59 Cal.App.5th 719
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Johnny Ki Lee and Un Joong Lee purchased commercial property (grant deed recorded June 20, 2019) where defendant Sean Kotyluk was a tenant allegedly selling unlicensed marijuana.
- A three-day "perform or quit" notice was served on the tenant on June 4, 2019 (expired June 7); the notice was signed by plaintiffs’ attorney as "Attorney for Landlord" but did not identify the landlord.
- Plaintiffs filed an unlawful detainer complaint on June 28, 2019 alleging the tenant failed to cure after service of the June 4 notice.
- One week before trial defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the notice was defective because it was served before plaintiffs acquired title and did not identify whom the tenant could surrender possession to.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings and denied leave to amend; on appeal the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the notice could support an action by the successor owner and that the notice need not identify the person to receive possession, but plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend to allege the predecessor served the notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a successor owner may maintain an unlawful detainer under CCP §1161(3) based on a three-day notice served by the predecessor owner | Successor (Lee) may rely on predecessor Haynes’s timely notice because the tenant became guilty of unlawful detainer before plaintiffs acquired title | A successor cannot bring §1161(3) claim absent attornment; subdivision (3) omits "successor in estate," so Reay still controls | Held: Successor may rely on predecessor’s notice; reading §1161 as a whole supports successor enforcement and Civil Code §821 also supports successor remedies |
| Whether a §1161(3) three-day notice must identify the person to whom tenant may surrender possession | Notice details unnecessary; statute does not require naming recipient and purpose is to permit cure or quitting, not designate return recipient | Notice should identify who will receive possession to avoid confusion and protect tenant | Held: Not required. §1161(3) contains no such mandate and Legislature included detailed requirements elsewhere (e.g., §1161(2) payment instructions) when intended |
| Whether the notice was defective because it was served before plaintiffs acquired title | Plaintiffs contend the predecessor served the notice; successor may sue after perfecting title | Defendant contends plaintiffs (as named landlords) could not have validly served the June 4 notice because they were not owners then | Held: Complaint did not allege the predecessor served the notice, so on its face the pleadings failed; but the defect was curable by amendment to allege predecessor served it |
| Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend | Plaintiffs asked to amend to allege Haynes served the notice; amendment would cure pleading defect | Defendant argued notice/pleading unfixable and sought judgment | Held: Denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion; plaintiffs should be allowed to amend to plead predecessor service |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guzman, 35 Cal.4th 577 (Cal. 2005) (cardinal rule: courts must not add provisions to statutes)
- Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center, 6 Cal.5th 474 (Cal. 2018) (statutory interpretation principles and context)
- Kassan v. Stout, 9 Cal.3d 39 (Cal. 1973) (unlawful detainer and landlord standing principles)
- Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court, 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (minimum contents and purpose of §1161(3) notice)
- Plummer v. Agoure, 20 Cal.App. 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912) (successor in estate may maintain unlawful detainer)
- Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc., 62 Cal.2d 129 (Cal. 1964) (mootness and appellate costs discussion)
- Indio Police Command Unit Assn. v. City of Indio, 230 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (appeal not moot where prevailing-party fee award depends on merits)
- Horton-Howard v. Payton, 44 Cal.App. 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919) (sufficiency of demand for possession in notice)