sandyclaus
Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
I am asking this question on behalf of a co-worker. Her LL gave her verbal notice of a significant rent increase about 4 months ago. When she paid her rent, she did not include the increase because it was never given in writing, and it was too soon to become effective (the increase of $100/mo was more than 10% of her $600 rent, in CA she must be given 60 days written notice before it becomes effective). The LL then gave her a 30 day verbal notice to vacate because of her failure to pay the illegal rent increase and refused (in writing) to accept any further rent from her. The LL then filed for eviction, but the case was dismissed because they failed to provide written notice to the tenant.
3 weeks later, the LL served her tenant with a 3-day notice to pay or quit for now not paying the rent that she (LL) refused to accept. The tenant never failed to pay, even offered to tender rent, but was refused again and again. She did not, however, vacate the premises at that time, and subsequently had the 2nd eviction case filed against her. She has since moved out.
Considering that the LL effectively terminated their rental agreement (even though her notice was invalid), and never reinstated it (by refusing any rent tender afterwards), all the tenant should even be liable for are alleged holdover damages from the point where the agreement terminated. At the time that the 3 day notice was issued, no rent was overdue because there was no longer an agreement to pay rent, only the accumulation of alleged holdover damages because she didn't move out right away.
Would a 3-day notice to pay or quit have been the appropriate notice to serve? Wouldn't/shouldn't it have been a properly served 30 day notice instead? The tenant is fighting the 2nd eviction based upon the wrong notice given, and I think she has a case, but am looking for legal backup for my opinion.
Thank you in advance for your advice!
I am asking this question on behalf of a co-worker. Her LL gave her verbal notice of a significant rent increase about 4 months ago. When she paid her rent, she did not include the increase because it was never given in writing, and it was too soon to become effective (the increase of $100/mo was more than 10% of her $600 rent, in CA she must be given 60 days written notice before it becomes effective). The LL then gave her a 30 day verbal notice to vacate because of her failure to pay the illegal rent increase and refused (in writing) to accept any further rent from her. The LL then filed for eviction, but the case was dismissed because they failed to provide written notice to the tenant.
3 weeks later, the LL served her tenant with a 3-day notice to pay or quit for now not paying the rent that she (LL) refused to accept. The tenant never failed to pay, even offered to tender rent, but was refused again and again. She did not, however, vacate the premises at that time, and subsequently had the 2nd eviction case filed against her. She has since moved out.
Considering that the LL effectively terminated their rental agreement (even though her notice was invalid), and never reinstated it (by refusing any rent tender afterwards), all the tenant should even be liable for are alleged holdover damages from the point where the agreement terminated. At the time that the 3 day notice was issued, no rent was overdue because there was no longer an agreement to pay rent, only the accumulation of alleged holdover damages because she didn't move out right away.
Would a 3-day notice to pay or quit have been the appropriate notice to serve? Wouldn't/shouldn't it have been a properly served 30 day notice instead? The tenant is fighting the 2nd eviction based upon the wrong notice given, and I think she has a case, but am looking for legal backup for my opinion.
Thank you in advance for your advice!