Premature and
Void as a Matter of Law, and Violated a Specific Lease Provision