I.The Documented Rate and the Represented Rate

The contractual monthly rent rate at 19235 Brynn Ct is a question of documentary fact, not of parties' representation at trial. Three independent records establish it: the Wells Fargo wire-transfer history, the Move-Out Clearance Report executed under DocuSign envelope F5D247C2 on August 5, 2024, and the lease itself. All three converge on a single figure.

A. Fifteen consecutive wires at $5,000.00

From January 23, 2023 through April 19, 2024, every monthly rent payment from defendant to "PHAT L TRAN /BNF=Phat Tran" was $5,000.00. Fifteen consecutive months. No deviation in amount, in payee designation, or in transmission channel.

WELLS FARGO WIRE HISTORY — RENT TO PHAT L TRAN
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
  01/23/2023   WT SEQ#64628    $5,000.00
  02/27/2023   WT SEQ#29091    $5,000.00
  03/20/2023   WT SEQ#111061   $5,000.00
  05/22/2023   WT SEQ#72227    $5,000.00
  06/20/2023   WT SEQ#201747   $5,000.00
  07/20/2023   WT SEQ#22795    $5,000.00
  08/18/2023   WT SEQ#164891   $5,000.00
  09/20/2023   WT SEQ#64077    $5,000.00
  10/20/2023   WT SEQ#60263    $5,000.00
  11/20/2023   WT SEQ#100278   $5,000.00
  12/19/2023   WT SEQ#76628    $5,000.00
  01/22/2024   WT SEQ#76609    $5,000.00
  02/20/2024   WT SEQ#165518   $5,000.00
  03/20/2024   WT SEQ#89675    $5,000.00
  04/19/2024   WT SEQ#140387   $5,000.00   ← last $5,000 wire on record
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
  06/28/2024   WT SEQ#239798   $5,350.00   ← only non-$5,000 wire;
                                          post-cure-window
                                          extracted payment

B. The Move-Out Clearance Report confirms $5,000 on its face

The Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign envelope F5D247C2-A1A9-4991-B91F-6A333347A87D), executed August 5, 2024 and bearing the residents' names Michael A. Gasio and Yulia S. Gasio, recites in its header:

Rent Amount ($5,000/mo.) Move-Out Clearance Report · DocuSign F5D247C2 · 8/5/2024

The figure is not in dispute on the form prepared and transmitted by the landlord's side.

C. The minute order recites a different rate

The minute order of March 27, 2025 recites, on its first substantive finding of fact:

Plaintiff established the parties entered into a lease agreement whereby defendant agreed to rent the subject premises for a rental amount of $5,350 per month beginning June 1, 2024. Minute Order · Dept C61 · Comm. Snuggs-Spraggins · 3/27/2025

The figure used in the minute order — $5,350 — is $350 higher per month than the rate documented across fifteen consecutive wires and confirmed by the landlord-side Move-Out Clearance Report. The gap is approximately seven percent.

D. The April 19, 2024 wire memo — a documentary statement of the new-lease rate

The final $5,000 wire in the sequence set out in Section I.A bears, on the face of the bank instrument itself, a memorandum line transmitted to the recipient's bank along with the funds. The memo is a documentary statement of the contractual terms — recorded by the sending bank, recorded by the receiving bank, and preserved in the Federal Reserve clearing record.

Within minutes of the wire confirmation, the recipient transmitted to defendant a single-line acknowledgment text:

All right 👍 From: Phat Tran · To: Michael Gasio · Friday, April 19, 2024 · 11:53 AM Pacific Time

The acknowledgment is operative on the face of the record. The recipient's response to the new-lease wire was not silence, not objection, and not return of funds — it was affirmative acceptance, transmitted on the same morning the wire cleared.

Three propositions follow from the face of the instrument:

First, the memo specifies the contractual terms in two parts. "One payment at 5000" specifies the monetary term. "New lease 24" specifies the agreement being executed — a new lease for 2024, the third year of the tenancy that began in May 2022. The wire memo is, on its face, a confirmation memorandum of the contractual terms being performed.

