New Requirements for Eviction Notices Due to Eshagian v. Cepeda Court of Appeals Decision in June 2025

New Rules for Eviction Notices

The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Eshagian v. Cepeda on June 26, 2025 caused major changes to what must be included in 3-day notices to pay or quit under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1161(2). This is the crux of most unlawful detainer cases, so this information is critical. Due to the court’s findings in Eshagian v. Cepeda, compliant 3-Day Notices to Pay or Quit must now include all of the following:

1.     Service Date – The notice must clearly state the date of service. To ensure accuracy, the preparer should leave the date blank and have the process server fill it in at the time of service.

•  This new rule applies to all eviction notices, not just 3 Day Notices to Pay or Quit. For example, a 60 Day Notice to Quit for Owner Move In should include the date that the notice was served on the tenant.  

2.     Forfeiture Warning – The notice must explicitly state that failure to pay by the expiration date will result in the tenant’s loss of possession. The court in Eshagian emphasized the need for clear language advising that noncompliance will lead to eviction. We recommend adding a sentence such as: “If you fail to pay the rent within the 3 days provided, you will be evicted and required to vacate the premises through an unlawful detainer proceeding.”

3.     Address for Rent Payment – The address where rent can be paid cannot be the leased premises itself. It must be a separate location where payment may be delivered before the notice expires. While it was already required to list the name of the person who can receive payment, along with an address and hours of availability, Eshagian clarified that the payment address cannot be the tenant’s rental address.

Any omission or defect in these elements renders the notice invalid. If a landlord proceeds with an unlawful detainer based on a defective notice, the tenant can raise the defect as a defense and defeat the eviction action.

Appealing Possession-Only Judgment

The Court of Appeal in Eshagian v. Cepeda also clarified an important procedural rule for unlawful detainer cases: a “possession-only” judgment is not a final, appealable judgment if the court has decided possession but has not yet resolved the issue of damages (such as back rent or holdover damages).

In this situation, if the tenant disagrees with the court’s decision awarding possession to the landlord, the tenant cannot file a standard appeal right away. Instead, the only available path for immediate review is to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1086 (Bluebook: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1086 (West 2025)).

In Practice

• Landlords: You can still enforce the judgment for possession and proceed with the sheriff’s lockout even if the tenant is challenging the ruling on possession. Because the tenant must use the writ process (not a normal appeal), there is no automatic delay of the lockout while damages are pending.
• Tenants: If you want to challenge the possession decision before damages are decided, you must act quickly to prepare and file a Petitioner for Writ of Mandate. Waiting for the damages judgment to appeal could mean you lose possession long before the appellate court hears your case.

Key Points

1.     Three-Day Notices to Pay or Quit–must now include all of the following:

a)     Service date.

b)    Explicit forfeiture warning (clear statement that failure to comply will result in loss of possession).

c)     Clear, statutorily compliant payment instructions (including a payment address that is not the leased premises).

2.     Appeals from Possession-Only Judgments – These judgments are not directly appealable. If damages remain unresolved, the tenant’s remedy is to seek review by writ of mandate under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1086.