Hanson Tri Le

Section 3.D.(2) of the executed Authentisign lease directs all tenant rent to Wells Fargo Account #3312943297, account name HANSON LE — a personal account, not a designated broker trust account. The routing is on the face of the instrument Le drafted and signed; the plaintiff asks whether it satisfies §10145. No finding has been made.

Section 41 of the executed lease identifies Le as both Tenant’s Agent and Housing Provider’s Agent. The dual agency disclosure checkboxes are blank. No written informed consent from either principal. Whether an additional undisclosed conflict of interest existed at the time of execution is a question preserved for discovery and is not established on this record.

From May 13, 2024 forward, Le had no corporate brokerage authority on the Gasio lease. On May 30, 2024, he received a check payable to the corporate entity he was no longer licensed under. On August 11, 2024, the landlord confirmed in writing that Le had the check.

Cashier’s check #0084411044, $4,338.48, payable to BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESERVICES CALIFORNIA, was delivered via USPS to 5848 Edinger on May 30, 2024, signed “H.H.” Per the landlord’s own text, Le had the check. It was never credited to the tenant’s account. It was never returned. The check has never been cashed. Complainant holds it sealed, available for forensic fingerprint analysis. The Court’s March 27, 2025 minute order acknowledges the tender.

When contacted by HBPD in connection with Complainant’s fraud report, Hanson Tri Le invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He subsequently departed Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices — though his DRE record characterizes this as a migration to Stratton-LFCA Inc under the same Designated Officer of Record (Rosas), not a resignation from the industry. Under California Evidence Code §913, no presumption arises and no adverse inference may be drawn from a person’s exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination; the invocation is recorded here for completeness, not as evidence of culpability. Source anchor: DRE Pre-Complaint PC #1-26-0304-002 (Investigator Macias).

Subsequent direct inquiry — July 22, 2025. On July 22, 2025 at 8:39 PM PDT, Plaintiff sent Mr. Le a direct one-question letter at hansonle@bhhscaprops.com, copied to nine regulatory addresses including DRE Investigator Tom Nguyen, FBI Special Agent H. Nguyen, HBPD Officer Shawn Randell, the Orange County District Attorney, the California State Bar Moral Character review address, and Silverstein eviction-counsel office (clerk@stevendsilverstein.com). The letter asked Mr. Le to state, in his own words, what he calls the conduct — rent routed to a private bank account, the disappearance of a tendered check, the substitution of a new occupant in violation of an existing lease term. Six days later, Plaintiff forwarded the same email to Designated Officer Rosas at ennisrosas@bhhscaprops.com. Mr. Le did not respond. The letter and the absence of a reply are recorded as part of the documentary contact history. No adverse inference is drawn from a non-response: a recipient is under no obligation to answer correspondence from a private party, and §913 bars treating a prior privilege invocation as evidence of culpability.

Corporate-channel notice to BHHS. The Plaintiff also transmitted notice of Mr. Le’s alleged conduct through two separate BHHS corporate web-form channels — the BHHS California Properties “General Question” form and the BHHS HomeServices parent “How can we assist you?” form — both naming Mr. Le by name and license number. Neither submission produced a documented BHHS response. The two web-form exhibits are reproduced inline at actor-rosas.html Direct-Notice section.

On June 1, 2024 — 19 days after license detachment, 2 days after check delivery — Le formed Hanson And Tony LLC (CA SOS #202462512659). The LLC’s bank accounts are a direct subpoena target. If any value equivalent to the $4,338.48 check flowed through LLC accounts, that documents the disposition of the corporate instrument.

Question presented: whether Hanson Le had an undisclosed personal or familial relationship with a member of the landlord’s family at the time he executed the lease as dual agent. Any such relationship, if it existed and was undisclosed, would bear on B&P §10176(d) and §2079.16. No such relationship is established on this record; the question is preserved for discovery against primary records (OC Recorder, DRE roster), not aggregator listings. No finding has been made.

On July 4, 2024 — 52 days after license detachment — Le’s corporate email address hansonle@bhhscaprops.com was active and receiving external mail. His continued presence at a Springdale Marina Inc / BHHS corporate email domain after detaching from that entity raises the question of whether he continued to hold himself out as a BHHS agent after his authority had ended.

