byebyelatefee
New Member
I have been issued an unlawful detainer. I have filed my response before doing as much homework on these issues due to the 5 day window. In my answer I only objected to the total rent amount due because it consists of late fees which invalides the 3-day. This is because the 3-day should only contain rent due. This is cited in the California Judicial Bench guide section §31.16. The case CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM, INC. v. WILKOSKI directly mentions "late charges cannot be used on a 3-day... only rent due be my included on the notice. Late charges and interest do not constitute rent..."
Now after doing more research I'm learning other than bounced checks, late charges in California are illegal. This is cited right on the California Consumer Affairs website "See Harbor Island Holdings, LLC v. Kim (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 790 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 406] (liquidated damages provision unenforceable because it bore no reasonable relationship to range of actual damages parties could have anticipated); Orozco v. Casimiro (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 175] (late fee invalid because landlord failed to establish that damages for late payment of rent were extremely difficult to fix)."
Assuming this is true, how can I argue this in court? Can I even bring it up due to the fact that I didn't in my answer? Even though late charges were discussed in my answer, this exact issue regarding them was not. The landlord used bogus late charges to charge me late fees _every_ month for the past 6 months and I have this arrears balance in the range of $600. Even as I pay my rent on-time, he still charges me these late fees because he claims the amount I am paying is going towards the late fees in arrears and not towards the amount due.
Thank you.
Now after doing more research I'm learning other than bounced checks, late charges in California are illegal. This is cited right on the California Consumer Affairs website "See Harbor Island Holdings, LLC v. Kim (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 790 [132 Cal.Rptr.2d 406] (liquidated damages provision unenforceable because it bore no reasonable relationship to range of actual damages parties could have anticipated); Orozco v. Casimiro (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 175] (late fee invalid because landlord failed to establish that damages for late payment of rent were extremely difficult to fix)."
Assuming this is true, how can I argue this in court? Can I even bring it up due to the fact that I didn't in my answer? Even though late charges were discussed in my answer, this exact issue regarding them was not. The landlord used bogus late charges to charge me late fees _every_ month for the past 6 months and I have this arrears balance in the range of $600. Even as I pay my rent on-time, he still charges me these late fees because he claims the amount I am paying is going towards the late fees in arrears and not towards the amount due.
Thank you.
