Yadegar

Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar

Good Law
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 816·194 Cal. App. 4th 1419·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 522
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 3, 2011No. B224040California3,416 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Todd, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Palm Property Investments, LLC, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Fereydoon (Fred), Simin, Sara, Jacob and Saghar Yadegar (sometimes collectively the Yadegars) in an unlawful detainer action. The trial court ruled that appellant failed to meet its burden to show it satisfied the service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1162. 1 Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the trial court should not have excluded the proof of service as hearsay and should have considered the effect of the Yadegars’ admission that they were served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.

We agree with appellant’s first contention and reverse. Because the three-day notice was served by a registered process server, the proof of service *1422 should not have been excluded and Evidence Code section 647 applied to establish a presumption of the facts set forth therein.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Yadegars’ Lease.

Since 2002, the Yadegars have leased a penthouse apartment in a seven-unit building located at 408 North Palm Drive in Beverly Hills (Property). On August 12, 2002, the Yadegars…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.