On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 11:18 AM PDT — one day before the new lease was executed — the plaintiff sent Le an email at hansonle@bhhscaprops.com (subject: “Witches burnt Broom”) stating in writing: “I have the forms finally. Please be aware I paid the payment of $5,000 last week for 5-24 there are 11 payments remain at $5,350.” The plaintiff documented in writing to the licensee, on the day before signing, that (i) the established market rate at the property was $5,000 per month; (ii) the new rate would be $5,350; (iii) the increase was $350 / 7%; (iv) one payment at the old rate had already been made for May 2024; (v) eleven future payments at the new rate were anticipated. Cal. Civ. Code §827(b) requires written notice of a rent increase: 30 days for an increase of 10% or less, 90 days for an increase greater than 10%. No formal §827 notice was given; the rent increase was announced by Hanson Le by text only on April 17, 2024 (Le was traveling in Europe during the relevant notice period). The plaintiff’s own email to the licensee one day before signing frames the §827(b) written-notice question on the documentary record. Reported to the Department of Real Estate.

On the evening of June 21, 2024, the Three-Day Notice was taped to the plaintiff’s front door. The next day, Saturday June 22, 2024, the landlord (Phat Tran) sent the plaintiff a text message stating: “Hi Michael, sorry I did nt know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account, I just texted him to find out. You mentioned about the 67k contract, I got confused about this part. Hanson told me that you did nt want to sign the new lease and I dont [re]ceive the payment so I sent...” The owner’s text contains four contemporaneous admissions implicating Le directly: (i) the owner did not know rent had been paid to Le’s personal account, contradicting any compliant §10145 trust-fund relationship; (ii) Le had told the owner the plaintiff did not wish to sign the new lease, contradicting the apparent consent on the executed instrument; (iii) Le had told the owner no payment had been received, despite Le having signed for the cashier’s check at 5848 Edinger on May 30, 2024 (twenty-two days before the Notice); (iv) per the owner’s own account, the Notice issued after what the owner understood from Le. Le had signed for the cashier’s check on May 30, 2024 (twenty-two days before the Notice). The plaintiff asks whether the owner’s text reflects that the tender was not reported to the owner, and whether the Notice issued on that basis. No finding has been made.

The listing agent on 19235 Brynn Court for the two tenancies preceding the Gasio tenancy was Anna Ly (believed to be Phat Tran’s daughter; relationship not verified on this record), DRE #01894348. Both prior tenancies Anna Ly brokered ended in eviction. In April 2024, on the eve of the Gasio lease execution, Anna Ly refused to execute the unlawful rent raise on the same property, and the agency role was substituted to Hanson Tri Le. Mr. Le inherited from his predecessor a third tenancy, on the same property, with the same client, with the same eviction outcome that the predecessor agent had produced twice. Whether an undisclosed relationship between the predecessor agent and the principal existed is a question preserved for discovery; if established, it would bear on the conflict-disclosure framework under B&P §10176(d). The fact pattern is anchored in the OC Superior Court Register of Actions for both prior eviction matters and in DRE consumer-license records establishing Anna Ly’s prior listing-agent attachment to the same address.

On June 25, 2024, between 5:55 and 6:02 PM PDT, the plaintiff transmitted by SMS to Branch Manager Angie M. Sandoval (DRE #01130478), Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties — then at 5848 Edinger Avenue, Huntington Beach 92649; currently at 120 5th Street Suite C110, Huntington Beach 92648, which is the same DRE Main Office of record at which Mr. Le now holds his current attachment under Stratton-LFCA, Inc. — the demand-letter image and a written warning regarding Mr. Le’s conduct on the BHHS instrument, the unaccounted cashier’s check at $4,338.48, the “month skipped, $5,000 pocketed” framing, and the HBPD “concerned” characterization. The transmission occurred eight days before the unlawful-detainer complaint was filed by Phat Tran’s counsel of record on July 3, 2024. Carrier records are preserved. Above Sandoval in the corporate supervisory chain sits Iris Fay Tonti (DRE #00844023), Division Manager. The transmission placed the BHHS California Properties branch under whose authority Mr. Le held himself out, and continues to hold himself out, on actual pre-eviction notice through its branch manager. The eight-day pre-filing window is the documentary establishment of corporate knowledge of the alleged conduct before the eviction complaint was filed. Cross-anchored at actor-silverstein.html Pretrial Notice Channel N-07. The vicarious-knowledge framework supports the Cal. B&P §10159.2 supervisory-architecture analysis — Mr. Le’s conduct on the Gasio lease is now documented as having been within the actual-notice window of two successive corporate brokerages and the same Designated Officer of Record (Rosas) operating across both.

