1
Following a court trial in a residential unlawful detainer action for non-payment of rent,
Jeff Dutton (defendant) appeals the judgment entered in favor of 360 So Reeves, LLC
(plaintiff) and from the denial of his post-judgment motions for new trial and to set aside the
judgment. Defendant seeks reversal on two grounds. First, the three-day notice was defective
by including late fees and overstating the rent due. Second, it was plaintiff’s burden to prove,
as a component of its prima facie case, that it complied with the notice obligations in Civil
Code section 1962.1 We publish this opinion to clarify that a lessor’s noncompliance with
section 1962 is an affirmative defense for which the lessee bears the burden of proof.2 Because
defendant did not prove that plaintiff failed to comply with the statute, we affirm the judgment
and the appealable post-judgment order.
BACKGROUND
In a first amended complaint filed on May 21, 2024, plaintiff sought possession of a
residential unit occupied by defendant in the City of Beverly Hills. The complaint alleged that
on December 9, 2013, defendant became a tenant of the unit pursuant to a written lease
agreement made with plaintiff’s agent. Defendant’s initial rent was $1,595 payable on the first
day of each month, and the rent was subsequently increased to $1,831. On April 12, 2024,
defendant was served by a registered process server with a three-day notice demanding that he
pay past-due rent of $7,236—accounting for the period between June 2023 and April 2024—or
relinquish possession of the premises. Defendant failed to pay the past-due rent or quit
possession after the notice period expired.
Defendant’s answer denied each allegation in the complaint and asserted affirmative
defenses, including that the three-day notice was void by overstating the rent due, and that
plaintiff failed to comply with the disclosure requirements in section 1962.
After the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the action was tried
without a jury on September 25, 2024. Plaintiff’s case consisted of three exhibits (the lease,