Second, the recipient accepted the wire. Status: Completed. The wire was not returned, not flagged, and not contested at the bank-instrument level. Acceptance of payment under stated terms, without objection, is conduct from which assent to those terms may be inferred.

Third, the acceptance is recorded in regulated bank channels. A wire transfer is a federally-regulated bank instrument. The memo travels with the funds and is preserved in the sending bank's records, the receiving bank's records, and the Federal Reserve clearing record. The instrument is not subject to unilateral revision by either party after acceptance.

The $5,000 figure stated in the memo is not new on April 19, 2024 — it is the established rate carried across the fifteen-wire history set out in Section I.A. The new-lease memo confirms continuity of the rate across the lease renewal.

E. The June 28, 2024 wire — the demand correspondence, the recipient's cure-window acknowledgment, and the same-day characterization

The sixteenth and final wire on the record diverges from the established pattern. On June 28, 2024 — within the cure window of the Three-Day Notice served June 21, 2024 — defendant transmitted a wire of $5,350 to a personal Wells Fargo account of the recipient (Phat L. Tran), outside the lease-specified payment channel. The wire was not made in voluntary adjustment of the rate. It was made against a documentary background, preserved in text correspondence, that establishes (i) the recipient's pre-cure-window demand for both a new rate and a new payment account, and (ii) the recipient's cure-window text acknowledging that defendant had already paid the rent to the lease-specified Hanson Le account.

1. The pre-cure-window demand correspondence

In the correspondence preceding the cure window, the recipient transmitted to defendant the following demand text:

— start date: 6/1/2024
— rent rate: $5,350/month
Also what bank do you use? So I can provide you my bank account number From: Phat Tran · To: Michael Gasio · pre-cure-window correspondence

Two operative facts appear on the face of this text:

First, the recipient asserts a new rate ($5,350/month) and a new start date (6/1/2024). The text proposes a new contractual term, not a continuation of the established $5,000/month rate documented across the fifteen-wire history in Section I.A and confirmed by the recipient's "All right 👍" acknowledgment of the April 19, 2024 new-lease wire in Section I.D.

Second, the recipient asks for defendant's bank so he can provide a new account number — i.e., a rerouting of payment off the lease-specified channel (Wells Fargo, NAME: HANSON LE, ACCOUNT #: 3312943297, DIRECT DEPOSIT) and onto a different account controlled by the recipient personally. The June 28, 2024 wire that follows is the consummation of this rerouting demand.

Defendant's responding text — transmitted to the same recipient in the same exchange — reflects the contemporaneous understanding that the rate change was framed as a new-paperwork transition rather than as a unilateral increase:

We are filling out new paper work understand one at old lease 5000 then new payment 5350 I want keep moving earl… From: Michael Gasio · To: Phat Tran · pre-cure-window correspondence · text continues beyond captured frame

The contemplated transition — old lease at $5,000, new paperwork at $5,350 — never crossed into a signed instrument. No new lease was executed. No rent-increase notice satisfying California Civil Code § 827 was served by the recipient. The April 19, 2024 new-lease wire memo continued to govern the contractual relationship through the Move-Out Clearance Report of August 5, 2024, which itself recites "$5,000/mo." on its header.

2. The cure-window acknowledgment text

The Three-Day Notice was served on June 21, 2024. Within the cure window that followed, the recipient transmitted to defendant the following text, in full:

Hi Michael, sorry I didnt know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account, I just texted him to find out. You mentioned From: Phat Tran · To: Michael Gasio · during cure window of the June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice

Four admissions appear on the face of this single sentence, from the recipient himself:

First, "sorry I didn't know" — admission of the recipient's own prior ignorance, volunteered to defendant unprompted within the cure window.

