Lee v. Kotyluk

Facts: A property owner served a tenant a three-day notice to perform or quit. The tenant failed to correct the violation or vacate the property. The owner then conveyed the property to a new owner. The new owner filed an unlawful detainer (UD) action against the tenant to evict them based on their failure to comply with the three-day notice to perform or quit served by the original owner.

Claim: The tenant claims the UD action filed by the new owner is invalid since the new owner did not have the right to possession of the property when the three-day notice to perform or quit was served.

Counterclaim: The new owner claims the UD action was valid since the original owner filed a three-day notice to perform or quit and the tenant failed to cure the breach or quit the property within the three days which terminated the tenant’s right to possession.

Holding: A California court of appeals holds the three-day notice to perform or quit served on the tenant by the original owner was a valid basis for the new owner’s UD action since the tenant’s failure to cure the breach or quit the property within the notice period terminated their right to remain in possession without regard to who is the landlord. [Lee v. Kotyluk (January 7, 2021)_CA6th_]

Editor’s note — The court of appeals determined the tenant was already unlawfully detaining the property when the new owner brought the UD action.  Thus, no need existed to serve a new notice since the tenant was already guilty of unlawful detainer. [See RPI Form 576]

Read the case text here.