In October 2025, after the plaintiff’s regulatory filings had reached the principal’s attention, the property at 20002 Sand Dune Lane — assessed at approximately $3.4 million, held personally by Phat L.K. Tran from November 2003 through October 2025 (twenty-one years and eleven months) — was transferred to Smart Invest HB LLC, a Delaware entity (CA File B20250360378) with no Huntington Beach business license and no short-term-rental permit on file. Cal. Civ. Code §3439.04 (the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act) reaches transfers made by a debtor with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors — the “badges of fraud” analysis examines transfer to an insider, retention of control, transfer in close temporal proximity to the assertion of a claim, and inadequate consideration. The October 2025 transfer occurred after the plaintiff’s eleven-agency certified-mail packet had been mailed (April 25, 2026 packet was the consolidated submission; multiple individual referrals preceded it). The transfer of a $3.4M asset, held for nearly twenty-two years, to a Delaware shell entity with no operational footprint in the property’s jurisdiction, sits within the §3439.04 framework. Whether Mr. Le had any connection to the Sand Dune Lane property is a question preserved for discovery against primary records; it is not established on this record.

Mr. Le characterized the April 26, 2024 instrument as a “renewal” five separate times across two documentary channels: (i) SMS to plaintiff April 17, 2024, 11:37 AM PDT — “renewal lease term”; (ii) SMS to plaintiff April 26, 2024, 9:53 AM PDT — “our renewal lease agreement: one year lease agreement, start date: 6/1/2024, rent rate: $5,350/month”; (iii) Authentisign envelope email subject line, April 25, 2024 8:57:05 PM PDT — “Re: Your signature is requested: Brynn Ct, HB — One Year Renewal lease agreement, effective date 6/1/2024”; (iv) Authentisign email body, same; (v) Authentisign signing-name field, same.

The California Department of Real Estate Reference Book Chapter 9 — the same Reference Book Mr. Le sat for examination on as a condition of issuance and renewal of his Broker license (DRE #01358448) — sets out the controlling distinction in plain language: “A lease renewal creates a new and distinct tenancy. Accordingly, the parties should execute an entirely new [agreement].” By contrast: “A lease extension is a continuation in possession under the original lease.” By Mr. Le’s own five-times-recorded characterization, the 4/26/2024 instrument created a new and distinct tenancy commencing 6/1/2024 — not a continuation of the 2022 tenancy.

The plaintiff confronted Mr. Le on this point by SMS on May 27, 2024 at 12:35 PM PDT, observing that the 2022 deposit funds did not appear on the new instrument. Mr. Le replied: “I can have it transferred and showed in our new agreement, no problem.” The reply is dispositive on the legal characterization. Mr. Le treats the 2022 deposit funds as monies requiring transfer between two separate agreements. That is a new-tenancy concession on the documentary record from the licensee himself.

Exhibit XV-A · SMS, May 27, 2024 12:35 PM PDT
Hanson Le admission: funds ‘transferred and showed in our new agreement’

The plaintiff alleges that the renewal characterization, executed by a licensed California Real Estate Broker examined on the DRE Reference Book’s renewal-vs-extension distinction, triggered the procedural framework of Cal. Civ. Code §1950.5(g) on the 2022 tenancy and the procedural framework of §1950.5 on the 4/26/2024 instrument as a new and distinct tenancy. Both procedural frameworks are addressed at Count XVI. No finding has been made. Reported to the Department of Real Estate.

The 2022 lease was scheduled to expire on May 1, 2024 (per Mr. Le’s own subsequent SMS recital: “Our lease agreement will be expired 5/1/24”). The Authentisign envelope containing the new lease document was transmitted to the plaintiff on the evening of Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 8:57:05 PM PDT. The signing window between document transmission and old-lease expiration was approximately 5 to 6 calendar days, including the last weekend of April 2024 (Saturday April 27 and Sunday April 28).

Under California’s bidirectional sliding-scale unconscionability framework, established in Kho v. OTO, L.L.C., 8 Cal.5th 111 (2019), a contracting party “should at least have a reasonable opportunity to understand the bargain he is making.” California courts examine procedural and substantive unconscionability on a sliding scale: a higher degree of one compensates for a lower degree of the other. Procedural deficiencies recognized in Kho include: adhesive contract form, dependence of the signing party on the contract for security, expectation of immediate signature without opportunity to ask questions, time constraints that compromise the opportunity to read carefully, and obscure or dense language.

Each of the five Kho procedural-deficiency categories is present in the 4/25/2024 transmission to the plaintiff: (i) adhesive contract form — California Association of Realtors RLMM 12/23 industry-standard form, no opportunity to negotiate structural terms; (ii) housing-dependency pressure — the plaintiff and his wife were in their third year of residency at 19235 Brynn Court; the realistic Orange County relocation timeline (locating an alternative residence, executing a lease, scheduling a move) is materially longer than 5 days; the plaintiff was therefore dependent on signing within the window in order to retain housing security; (iii) immediate-signature expectation — the Authentisign workflow is designed for prompt electronic signature without the prolonged review cycle of a paper instrument; (iv) time constraint — one full weekend of review time before housing insecurity would attach; (v) licensee-layperson asymmetry — Mr. Le is a licensed California Real Estate Broker examined on the DRE Reference Book; the plaintiff is a retired school administrator with no real estate professional training. Each procedural-deficiency category is documentary, not testimonial.

