3-day notice conflicting with 30-day notice?

Question

So my friend has a month-to-month lease with his tenant who hadn't paid the rent for a month. He served her the 3-day pay-or-quite notice, as well as a 30-day lease termination notice to terminate the month-to-month lease. When he went to the court to file the UD after a week has passed, he was told that he can't. Because of the 30-day notice, he must wait for 30 day before UD can be filed. I have always thought and also read from a number of websites that the two should be served at the same time if you really want to get ride of the tenant even if he/she pays this time. If assuming the Court was right (duh), when should the 30-day be served? BTW, this happened in CA.

Account Closed · Answer

Jim,

Mitch is correct. If they don't pay rent, you only need to serve the 3-day notice.  Your friend complicated the issue by serving both.

Good luck with your friend.

Ryan Csaftis · Answer

Jim,
I've gone through the eviction process in the past, and currently have 2 going on properties I recently purchased.  Even as a licensed Realtor, I've found that it's not worth my trouble to do evictions on my own.  I now use a 3rd party eviction service that handles the entire process, including the use of their on staff attorney if need be.  For less than a grand, it's well worth someone else serving notices & filing court documents, especially knowing it's being done without the simple errors that the novice landlord can fall victim to.  Feel free to reach out to me, if you want the info of the company I use.  Best of luck :)

Mitch Kronowit · Answer

That's a good question. My thinking is serve the 3-day notice to pay or quit first. If they don't pay, they'll get evicted precluding the need for the 30-day notice. IOW, evicting them is pretty much telling them you wish to end their tenancy!

If they do pay, then serve the 30-day notice. It's a way of saying, "Thanks, but we're done with you now".

James Qiu · Answer

Thanks Mitch, Jeff and Minh for your feedback.

I think that serializing the 3-day/UD and 30-day notice will most likely  lengthen the eviction process allowing the tenant to freeload for a longer period.  But in CA, it seems that you have to pick which one to proceed first before you start. Having 30-day as a backup to 3-day isn't an option here. Yes, in CA, the tenant has the upper hand in Court.

Jeff S. · Answer

Sometimes it is just best to only serve a 30 day and do it early. It is not that hard to lose in court with your 3 day notice. Ever have a tenant say they didn't pay because the property needs repairs? Even though they make this up, and with a court appointed attorney, the judge can delay your eviction for 60 or so days to get city inspections, and give the landlord time to fix the non-existent problems. Of course you will need to provide proof of the repairs to the court. By the time the city inspector has come out and inspected you are down a lot of money. Judge can put tenant on a reduced rent, which of course they don't pay either. Lets not forget if you lose you pay the tenants attorney fees. Been there. This is a good time to break out the checkbook.

Jeff S. · Answer

Interesting, but in CA the tenant rules. For me a 30 day is a back up to a 3 day. If things get tied up in court the 30 day takes over and they really have no right to be there.

3-day notice conflicting with 30-day notice?

Most Popular Reply