7
. . . Ultimately we choose the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent
of the lawmakers, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the
statute.’”’” (Center for Local Government Accountability v. City of San Diego (2016) 247
Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153.)
Section 1962 imposes an obligation upon any successor owner or manager of a
residential real property to disclose two pertinent pieces of information to their tenants, within
15 days of succeeding the previous owner or manager. (§ 1962, subd. (c).) First, the name,
telephone number, and usual street address at which personal service of process may be made
upon the property manager, owner of the premises, or a person who is authorized to act for and
on behalf of the owner for the purpose of receiving service of process and all notices and
demands. (Id., subds. (a)(1), (c).) Second, the name, telephone number, and address of the
person or entity to whom and where rent payments shall be made. (Id., subds. (a)(2), (c).) This
information “shall be kept current and this section shall extend to and be enforceable against
any successor owner or manager, who shall comply with this section within 15 days of
succeeding the previous owner or manager.” (Id., subd. (c).) A successor owner or manager
who fails to comply with these requirements is prohibited from serving a three-day notice to
pay rent or quit or otherwise attempting to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent that accrued
during the period of noncompliance with these statutory requirements. (Ibid).)
This court has recognized, without deciding, that a violation of section 1962 is an
affirmative defense. (See Group XIII, supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. Supp. 6; DLI Properties LLC
v. Hill (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 4.) There is no conflicting authority. Relying on
language used in Group XIII—that “compliance with section 1962 is effectively a jurisdictional
prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action” (Group XIII, supra, at p. Supp. 15)—defendant
contends it was plaintiff’s burden to prove compliance with section 1962 as part of its prima
facie case. Cases are not authority for propositions not considered (Rental Housing Assn. of
Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 756 (Rental
Housing)); nevertheless, we recognize the Group XIII decision requires clarity on this point.