3
1 and other damages in the amount of $1,913.07. There is no notice of entry of judgment or proof
2 of service attached to the judgment itself indicating that the Carters were ever served with a file-
3 endorsed copy of the judgment.
4 On April 10, 2013, the Carters appealed from the judgment.
5 DISCUSSION
6 I. Timeliness of the Appeal
7 A notice of appeal in a limited civil case must be filed on or before the earliest of: (1) 30
8 days after the trial court clerk mails a notice of entry of judgment or a file-endorsed copy of the
9 judgment with a proof of service attached; (2) 30 days after the party filing the notice of appeal
10 serves or is served with a notice of entry of judgment or a file-endorsed copy of the judgment
11 with proof of service attached; or (3) 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court,
12 rule 8.822(a).)
13 Here, the judgment was entered on February 11, 2013. As noted, the record does not
14 show that the Carters were ever served with a notice of entry of judgment or a file-endorsed
15 copy of the judgment with proof of service attached. Their notice of appeal therefore had to
16 have been filed within 90 days after the entry of judgment on February 11, 2013. The notice of
17 appeal from the final and appealable judgment having been filed on April 10, 2013, this appeal
18 is timely. (Code Civ. Proc. § 904.2, subd. (a); Cal.Rules of Court, rule 8.822(a).)
19 II. Issues on Appeal and Standard of Review
20 On appeal, the Carters contend: (1) the trial court erred in preventing them from
21 presenting their statutory defenses of retaliatory eviction and breach of the warranty of
22 habitability at trial; (2) the trial court erred in entering judgment against them for nonpayment
23 of rent when it is undisputed that they did in fact tender the full amount alleged to be due; and
24 (3) the trial court erred by improperly permitting Boyd to convert the previously served 30-day
25 notice terminating their tenancy into a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.
26 As noted by the Carters, these questions do not involve the resolution of disputed facts.
27 They instead solely concern issues of law. We therefore independently review the judgment,
28