Second, "you did pay" — affirmative acknowledgment that the payment was made. Not "you claim," not "you say" — you did. The recipient declares the payment as fact, not as defendant's assertion.

Third, "to the Hanson account" — specific identification of the lease-specified payment channel. The reference is to Wells Fargo, NAME: HANSON LE, ACCOUNT #: 3312943297, the DIRECT DEPOSIT channel established on the executed lease for routine rent transmission.

Fourth, "I just texted him to find out" — admission that the recipient was contacting his own agent (Hanson Le) to verify the payment, after learning of it from the tenant. The recipient documents, in his own words, the agency relationship under which the payment was received.

Any subsequent representation by the recipient — in any forum — that the payment to the Hanson account was not received contradicts this text on every operative element. The recipient confirmed the cure tender by his own text, to defendant, during the cure window, before any subsequent litigation step was taken.

3. The wire

Defendant's state of mind at the moment of transmission, on the documentary record: the recipient had acknowledged — by his own cure-window text — that defendant had already paid the rent to the lease-specified Hanson account, had then demanded an alternative payment by telephone to a personal account, and had thereby represented, by conduct and acknowledgment, that the demanded payment would resolve the cure window. Defendant transmitted the wire understanding the matter resolved.

4. The 2 PM email — same-day characterization

Approximately two hours after the wire submission, defendant transmitted an email to Huntington Beach Police with the following subject line and addressing:

HB Police question 2 PM wire July as demanded Counterfeiting, Robbery, Extortion Fraud Your receipt is #0W0004652829145 From: Michael Gasio <gasio77@yahoo.com> · To: Phat Tran, Helder Pinheiro · 6/28/2024

The 2 PM email reflects defendant's contemporaneous recognition that the demand had not resolved the matter — that the recipient had retained both the prior tender to the Hanson account and the demanded wire to the personal account, and would proceed with the unlawful-detainer cause of action notwithstanding both. The email serves three documentary functions on the face of the record:

First, notice to the recipient of the characterization. Phat Tran is personally addressed on the email. He was put on notice — within hours of the wire's acceptance — that the sender characterized the demand as fraudulent. The notice predates every subsequent litigation step in the case record, including the July 3, 2024 Complaint for Unlawful Detainer.

Second, preservation against voluntary-acknowledgment framing. The wire cannot be characterized as a voluntary acknowledgment of a $5,350 monthly rate. The transmission was induced, on the same-day documentary record, by an off-contract telephone demand and by the recipient's cure-window text confirming that the rent had already been paid to the Hanson account. The inducement is documentary; it does not depend on credibility determinations.

Third, witness corroboration. Helder Pinheiro is on the email as a paper-trail witness, consistent with defendant's established practice of keeping a contemporaneous witness on critical communications in this matter.

The June 28, 2024 wire is the only non-$5,000 entry in the sixteen-wire history. It is also the only wire (i) transmitted to a personal account on telephone demand outside the lease-specified Hanson Le channel, (ii) preceded by a recipient text affirming the rent had already been paid to that lease-specified channel, and (iii) followed by same-day police notification. None of these facts is independent of the others.

II.The Move-Out Clearance Report — The Anchor That Was Carried to the Courtroom

The Move-Out Clearance Report ("MOR") is a single-page form prepared by the landlord's side and transmitted via DocuSign for execution on August 5, 2024 — the day defendant surrendered possession. The MOR tallies the move-out reconciliation: credits against the deposit, charges, and the balance the form contends is due. Its arithmetic, as recited on the form, is the following.

