9
1 because they had paid the full amount of rent that was alleged by the complaint to be due. Even
2 if this allegation of the complaint was a mistake, an unlawful detainer plaintiff must strictly
3 adhere to statutory and technical requirements in order to prevail. (WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson
4 (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 520 [summary nature of unlawful detainer requires strict adherence
5 to statutory requirements, otherwise plaintiff has ordinary remedies for breach of contract];
6 Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 674-675.) Nor does it matter
7 for our purposes that Boyd may not have cashed the check.
8 Based on the allegation of the complaint concerning the amount of rent due, and the
9 undisputed fact that the Carters had paid this precise amount, the trial court erred in concluding
10 that there was a default in the payment of rent, a conclusion on which the unlawful detainer
11 judgment against the Carters rested.
12 DISPOSITION
13 The trial court‟s February 11, 2013 unlawful detainer judgment is reversed.5 The
14 Carters as appellants are the prevailing party entitled to costs on appeal. (California Rules of
15 Court, rule 8.891(a)(2).)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
27 This summary unlawful detainer proceeding concerned the right to possession of the
premises, a matter that is no longer in issue because the Carters were forcibly evicted. The
28 judgment having been reversed, the parties remain free to litigate any claims for damages
arising from their lease or landlord/tenant relationship.