108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 74
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Plaintiff Cyril Heffesse filed an unlawful detainer action against defendants, alleging failure to pay rent on a Los Angeles rental property.
- The three-day notice to pay rent or quit demanded $1,554.44 per month, which included $1,550 rent plus $4 in SCEP (Systematic Code Enforcement Program) fees.
- The lease agreement stated rent was $1,550/month; SCEP fees were separately addressed in municipal regulations.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the notice overstated rent due by including SCEP fees.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing SCEP fees should be considered part of "rent" under Los Angeles law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can SCEP fees be included as "rent" in a 3-day notice to pay or quit under LARSO? | SCEP fees are a rental surcharge and thus part of rent. | SCEP fees are separate fees, not rent, and can't be included in the notice. | SCEP fees are not "rent" for UD purposes. |
| Is a notice that overstates rent by including SCEP fees legally valid for eviction? | Inclusion is not a fatal defect. | Overstating rent renders notice invalid. | Notice is invalid if it overstates rent. |
| Did the trial court err in denying leave to amend? | Erred by not granting leave to amend the complaint. | Plaintiff never requested leave to amend; error not preserved. | No abuse of discretion; claim forfeited. |
| Is strict compliance with notice requirements necessary in unlawful detainers? | Substantial compliance sufficient. | Strict compliance required to avoid ambiguity and confusion. | Strict compliance required by statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cal–American Income Property Fund IV v. Ho, 161 Cal.App.3d 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (distinguishing 'rent' from other monetary obligations in eviction proceedings)
- Jayasinghe v. Lee, 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (three-day notice must state exact rent due; overstatement invalidates notice)
- Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Communications, 86 Cal.App.4th 1035 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (invalid notice if rent amount is overstated)
- Foster v. Williams, 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (strict compliance with unlawful detainer notice requirements necessary)
- Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 177 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (laying out standards for leave to amend after demurrer)