A. The structure of the demand

MOVE-OUT CLEARANCE REPORT — DocuSign F5D247C2
Executed 8/5/2024 · Residents: Michael A. Gasio, Yulia S. Gasio
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CREDITS
  Security Deposit ............................... $  5,000.00
  Other Deposit .................................. $  1,375.00
  Total Credits ................................. $  6,375.00

CHARGES
  Rent Amount ($5,000/mo.) Rent Owed ............ $ 10,833.00
  Repair (replace carpet — dog pee, attached
    invoice) ..................................... $  7,835.00
  Other (front door lock replaced) ............... $    250.00
  Attorney Fees .................................. $  2,005.00
  Total Charges ................................. $ 20,923.00

  Less Security Deposit Credit ................... $- 6,375.00
  Total Due (demanded of defendant) ............. $ 14,548.00
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Rent Paid Through:           5/01/2024
  Vacated:                     8/05/2024

Two features of this anchor structure warrant attention.

First, the "Rent Owed" line of $10,833 reverse-engineers cleanly at the form's own header rate. At $5,000 per month, $10,833 equals approximately 2.17 months — May 2024, June 2024, and roughly five days of July 2024. The same form recites "Rent Paid Through: 5/01/2024," confirming April 2024 and prior were paid. The MOR therefore claims rent for May + June + 5 days of July at the $5,000 rate stated on the form's own header.

Second, the deposit-credit operation on the MOR applies the $6,375 against the inflated total of $20,923 — not against any reduced figure. Under the form's own arithmetic, the deposit retention is justified by the full set of claimed charges, including the $7,835 carpet line, the $250 lock line, and the $2,005 attorney-fee line.

B. The "carpet replacement" line — what the attached invoice actually documents

The MOR cites an "attached invoice" in support of the $7,835 carpet line. The attached invoice is from Ly Construction (License #1068334, Bond #GCL5928963, salesperson "Dave Ly," checks payable to "David Ly"), dated August 14, 2024. The invoice's line items, summed, total $7,837 — approximately the figure carried into the MOR. The invoice's actual scope of work, however, is not carpet replacement.

LY CONSTRUCTION INVOICE #2412 — 8/14/2024
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Remove carpet and underpad — Labor ............ $    900.00
  Carpet trash disposal — Labor .................. $    200.00
  950 sqft vinyl — Material ($2/sqft) ............ $  1,900.00
  Install 950 sqft vinyl — Labor ................. $  2,175.00
  Stairnose for stairs — Material (14 × $23) .... $    322.00
  Stairnose installation — Labor (14 × $110) .... $  1,540.00
  Paint and install 2nd floor basemolding ........ $    800.00
  ─────────────────────────────────────────────
  TOTAL ......................................... $  7,837.00

The flooring was changed from carpet to vinyl. The MOR's narrative on the corresponding charge line — "Replace carpet due to dog pee bad smell" — does not describe what the attached invoice documents. A material substitution from carpet to vinyl is a flooring change, not a like-for-like restoration.

Civil Code § 1950.5(b) limits security-deposit deductions to (i) unpaid rent, (ii) repair of damage exclusive of ordinary wear and tear, (iii) cleaning necessary to return the unit to the same level of cleanliness it was in at the inception of the tenancy, and (iv) restoration of personal property and appurtenances exclusive of ordinary wear and tear. A flooring upgrade is not among the enumerated permissible uses.

C. The chronology of the carpet line

The MOR is dated August 5, 2024. The Ly Construction invoice supporting the $7,835 charge is dated August 14, 2024 — nine days later. The MOR's recital "attached invoice" therefore references a document that, at the recited execution date, did not yet exist in the form ultimately produced.

Possible explanations include (i) the work was pre-arranged and the figure pre-known to the landlord side before invoicing, (ii) the MOR's executed date does not correspond to the date the figure was inserted, or (iii) the figure was an estimate populated before any invoice existed. Each explanation is subject to documentary verification: the DocuSign Certificate of Completion for envelope F5D247C2 fixes the actual completion timestamp of each signature on the MOR.

D. The claims survived the pleadings — and were dropped on the record

The carpet line ($7,835), the lock line ($250), and the inflated attorney-fee line ($2,005) were not pre-trial concessions. They were carried into the courtroom on the strength of the MOR's recitals, demanded in courthouse hallway exchanges, and abandoned only at the final trial appearance.

