Hsieh v. Pederson
Facts: A residential tenant owes several months of unpaid rent to the landlord. The landlord serves the tenant with a 14-day notice to pay rent or quit, which specifies an address to mail payment to and hours during which the landlord is physically available to accept payment. The tenant fails to comply. The landlord files an unlawful detainer (UD) action 18 days after serving the notice.
Claim: The tenant seeks to retain possession of the premises, claiming the landlord filed a UD action prematurely since the expiration of the notice is based on the landlord’s specified hours of availability, which would not have expired at the time of the landlord’s UD action.
Counterclaim: The landlord seeks possession of the property, claiming the UD action was not filed prematurely since the notice’s expiration date is calculated based on calendar days, not the specified hours of availability.
Holding: A California court of appeals holds the landlord’s 14-day notice to the tenant to pay rent or quit did not require the expiration date be calculated based on the specified hours of availability since payment by mail was also afforded. [Hsieh v. Pederson (April 19, 2018)_CA5th_]
