There is a wrong way to issue a notice to pay rent or quit to a delinquent tenant.
Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice
Lawyers love obscure rules about giving three-day notices—the kind that California landlords hate. The decision in City of Alameda v. Sheehan, published September 13, 2024, teaches that there is a wrong way to issue a notice to pay rent or quit to a delinquent tenant.
In Sheehan, tenant Shelby Sheehan had stopped paying rent for 17 months. The landlord, City of Alameda, had enough. The City directed its property manager, RiverRock Real Estate Group, Inc. to get the tenant current or to evict.
The manager served a three-day notice to pay rent or quit that advised the tenant to deliver cash or check payable to “City of Alameda c/o River Rock Real Estate Group at 950 West Mall Square, Suite 239, Alameda, California, 94501.”
The City of Alameda brought an action against poor Shelby for unlawful detainer. Shelby moved to dismiss the case. He argued that the notice failed to identify a “natural person” to receive the payment. The manager was only identified as an entity; no human being was specified.
The trial court agreed with Shelby that the notice to pay rent or quit was invalid under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1162(2). The unlawful detainer action was dismissed because no natural person had been identified in the notice. The City appealed. Then the fun began.
The Court of Appeal analyzed the “legislative history” of the unlawful detainer statute. The question was whether a “natural person” meant the same as “person.” Without having to explain in a three-page analysis how seemingly conflicting language should be interpreted, let me tell you that the Court of Appeal overruled the trial court on this silly point.
Thanks to Sheehan, we now know that a three-day notice need not identify a specific human being as the person to whom rent should be delivered; a corporate entity will suffice.
Our story does not end there. Notwithstanding the Court of Appeal reversing the trial court on this critical question of California law, the Court then ruled for the tenant. It affirmed the trial court’s decision that the notice was defective but on a different ground— one that the trial court had not addressed.
The notice incorrectly identified the manager’s name for delivery of payment. There was no corporate entity in California by the name “River Rock Real Estate Group.” The true name of the property manager was “RiverRock Real Estate Group, Inc.” and it could have been made clear that RiverRock was a corporation.
Hence, the Court held that the notice failed to strictly comply with Section 1161(2). The City lost the case due to the oversight of its property manager. Fancy that.
Source: JD Supra by Geoffrey Gold
Accessibility