ESA Management, LLC v. Jacob

Facts: A landlord serves a tenant with a 60-day notice to pay rent or quit for non-payment of rent. The notice does not specify the amount of rent due or how the tenant might pay the rent. The notice expires and the tenant does not vacate the premises. The landlord files an unlawful detainer (UD) action to evict the tenant.

Claim: The landlord claims the tenant is unlawfully detaining the property since the tenant failed to vacate the premises on expiration of a 60-day notice to pay rent or quit.

Counterclaim: The tenant claims the 60-day notice is not valid and does not support an unlawful detainer action since the landlord failed to specify the amount of rent due and how to pay the rent.

Holding: A California appeals court holds the 60-day notice was defective and did not support a UD action since a notice to pay or quit needs to state the amount due and how the tenant can pay the rent. [ESA Management, LLC v. Jacob, (May 4, 2021) _CA6th_]

 Editor’s note – This appeal was based on events which occurred prior to the enactment of additional COVID-19 tenant eviction protections. For more on the Rental Housing Recovery Act which extends the eviction moratorium through end of September 2021, click here. 

Read the case text here.