CA - Defective Service - 3 Day Notice - Unlawful Detainer

[snownsun13]

I have completed a very thorough amount of research and was hoping that a practicing member of this forum may agree. I am formerly a registered process server and all that experience has taught me the following.

My landlord has not completed proper process of service per CCP 1162. My only knowledge of a 3-day notice in this case was delivered by e-mail. There has been no personal or substituted service and a notice has not been posted at my leased residence. No effective service by my opinion, let alone any attempt to do so.

Given these facts, I believe that I may challenge any UD action on ground of defective service. A CA appeals court upheld that e-mail is not sufficient service in Culver Center v. Baja Fresh.

As a matter of procedure, I am unsure whether to file a demurrer or just an answer to a complaint if issued?

I have been faced with a very difficult tenant situation in which I am facing the 3rd foreclosure proceeding in the last 12 months. I fully expect the trustee to foreclose this time around but covering myself should it not and a UD be filed.

 

[army judge]

Do you fill your own teeth, remove cancerous growths from your abdomen, and set your broken bones?

You really need an attorney, a competent, licensed, practicing attorney.

Are you willing to trust your home to the advice dispensed
by strangers on the Internet?

You're on the right track with your legal reasoning.
The theory you propound has merit.

But, as an old law school professor once told me decades ago, don't anticipate a lawsuit. Address a lawsuit only after it has been filed. Don't speculate as to what someone could or would do.

You'll only drive yourself bonkers. Whatever conclusions or directions you deduce will usually be incorrect anyway.

 

[army judge]

Addendum: Most foreclosure actions by major lenders have been put on hold. You might be wise to force the lender in your case to produce your original note, if they persist.

Google the phrase "produce the note". Your eyes will be opened and your intellect stimulated.

 

[mightymoose]

You would be gambling heavily on a technicality here. If you were to argue improper service you might also have to show how you were adversely effected by that service.
In this case you did actually receive the notice and you don't appear to have been disadvantaged. You might not get far with your argument.

 

[jacksgal]

Ok let me understand this what was not served properly. The 3 day pay or quit or your court papers? It makes a difference

 

[Gail_in_Georgia]

Someone on another legal forum you posted the same question to indicated they are going to send you the very recent (2011) California statute that appears to allow 3-day notices via email.

Said they'd forward this to you on Monday when they're back at work.

Gail

 

[mightymoose]

Ok let me understand this what was not served properly. The 3 day pay or quit or your court papers? It makes a difference

It was just the 3 day notice.
I would expect that a new law allowing email notice would still require snail mail notice.