Substantive deficiencies that compound on the Kho sliding scale: (i) the “renewal” characterization that, under DRE Reference Book Ch. 9, created a new and distinct tenancy without §1950.5(g) accounting (Count XIV); (ii) the term misrepresentation — Mr. Le represented the instrument as a “one year” lease in SMS and Authentisign description, while the term recital on the executed instrument runs June 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 = 13 months, not 12; (iii) rent payable to Mr. Le’s personal Wells Fargo account #3312943297, not to a corporate brokerage trust account, at a moment when Mr. Le’s broker-license attachment to Springdale Marina Inc. was scheduled to detach effective May 13, 2024 (Count IV); (iv) addition of a new $1,000 pet deposit category collected at signing without the procedural payment window addressed at Count XVI.

The plaintiff alleges that the procedural deficiencies of the 4/25/2024 transmission, considered alone or in combination with the substantive deficiencies above, sit within the Kho sliding-scale unconscionability framework as raised by qualified counsel. No finding has been made.

The closed list. California Civil Code §1950.5(b)(1)–(4) sets out a closed list of four enumerated purposes for which a residential security deposit may be applied: (1) compensation for default in payment of rent; (2) repair of damages exclusive of ordinary wear and tear caused by the tenant; (3) cleaning of the premises upon termination necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness as at the inception of the tenancy; (4) to remedy future defaults in any obligation to restore, replace, or return personal property or appurtenances per the rental agreement. Attorney fees are NOT enumerated. §1950.5(e) operatively confines deductions to “those amounts as are reasonably necessary for the purposes specified in subdivision (b).” Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738 reinforces the consumer-protective construction of the statute.

The accounting failure on termination of the 2022 tenancy. When the 4/26/2024 instrument took effect on June 1, 2024, the 2022 tenancy terminated by operation of Mr. Le’s own renewal characterization (Count XIV). §1950.5(g) requires the landlord, within 21 days of termination of a tenancy, to either: (a) return the security deposit; (b) render an itemized accounting and refund the balance; or (c) transfer the deposit to the successor in interest with written notice to the tenant identifying the transfer, the holder, and the addresses and telephone numbers of the successors in interest. None of the three §1950.5(g) options was satisfied at the termination of the 2022 tenancy. No accounting was rendered. No 21-day refund was issued. No written transfer notice in the form required by §1950.5(g) was delivered. The 2022 deposits ($5,000 security + $375 keys/openers = $5,375) were silently carried over into the 4/26/2024 recital, with a new $1,000 pet deposit category added on top.

The pet deposit and the procedural payment window. A separate procedural issue attaches to the new $1,000 pet deposit. California practitioner consensus on additional deposits collected at renewal (Azibo, et al.) recognizes that where a renewal-period deposit is added because of a tenant-modification — for instance, the addition of pets — the landlord must provide at least three months for the tenant to pay the additional amount. Mr. Le collected the $1,000 pet deposit at signing on April 26, 2024 (per the lease recital). No three-month payment window was provided.

Note on Cal. Civ. Code §1950.5(c) deposit cap. The plaintiff does not deploy the AB 12 one-month-cap argument against the 4/26/2024 instrument. AB 12 §1950.5(c)’s one-month deposit cap is effective July 1, 2024, with the carve-out at §1950.5(c)(5): “This subdivision shall not apply to a security collected or demanded by the landlord before July 1, 2024.” The 4/26/2024 instrument was executed on April 27, 2024 and commenced June 1, 2024 — both dates before the AB 12 effective date. The deposits as recited fall within the prior two-month cap as a matter of arithmetic. The procedural §1950.5(g) accounting failure on termination of the 2022 tenancy and the missing three-month window for the new pet deposit are independent procedural violations that operate without reference to the cap analysis.

The Move-Out Clearance Report applied against the Gasio tenancy. The Move-Out Clearance Report ultimately applied against the plaintiff’s security deposit on August 5, 2024 (DocuSign Envelope F5D247C2) was the firm-distributed Steven D. Silverstein template carrying a pre-printed Attorney Fees line on the CHARGES side — a deduction outside the §1950.5(b) closed list. The downstream propagation footprint of that template across California’s limited civil calendars is examined at the Propagation Inquiry. The keystone executed instance is examined at the §1950.5 Form Hub. Mr. Le’s role in the Gasio matter was to bring the firm-distributed template into operative application against the plaintiff’s deposit. No finding has been made. Reported to the Department of Real Estate.