Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

My wife and I live in California and have leased a house for 12 months. The lease was not renewed by the lnndlord or us and proceeded with a month to month. Three months ago the landlord served well not properly anyway a 60 day notice to be out by April 1, 2011. After it being brought to the landlords attention he failed to properly notify (serve) us the landlord decided to become giving and extended his demand for us to move another month until May 1st.

My question? Should the landlord by law have to SERVE properly another 60 days notice before he can evict us...us meaning we are raisiing our two little grandchildren? Now, sense the landlord provided the initiial 60 day notice to move. Then by the landlords own admiison the method he served was not acknowledged so he extended the demand to move 1 month should it void the orginal 60 days forced move since he failed to act on the orginal by evicting us with a suit and allowed us to stay in the house.


Asked on 4/08/11, 4:28 am

2 Answers from Attorneys

George Shers Law Offices of Georges H. Shers

If the original 60 day notice was not properly sent [that is difficult to imagine because all that is required is for a clear written notice to be sent to you at least 60 days before the date you are told the lease will end -- the formal methods of service required of a three day notice or a lawsuit do not apply] the a new notice must be sent unless you waived any defect. If the original notice was valid, his extending the date by a month would not necessarily make it invalid; if his apparent attempt was to abandon the original notice, then he has to give a brand new one. But, if what I suspect he will claim, he was just being nice and giving you an extra month but not withdrawing the prior notice, then the notice is legally proper. He does not have to file suit immediately or try to evict you. Otherwise, a tenant could argue that unless the landlord served and then filed suit when the court opens the day after the deadline passes, no unlawful detainer action would be valid. If you went next door and took possession of that house, would you be able to argue successfully that unless the owner called the police immediately upon finding you there then he could not claim you were a trespasser? However, after an undefined period of time does pass, the landlord might be legally/equitably prevented from raising his arguments and rights, but that does not appear to be the case here.

[not proof read]

Read more
Answered on 4/08/11, 7:47 am

Mr. Shers is right. There is no requirement of proper "service" of a 60-day notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy. All the landlord has to do is give notice of any kind that makes you actually aware that he is terminating the tenancy in 60 days time. If you are under a lease that requires some specific form of notice, he has to comply with that, but as long as you receive actual notice the principal of substantial compliance will make it valid. So your landlord not only probably will, he legally can say he just gave you an additional month to be nice and not to bother fighting about the notice.

Read more
Answered on 4/08/11, 9:13 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in California