The on-record sequence at the final appearance, as defendant recalls it on the record (the operative source is the Dept C61 digital audio per CCP § 1161.2(a)(1)(A), recoverable on transcript order from Dept C61):

The on-record drop was sequenced to defendant's evidence question. The court's "Yes, you were" overruled plaintiff's counsel's attempt to interrupt defendant's record. Plaintiff's counsel then announced the drop and characterized it as a favor to defendant. The exact transcript wording is recoverable from Dept C61 once the trial transcript is ordered; the documentary indicator on the face of the judgment is that the carpet and lock items appear nowhere in the judgment line items, and the attorney-fee figure was reduced by approximately 75 percent.

E. The trial outcome on the items

MOR ANCHOR VS. JUDGMENT OUTCOME
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
                          MOR claim    Court award   Disposition
  Carpet replacement:    $  7,835      $       0     abandoned
  Front door lock:       $    250      $       0     abandoned
  Attorney Fees:         $  2,005      $     500     −$1,505 (75%)
                          ───────       ─────
  Total reduction
  on these three items:                              $9,590

As share of MOR's $20,923 total charges:           ~46%

The deposit was retained against the inflated MOR total for approximately six months between the August 5, 2024 MOR date and the final trial appearance in early 2025. Counsel did not defend the carpet line, the lock line, or the full attorney-fee line in open court. The deposit-retention justification rested, in substantial part, on claims that were not adjudicated at the only forum that could have adjudicated them.

III.The Rejected Clerk-of-Court Tender and the Joint-Payee Instrument

After judgment, defendant tendered the judgment amount twice. The first tender was rejected by the issuing bank as non-negotiable when the Court declined to accept the payment as deposited; the second tender was structured as a joint-payee instrument and shipped via UPS. Both checks were marked "PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST" — a California-recognized notation that preserves the right to challenge the underlying obligation.

A. First tender — to the Clerk of the Court

The first tender was returned. The lawful channel for satisfaction of an unlawful-detainer money judgment is payment to the judgment creditor, not deposit with the Clerk of Court. The rejection itself is documentary: the bank's voided "NON-NEGOTIABLE" stamp across the face of the instrument preserves the attempted tender as a matter of record.

B. Second tender — to plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, joint payees

The second instrument is a joint-payee cashier's check. The instrument is not negotiable by one payee alone; both named payees must endorse for the instrument to clear. By accepting and processing the check, plaintiff's counsel received custody of the funds within the scope of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping Funds and Property of Clients and Third Persons), which requires a lawyer who receives funds in which a client or third person has an interest to:

• promptly notify the third person of the receipt;
• maintain the funds in a client trust account; and
• promptly deliver to the third person any funds the third person is entitled to receive.

The amount the third person (defendant) is entitled to receive depends on the relationship between the amount tendered ($5,338.48) and the amount lawfully owed under the judgment — a question addressed in Section IV.

IV.The Math on the Face of the Minute Order

The minute order of March 27, 2025 contains two internal arithmetic discrepancies. Each is verifiable on the face of the order without recourse to extrinsic evidence. The recited figures, the recited subtotals, and the recited final judgment do not reconcile.

A. The components do not sum to the recited subtotal

MINUTE ORDER COMPONENT MATH — RENT COMPONENTS
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Past due rent (1 month):                       $  5,350.00
  Holdover damages (Jul 1, 2024 — Jul 31, 2024): $  5,530.00
  ───────────────────────────────────────        ──────────
  Components sum to:                             $ 10,880.00

Order recites subtotal as:                     $ 10,700.00

Discrepancy:                                   $    180.00

B. The subtotal less the deposit credit does not equal the recited principal

MINUTE ORDER PRINCIPAL MATH
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Order's stated subtotal:                       $ 10,700.00
  Less security deposit credit:                  $- 6,375.00
  ───────────────────────────────────────        ──────────
  Arithmetic principal:                          $  4,325.00

