Unlawful detainer delays and getting to superior court

22 Dec

Unlawful Detainer Delays
In some of my eviction defense cases having to do with an illegal foreclosure it is important to avoid trial at all costs.
California Judges favor the lenders and once the lender tender the Trustees deed the Judge will not consider any defense the former homeowner has. I have suggested to the narrow minded that they should dispense with the trial and allow the lender to file the trustees deed with the marshal and have people kicked without a trial. The learned Judge was not amused by my backhanded slap at the court not giving my client any due prosess protection afforded by the constitution.
The purpose then is to delay till the case can be consolidated with the Lender fraud trial without a bond or get an injunction in place. These are some of the methods. I thought it would be a good idea to cover of the more common delay procedures.

1. Motion to Quash Summons. California Code of Civil Procedure §418.10. This motion is intended to test the validity of the service of the complaint, the sufficiency of the summons. That is, whether the plaintiff has the basis to use the 5 day summons. The Code (Code of Civil Procedure §1167.4) requires that the motion to quash be set for hearing no earlier than three (3) days and no later than seven (7) days after the tenant’s last date to file their response to the complaint. Until the motion is heard and decided on, the tenant does not have to file an answer to the complaint. It would appear that after the filing of a Motion to Quash, when the tenant is required to file its response, the tenant can still file other delay motions. Regardless of the merits, if a tenant files a motion to quash, assuming the hearing date is properly set, such a motion will delay the tenant having to file an answer for over one week.

2. Demurrer. California Code of Civil Procedure §430.10. This procedure generally allows a tenant to object to the pleading based on defects apparent on the face of the pleading or object because the pleading is vague or ambiguous. This procedure may also be used in responding to the unlawful detainer Code of Civil Procedure §1170 allows a tenant to answer or demurrer to the complaint on or before the time needed to respond. Unlike the limitations on when a motion to quash can be set for hearing, there are no similar limitations on setting a hearing on the demurrer. The typical time for setting a hearing on a demurrer is not more than 35 days after the filing of the demurrer or earlier or later as the court may order.

A demurrer is really a “so what” objection. What the demurrer does is admit all of the pleadings for the purposes of the objection. Assuming all of the allegations are true, so what? Landlord, you still haven’t alleged a proper basis for the eviction. Or, the allegations are so confused or ambiguous as to make it impossible to respond to the pleading. In this case, the tenant, if not pushed can delay having to file an answer to the complaint for over a month! For some reason the legislature in its infinite wisdom put a limit of seven days on how far away the tenant can set a hearing on the motion to quash but then allows for a hearing on a demurrer over a month away.

Except for some rare jurisdictions, if the tenant sets a demurrer for a hearing a month away, the landlord’s recourse is to either wait for the thirty days and then after the hearing the tenant gets another five days after the hearing to file their answer. The landlord can alternatively go to the court and ask the court to reset the hearing on a shorter notice. The experience in Fresno is that the courts are willing to set the hearing on a very short notice. It would be better, however, if the legislature formally put a limit on the time of the hearing similar to the time for a motion to quash.
Somewhat similar to a demurrer is a motion to strike a portion of or all of a pleading (CCP§435). The timing for the hearing is that the motion shall be set no earlier than 21 days after filing of the motion, adding another five days if mailed. Thus delaying setting the matter for trial over twenty six days. It should be noted that in the unlawful detainer section of the code, the statutes provide that the tenant can file a motion to quash, a demurrer or file an answer. It does not reference motions to strike

3. Claims of Right to Possession. It seems that more often than owners would like, strangers are making claims of right to possession, asserting, under oath, that the person had been living in the rental unit at the time the landlord had filed its complaint. And , in most cases the landlord had no idea that there was anyone else in the unit. This surprise “subtenant” matter is all the more complicated if the reason for the eviction is non payment of a notice to pay rent or quit. Code of Civil Procedure §1161.2 requires that when one is serving a tenant for non payment, one must also serve any subtenants in actual possession of the premises. This can present a problem for a landlord. If the “subtenant” person can establish having lived in the premises at the time of the complaint being filed, then the person will assert that they should have been served with the notice to pay rent or quit. However, if the person living in the unit was unauthorized or unknown, the landlord wouldn’t want to serve this unauthorized person with the notice to pay rent or quit in fear of validating the person’s right to possession. It has been held that serving a fired employee with a notice to pay rent, even if the ex employee did not pay the demanded rent, transforms the ex employee’s status as a tenant at sufferance into a month to month tenant.

Whether the claim of right to possession has merit or not, simply filing the claim, the tenant gets another five to seven days delay in the lock out. There needs to be some clarification in the statute to establish that a person living with an authorized tenant cannot be considered a subtenant unless the person can establish that not only did the landlord know of the alleged subtenant but that the person’s sublease had been approved by the landlord before the landlord is required to serve the claimant with the notice to pay.

4. Lastly a Summary judgment motion that the lender has not “duly perfected” a proper Foreclosure under 2924. If we lose we appeal and since there has not been a trial therefor no eviction.

About these ads

5 Responses to “Unlawful detainer delays and getting to superior court”

  1. Robert January 6, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    Just a comment of appreciation for the grand workmanship you and your supporters are performing.

    Maybe a separate section Title: Unlawful Detainer, defenses and tactics for consideration.

    Again, thanks for the grand workmanship, you are helping many people all over the USA

  2. Louis May 27, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    WOW, everything I learnt about banking, money mechanics and MUCH more is on this blog in a language I understand.

    Thank you very much.

  3. cev krey June 28, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    helping people who really need it when it counts most and is just extremely too hard for me to put into words. thank you

  4. atila August 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

    well, NONE of this has worked.
    Unfortunately not one tactic here was heard or accepted by the judge.

    great reading but i couldnt even get a word in, and unless you can affford the very expensive representation of mc candles, youre sunk.

    if any of these attorneys are so sure of themselves and thier work, you would think they would take at least half on contingency. what with a ‘for sure’ plan, they should line these cases up and collect the damges from the banks.

  5. goi September 23, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    I ‘won’ my house free & clear…. YES…I used an attorney…. http://www.scribd.com/doc/90184879/I-Won-my-House-FREE-CLEAR-Here-s-HOW

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 690 other followers

%d bloggers like this: