Court of Appeal Issues Critical Guidance on Three-Day Notices: What Landlords Must Know After Eshagian v. Cepeda
By: Jonathan T. Dawson, Attorney at Law
On June 26, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued a certified-for-publication decision in Eshagian v. Cepeda that sharply reinforces the requirement for strict compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) in unlawful detainer actions. The decision is a wake-up call for landlords and property managers: even minor defects in a three-day notice to pay rent or quit can invalidate the notice and require dismissal of the entire eviction case.
What Happened in Eshagian v. Cepeda
The landlord served a three-day notice that stated the amount of rent owed and a broad timeframe (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) for payment. It listed the tenant’s own unit as the address where rent could be delivered. It also failed to specify the start or end date of the three-day period and never explicitly told the tenant that they would lose possession of the property if the rent was not paid.
The trial court granted judgment for possession after the tenant defaulted. The appellate court reversed, holding that the notice was legally defective on several grounds and did not support an unlawful detainer action.
New Rules or Overreach? A Word of Caution
One striking element of this opinion is the Court’s insistence that the notice should have stated when it was served, when the three-day period commenced, and when it ended.
This is not a requirement found in CCP § 1161, nor in any prior published appellate opinion. In my years of practice, I have never encountered a ruling—until now—that holds a three-day notice defective solely for failing to state the date of service or expiration. The statute already governs how the three-day period is calculated (excluding weekends and holidays), and service must be proven in court through a proof of service.
This decision arguably creates a new judicially imposed requirement that is not supported by the plain language of the statute. Landlords and their counsel must now navigate these added expectations—even though they were not previously required and are not clearly articulated in the statutory text.
While the Court may believe it is clarifying procedural fairness for tenants, this ruling unfortunately injects uncertainty into an already rigid area of law.
key takeaways for landlords and property managers
1. State a Clear Payment Deadline
The notice must tell the tenant exactly when the three-day period begins and ends.
In the notice, you must explicitly state that the calculation of the three days excludes weekends and court holidays.
While not required by statue, the court now expects this information to be explicitly stated in the notice.
2. Include an Explicit Warning of Consequences
The notice must clearly and plainly state that failure to comply with the notice, within the specified period, will result in legal action to recover possession of the property.
3. Provide Specific and Practical Payment Instructions
The notice must include: 1) the full name of the recipient authorized to accept payment; 2) the actual address for the delivery of the payment; 3) days and times the recipient will be present to accept payment.
If you have an established electronic method of payment, you should indicate that payment by this method is permitted.
If you allow payment by direct bank deposit, the statute requires specific information (i.e., the account number, bank name, and street address where the payment may be made) be included in the notice. Additionally, the bank must be within five miles of the property). Given these requirements, I do not recommend utilizing this method as there is more opportunity for error.
4. Serve the Notice Properly
Service of the notice must be made in compliance with Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 1162 by personal delivery, substituted service, or posting and mailing. While not required, I recommend you have a registered process server effect service of the notice.
The consequences of non-compliance
If your notice fails to comply, event in ways not previously understood to be required, you can lose, even after default. You may risk being held liable for attorney's fees if the lease provides for them. You will then have to start the entire process over again.
what you should do now
1. Immediately review and revise your three-day notice to pay or quit templates to incorporate both statutory and newly imposed requirements from Eshagian.
2. Train staff and property managers to avoid common pitfalls.
3. Ensure your notices are correct and maintain proper documentation regarding the service of the documents. If my clients choose to not utilize a registered process server, I always advise my clients to take timestamped photos of the posting and get a certificate of mailing of the notice from the US Postal Service.
4. Contact an attorney if you have any questions or before issuing and serving notices in complex or high-risk cases.
final thoughts
The Eshagian decision represents a significant development in California eviction law - one that may not reflect legislative intent, but will have real consequences for landlords. Whether Eshagian is limited or expanded by furture courts remains to be seen. Until then, erring on the side of extreme caution and precision in drafting and serving your notices is the safest path forward...
Jonathan T. Dawson
Attorney at Law
Law Office of Jonathan T. Dawson
📍 1512 11th St., Ste. 204, Santa Monica, CA 90401
📞 424.535.0005
📧 contact@jtd.esq
🌐 www.jtdawson.com
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance regarding your specific case or compliance strategy, consult with a qualified landlord-tenant attorney.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance regarding your specific case or compliance strategy, consult with a qualified landlord-tenant attorney.