Sleep EZ v. Mateo
JAD17-07
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Sleep EZ sued Mateo and Maximina Mateo in unlawful detainer, alleging nonpayment of $523.98 monthly rent and served a three-day pay-or-quit notice after rent due Sept 1, 2015 remained unpaid.
- Lease required rent to be paid "to landlord by U.S. Mail" and manager Ricks instructed tenants to mail money orders to a P.O. box.
- Maximina purchased and mailed a USPS money order for $523.98 on Aug 31, 2015; the sealed envelope was later returned as undeliverable and admitted at trial along with the money order receipt.
- Ricks testified he never received or negotiated the money order and stated he never agreed that mailing would constitute payment; Henry Mateo testified Ricks told him he had not checked the P.O. box.
- Trial court found defendants timely mailed payment as directed, the money order was not received through no fault of defendants, and under Civil Code § 1476 their obligation was extinguished; judgment for defendants affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mailing a money order to landlord at landlord's direction extinguishes rent obligation when landlord never receives it | Mailing the money order did not extinguish the debt because a money order is an instrument governed by the UCC and is not effective until honored | Civil Code § 1476 applies: when creditor directs payment in a particular manner (here, by mail), performance in that manner extinguishes the obligation even if creditor never receives it | Mailing the money order as directed extinguished the rent obligation under Civil Code § 1476; defendants not in default |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornwell v. Bank of Am., 224 Cal.App.3d 995 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses when creditor's direction to pay by mail triggers Civil Code § 1476)
- Barrett Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd., 204 Cal.App.4th 597 (Cal. Ct. App.) (unaccepted instrument leaves debtor liable absent agreement directing payment method)
- Nguyen v. Calhoun, 105 Cal.App.4th 428 (Cal. Ct. App.) (payment mailed at creditor's direction is treated as made when deposited)
- Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc. v. Wilkoski, 78 Cal.App.3d 477 (Cal. Ct. App.) (UCC § 3310 applies when creditor accepts an instrument as conditional payment)
- Crystaplex Plastics, Ltd. v. Redev. Agency, 77 Cal.App.4th 990 (Cal. Ct. App.) (payee cannot enforce an instrument it never possessed when it was lost)
- Zengen, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 41 Cal.4th 239 (Cal.) (Official Comments to UCC persuasive when Legislature adopted text)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 1 Cal.App.5th 452 (Cal. Ct. App.) (repeals by implication disfavored)
- Hearn v. Howard, 177 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appellant bears burden of adequate record; presumptions when record silent)
- Perez v. VAS S.p.A., 188 Cal.App.4th 658 (Cal. Ct. App.) (substantial evidence standard on appeal)
- Beck Dev. Co. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 44 Cal.App.4th 1160 (Cal. Ct. App.) (factfinder may reject testimony even if uncontradicted)
- Tower Acton Holdings v. Los Angeles Cty. Waterworks Dist. No. 37, 105 Cal.App.4th 590 (Cal. Ct. App.) (questioning private waiver of statutory protections)