Order recites principal as:                    $  3,325.00

Discrepancy:                                   $  1,000.00

C. The face judgment

MINUTE ORDER FACE JUDGMENT
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  Recited principal:                             $  3,325.00
  Plus prejudgment costs:                        $    500.00
  Plus attorney's fees:                          $    500.00
  ───────────────────────────────────────        ──────────
  Face judgment as recited:                      $  4,325.00

Using the arithmetically-derived principal ($4,325) instead
of the recited principal ($3,325):
  Arithmetic principal + $500 + $500 =           $  5,325.00

D. The embedded rate inflation, computed independently

Even before reaching the math discrepancies, the rent components themselves embed the $5,350-versus-$5,000 rate gap identified in Section I. Computing the same components at the documented rate:

RATE-INFLATION CASCADE INTO THE COMPONENTS
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
                            At $5,000/mo    At $5,350/mo    Embedded
  Past due rent (1 mo):     $  5,000.00     $  5,350.00     $   350.00
  Holdover (31 days at
   monthly ÷ 30):           $  5,166.67     $  5,530.00     $   363.33
  ─────────────────────       ──────────      ──────────      ─────────
  Components subtotal:      $ 10,166.67     $ 10,880.00     $   713.33

V.The Bad-Faith Retention Framework Under Civil Code § 1950.5(l)

California Civil Code § 1950.5 governs security deposits in residential tenancies. The statute imposes a definitional structure, a use-restriction structure, a procedural-return structure, and a remedies structure. The portion most directly engaged by the documentary record set out above is subdivision (l), the bad-faith retention provision.

A. The statutory text

The bad faith claim or retention by a landlord or the landlord's successors in interest of the security or any portion thereof in violation of this section, or the bad faith demand of replacement security in violation of subdivision (j), may subject the landlord or the landlord's successors in interest to statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages. The court may award damages for bad faith whenever the facts warrant that award, regardless of whether the injured party has specifically requested relief. In an action under this section, the landlord or the landlord's successors in interest shall have the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of the amounts claimed or the authority pursuant to this section to demand additional security deposits. California Civil Code § 1950.5(l)

B. The controlling authority — Granberry v. Islay Investments

The California Supreme Court in Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738 held that within three weeks after termination of the tenancy a landlord must return the security deposit and provide a written accounting of any portion retained as compensation for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning. A landlord retains the right to set off against the deposit for unpaid rent, repairs, and cleaning — but bears the burden of proving the damages by a preponderance of the evidence at an evidentiary hearing. The good-faith availability of setoff does not displace the statutory burden of proof or the bad-faith damages provision; it limits only the timing-penalty consequences of non-return.

C. The application of the framework to the documentary record

The documentary record set out in Section II reflects:

• a Move-Out Clearance Report claiming $20,923 in charges and retaining the $6,375 deposit in full against those charges;
• a carpet line of $7,835 supported by an invoice that documents flooring substitution rather than the cited carpet replacement, and dated nine days after the MOR's execution;
• a lock line of $250 supported by no documentation in the record produced;
• an attorney-fee line of $2,005, approximately quadruple the figure the court ultimately allowed;
• on-record abandonment of the carpet and lock charges at the final trial appearance, sequenced to defendant's evidentiary question;
• court reduction of the attorney-fee claim from $2,005 to $500 — a 75-percent reduction; and
• continued retention of the full deposit notwithstanding the abandonment and reductions.

The framework's burden-of-proof allocation places on the landlord the obligation to demonstrate that retained amounts were reasonable. The on-record abandonment of the carpet and lock charges means counsel did not undertake to satisfy that burden as to those amounts. The court's reduction of the attorney-fee claim means the higher figure was not supported as to that amount. The deposit retention is, on the documentary record, anchored in part on amounts that were never carried through to adjudication.

