Court Opinion

ID: 9727451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:37:53.20843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:38.077859
License: Public Domain

VANDER WALL, J.*
With regard to part I of the majority opinion, I respectfully dissent.
Under existing California law, there is no legal authority for a modification of the rule requiring a three-day notice to pay rent to state the precise sum of rent due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. 2; J. B. Hill Co. v. Pinque (1919) 179 Cal. 759, 761-762 [178 P. 952, 3 A.L.R. 669]; Gage *877v. Bates (1870) 40 Cal. 384, 385; Gaskill v. Trainer (1853) 3 Cal. 334, 339; Ernst Enterprises, Inc. v. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 355, 359 [188 Cal.Rptr. 641]; Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 674 [50 Cal.Rptr. 822]; Werner v. Sargeant (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 833, 837 [264 P.2d 217]; Johnson v. Sanches (1942) 56 Cal.App.2d 115, 117 [132 P.2d 853]; 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Real Property, § 527, pp. 2201-2202.)
The “considerations of fairness” applied in Budaeff v. Huber (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 12 [14 Cal.Rptr. 729], are inapplicable to the summary remedy of unlawful detainer. Budaeff was an action in ejectment, and its holding should be limited to the peculiar facts of that case. There, the precise sum of rent owed was admittedly not in dispute: The landlord had demanded, and the tenant admitted, the precise sum due. The court noted that where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent owing or as to when it is owing, “. . . elementary fairness requires that the landlord demand the precise sum due, so that the tenant will know what he must do to avoid the forfeiture. ” (Budaeff v. Huber, supra, 194 Cal.App.2d at p. 18.)
Unlawful detainer is a statutorily created remedy, designed to give a landlord a method by which he can “quickly” recover possession of his leased premises. (Briggs v. Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 900, 906, fn. 5 [126 Cal.Rptr. 34].) Because of its summary nature, the statutes providing for it are to be strictly construed. (Id., at p. 905.) For this reason, and in view of the weight of authority interpreting the present statutory scheme, any change in the historic rule requiring a three-day notice to state the precise sum of rent due is best left to the Legislature. The effect of the rule change proposed by the majority will extend far beyond the agricultural setting in this case. Commercial leases, particularly in shopping centers, often state the rent in terms of a percentage of gross sales. Under these circumstances, an informed Legislature is in the best position to balance the interests of landlords and tenants, and society as a whole, in formulating a change in the unlawful detainer laws.
Meanwhile, there are a variety of options available to the informed landlord. For example, a landlord who seeks to maximize his gain by use of a percentage lease can easily protect against an unscrupulous tenant with a well-drafted lease. Such a lease would include a covenant requiring the tenant to provide a statement of gross sales at the end of each percentage rent period, including an annual statement. Provision can be made for accurate bookkeeping and accounting practices by the tenant at his place of business, making the books available to the landlord for inspection. Such covenants are common today in commercial leases. (See Commercial Real Property Lease Form (Cont.Ed.Bar 1984 rev.) Statement of Gross Sales, *878§ 3.39, pp. 31-32.) A violation of such a covenant would make the unlawful detainer remedy available to the landlord pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 3.
The landlord who neglects to take such precautions is not without a remedy, since he may utilize the less summary action of ejectment to regain possession of his property. That he chooses to use the summary remedy of unlawful detainer should not excuse him from its technical requirements under the present law.
For the above reasons, the trial court was in error when it concluded the plaintiff had complied with the applicable provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2.
I would reverse the judgment.

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.