Flaker

Van Butenschoen v. Flaker

Good Law
16 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 10·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 937·224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 679
Superior Court of CaliforniaOctober 16, 2017No. BV 031862California1,465 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ricciardulli, J.

*12 INTRODUCTION

In response to an unlawful detainer complaint, a defendant may, as was done in this case, file a motion to quash service of the summons. ( Code Civ. Proc., §§ 418.10, 1167.4.) If, in denying the motion to quash, the trial court also orders the defendant to "only" file an answer to the complaint, the trial court effectively deprives that defendant of his or her right to file a demurrer ( Code Civ. Proc., § 422.10 ). Such was the case here. After defendants Cynthia Flaker and Chris Flaker were sued in unlawful detainer, they filed a motion to quash. The court denied the motion and, in so doing, it specified *13 that defendants were permitted to "answer" within five days. Defendants responded to the order by timely filing a demurrer. Presumably because no answer was filed, default judgment was entered against them, and they now appeal. We reverse the judgment because, in denying a motion to quash an unlawful detainer summons, the trial court may not restrict a defendant's responsive pleading to an answer.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and respondent Van Butenschoen filed his action on March 1, 2016, alleging defendants failed to comply with a three-day notice to pay rent…

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.