2
1 assuming the previous 30-day notice had terminated the tenancy on that day. 2 The Carters,
2 having already tendered the full month‟s rent, did not additionally tender this lesser amount.
3 On January 10, 2013, Boyd filed his complaint in unlawful detainer seeking restoration
4 of the premises, forfeiture of the rental agreement, $1,640 in rent—in excess of the $765.38
5 stated in the three-day notice—and other damages. The verified complaint alleged that the
6 Carters were served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit, that the notice period expired on
7 January 8, 2013, and that at the expiration of this period, the rent due was $1,640—the amount
8 of rent the Carters had already paid for the full month of January 2013.
9 On January 16, 2013, the Carters, representing themselves, filed their answer using a
10 Judicial Council form. They did not check any box to allege an affirmative defense but
11 separately contended in a different part of the form that the house “was not move-in ready,”
12 causing them to incur repair costs to make it “livable,” and that “the house was code [tagged by]
13 a code enforcement to be uninhabitable, and things needed to be repair[ed] by certain date…
14 eve[r] s[i]nce then I have been getting evicti[on] notice [sic].” The Carters also attached to their
15 answer copies of the letters they had sent to Boyd at the end of November 2012 concerning their
16 intended deductions of rent for repairs and copies of the letters Boyd had received from the City
17 of Sunnyvale concerning code enforcement and the date by which he was to bring the house
18 into compliance, among a few other documents.
19 The unlawful detainer trial took place on February 7, 2013. On February 11, 2013, the
20 court entered judgment in favor of Boyd restoring possession of the premises and awarding rent
21
22 2
There is no evidence in the record that the January 4, 2013 three-day notice on which
23 this unlawful detainer proceeding was premised, which is Exhibit 2 attached to the complaint,
was ever served in compliance with section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proof of
24 service referred to in the complaint and attached to it as Exhibit 3 is dated December 12, 2012.
This proof of service represents that the three-day notice (plus a 30-day notice) was served on
25 this date, an impossibility for a three-day notice dated January 4, 2013. We surmise that the
26 proof of service erroneously attached to the complaint is the one evidencing proof of service of
the earlier three-day and 30-day notices with which Boyd caused the Carters to be served in
27 December 2012, which was immediately after they elected to deduct a portion of rent for that
month as reimbursement for repairs and complained about habitability conditions to the City of
28 Sunnyvale. The absence of proof of service of the applicable three-day notice at trial, an
element the landlord must prove, is another basis justifying reversal of the judgment here.