A landlord who indicates in a pay-or-quit notice that the payment would be acceptable by one of several methods, must insert the full scope of identification for each of the indicated means of payment, even if it sounds repetitive or counter-intuitive. And that identification now means the person to whom the payment is being delivered, not just the person to whom the payment is made. That is the core meaning of the decision in SVF Grosvenor Del Rey Corp. v. Schwarz, No. 25APLC00345, that was published on May 27, 2026. A three-day notice to pay rent or quit that offers a tenant to pay by mail must state the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent is to be sent, likewise for a personal delivery, even if it is the same person. An incomplete description in one of the methods would sink the entire notice, even if the other methods were flawlessly described, and even if the missing information on the mailing delivery would be a copy of what was indicated for an in-person payment.
It’s not exactly news that the three-day notice does not provide a landlord for a wide margin for error. Strict compliance is the standard, and it had been so for decades. (See, e.g., Lamey v. Masciotra (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 709, 713.) The question in each new case that interprets the applicable statutes is what part of the notice language, added or omitted by a landlord, could be held as part of the strict compliance requirements. Last year’s decision in Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 433 was rightfully considered as one of the latest revolutionary interpretations that reshaped the concept of what should be said in a notice, including on the subject of its service and expiration. That decision was also the one of first impression of whether a default judgment for possession was appealable (held, not appealable under that case’s circumstances). This year, less than two weeks prior to this decision, an opinion in Colonial Manor single-handedly changed the interpretation of a subsequent occupant, if one happened to be a spouse of the departing original tenant.
That margin keeps on narrowing. Now, thanks to this latest (but surely not last) opinion, the notice drafters will be making sure that the name and the telephone number of the person authorized to receive rent is repeated throughout the notice at least once of each method of payment.
The notice in SVF Grosvenor Del Rey Corp. gave the tenant two ways to pay: by mail and in person. The in-person box named an actual person, “Barrington Thomas or any available personnel,” at a street address, and had also indicated a telephone number. The by-mail option said this: “By mail to Leasing Office ... [at the given address].” No actual person's name and no telephone number were indicated for the mail-in option, and it tanked that notice, despite the person’s name and the telephone number given within the body of the notice generally, just not in the same sentence with the mailing payment option. The court interpreted the statute (CCP § 1161, part (2)), its language “three days’ notice … in writing, … stating … the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made” as the requirement to state the name and the telephone number of a person to whom the payment shall be sent, when the notice offers payment in person or by mail. The court held:
In Foster [Foster v. Williams (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9] we held, “A notice with a URL address does not inform the tenant where [the tenant] can physically go to pay the rent or where to mail the rent. Lack of an address to a physical place could lead to confusion, cause the tenant to delay paying rent, and result in the expiration of the three-day notice and subsequent court-ordered eviction.” (Foster, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 16.) The same can be said for a notice which states payment can be made by mail and does not list the name, telephone number and address of the person to whom rent can be mailed. A notice allowing payment by mail without a name and address of a person to whom payment can be mailed is useless to a tenant. Even if an address is specified, a tenant must know to whom to address the mailing, otherwise the tenant could rightfully fear the payment may not be timely received by the right person at the address provided. Also, without a telephone number and the name of a person to consult concerning mailing inquiries, the tenant risks incurring delay and being the target of ensuing legal action, disserving the purposes of the Legislature in amending the statute. (My emphasis.)
Note that the statute’s requirement of specifying the person “to whom the rent payment shall be made” is now interpreted to include “the person to whom rent can be mailed.” These terms are not synonymous, one can issue a rent check payable to the property owner and mail it the owner’s agent, such as a property manager, but you’ve heard it from the court, that's the law of the land for today. Someone may soon take it up for a further interpretation. My suggestion in the meantime: don’t be greedy with mentioning the person authorized to receive the payment as many times as the notice lists options for the payment, and by mentioning, I mean the full inclusion, the name, the telephone number, and the address. If in your setup the person to whom the payment is made and the person to whom the payment is delivered are two different persons, include both. Throw in an email address as well and maybe a fax number for a good measure. You’ve been warned.
_____________________
More real property posts
If you are concerned about your rights and obligations in a landlord-tenant relationship, make your first step toward taking control over the circumstances, and call my office at (415) 987-7000. I will be glad to assist in guiding you through the jungle. The only thing you can’t afford is to stay put and uninformed. My office provides a confidential assessment of your particular scenario, free of charge, and I will share with you the results of the analysis along with my thoughts on available solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment