Last week, in Universal Shopping Plaza v. Hong, the California Court of Appeal published a unanimous decision reminding California landlords to exercise care in preparing their notices to pay or quit prior to initiating an action for unlawful detainer.¹

In this case, Piong Bin Hong (the tenant) owns the Five Star Restaurant, a Chinese dim sum and seafood restaurant, on West Valley Boulevard in San Gabriel, California. Mr. Hong rented the restaurant space under a lease from Universal Shopping Plaza (the landlord). The initial five-year lease expired on December 31, 2021, and the parties agreed to continue the lease as a month-to-month tenancy.

Believing he was entitled to a rent discount resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic for the year 2022 based on his oral communications with Universal, in January 2023, Mr. Hong wrote to Universal explaining that he planned to skip his January 2023 rent entirely and to subtract $8,600 from his February 2023 rent — a total of $65,989. Universal responded with a letter that Mr. Hong would be in breach of the lease, but Mr. Hong followed through on his plan anyway. Hong resumed paying full rent every month from March 2023 through February 2025 — 23 consecutive months without a hiccup.

On February 12, 2025, Universal served Mr. Hong with a Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit, demanding that Mr. Hong pay $65,989 (the exact amount of the tenant’s default as of February 2023), but without stating which month the unpaid amount was for. Nor did Universal set forth the basis for calculating the unpaid rent.

When Hong did not pay within three days, Universal filed an unlawful detainer action on February 25, 2025. Universal sought possession of the premises, past due rent in the amount of $65,989, holdover damages of $1,219 per day, and attorneys’ fees.

At trial, Universal presented evidence that, on January 25, 2023, Universal sent notice to Mr. Hong that he was in breach for his failure to pay the January rent plus late fees. Universal also argued that, ever since January 2023, Mr. Hong was always a month behind in rent pursuant to a lease term that allowed Universal to apply Mr. Hong’s rent payments to his oldest obligations first.

Mr. Hong, representing himself through a certified Mandarin translator, argued that the Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit was defective because the rent demand was for an amount that came due more than one year before service of the Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit, and it was unclear as to which month the amount demanded was for. Mr. Hong argued that the Three-Day Notice violated Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), which requires such notices to be served “within one year after the rent becomes due.”²

Universal prevailed at trial. The trial court agreed that under the terms of the Lease, rent could be applied to the back rent first, such that Mr. Hong was missing a current payment, and that Universal’s Notice to Pay or Quit was valid. Judgment was entered in favor of Universal, with possession of the premises, past due rent, and $123,111 in holdover damages.

The Court of Appeal reversed in favor of Mr. Hong, who continued to represent himself on appeal. The Court concluded that Universal’s Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit was defective under Code of Civil Procedure 1161(2) because the unpaid rent balance reflected in the Notice was more than two years old, which came due in 2023. Universal’s witnesses testified that the balance set forth in the Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit was for an amount that became due in 2023. While Universal argued that the Lease’s allocation-of-payments provision allowed it to apply payments to unpaid back rent, the Court found that unpersuasive in this case because Universal’s Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit still did not set forth any calculation or specify in any other way that the amount owed came due within the one-year period set forth under section 1161(2).³ Indeed, the evidence, including Universal’s own admission, confirmed that the amount set forth in the Three-Day Notice to Pay or Quit came due in 2023, more than two years before the date of the Notice. Consequently, Universal lost its damages award and had its unlawful detainer judgment vacated.

As a reminder to landlords and tenants, the one-year notice window in Code of Civil Procedure 1161(2) is essential. The bottom line is: Landlords who want to preserve the unlawful detainer remedy should serve notices promptly after a missed payment and correctly identify and set forth amounts that came due within the one-year timeframe. Universal v. Hong is a pointed reminder that preparation of the notice to pay or quit requires strict compliance with the applicable statutes, otherwise, the entire unlawful detainer proceedings may be jeopardized.

---

¹ Universal Shopping Plaza v. Hong (Sept. 9, 2026, No. B348490) __ Cal.App.5th __ https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B348490.PDF;

² Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2).

³ The Court of Appeal expressed no opinion as to whether standard lease provisions allowing landlords to first apply payments to the oldest balance are unenforceable. In this case, however, that lease provision did not save an otherwise defective notice.