D. The procedural posture

A § 1950.5(l) bad-faith retention claim is a tenant's affirmative claim. It is not adjudicated sua sponte in an unlawful detainer action whose scope is limited to possession and back rent. The deposit functions in a UD action as a credit applied against the landlord's affirmative claim — not as a transaction subject to good-faith review in its own right. The § 1950.5(l) cause of action accordingly survives the underlying UD judgment and remains available for adjudication in:

• small claims court (CCP § 116.220, jurisdictional cap $12,500 as of January 1, 2024);
• limited civil action filed as a stand-alone case;
• as documentary context in the agency files identified in the pending submissions below.

E. The wire-memo overlay and the induced-transmission record

The bad-faith retention framework operates on the deposit retention itself. The documentary record set out in Section I.D and Section I.E adds two further observational facts to the evidentiary baseline against which the framework runs.

First, the April 19, 2024 wire memo establishes the rate as $5,000 in a documentary statement transmitted through the bank-instrument channel and accepted by the recipient without objection or return. Any subsequent representation of a different rate, in any forum, exists in tension with the recipient's own acceptance of the wire memo. The tension is documentary, observable on the face of the records, and not dependent on credibility determinations.

Second, the June 28, 2024 wire of $5,350 was transmitted in response to an off-contract telephone demand made during the cure window, contemporaneous with the recipient's cure-window text affirming, in his own words, that defendant had already paid the rent to the lease-specified Hanson Le account (Wells Fargo, NAME: HANSON LE, ACCOUNT #: 3312943297). The wire is therefore not available as evidence of voluntary acknowledgment of the higher rate. It is available, on the documentary record, only as evidence of an induced transmission — characterized within hours by the sender as the subject of police inquiry, with the recipient personally addressed and a witness on the addressing line.

These two overlays do not by themselves establish bad-faith retention under § 1950.5(l). They are observational facts. The framework's burden of proof is on the landlord; the documentary record described above sets the evidentiary baseline against which that burden runs. The procedural recommendation that follows from the combination of Section II (the dropped charges) and Sections I.D and I.E (the wire-memo overlay) is preservation of the documentary record across the bank channels, the email channels, and the case ROA — each of which is independently retrievable from a regulated or court-administered source.

VI.Open Documentary Questions

The investigative posture of this page is open. The following questions are presented for review. Each is documentary — answerable on production of the underlying record from the source identified.

Open Question 1 · Satisfaction of Judgment

Whether plaintiff has filed a Satisfaction of Judgment in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC following the April 22, 2025 tender of $5,338.48. If filed, the recited amount of satisfaction is a documentary fact obtainable from the case ROA. If not filed, Code of Civil Procedure § 724.050 establishes the procedure for demand and the consequences of non-compliance, including a $100 penalty plus actual damages and attorney's fees recoverable by the judgment debtor.

Open Question 2 · Endorsement order on the joint-payee instrument

Whether the back side of Cashier's Check #0084412016 reflects endorsement by both joint payees (PHAT K. TRAN and STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN). The sequence and identity of endorsers, the depositing account, and the date of deposit are documentary facts retrievable from the issuing bank's negotiated-instrument record.

Open Question 3 · Distribution of proceeds

The allocation of the $5,338.48 proceeds between the joint payees, and whether any portion was held in a client trust account in compliance with California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.15. The relevant records are the depository account record and counsel's client trust account ledger entries for this matter.

Open Question 4 · DocuSign timestamps on envelope F5D247C2

The actual completion timestamps for each signature on the Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign envelope F5D247C2-A1A9-4991-B91F-6A333347A87D). The DocuSign Certificate of Completion fixes the moment each party signed; comparison of those timestamps to the August 5, 2024 recited date on the MOR and to the August 14, 2024 invoice date on Ly Construction #2412 is documentary.

Open Question 5 · The Gasio trial transcript

The Dept C61 digital audio record is the operative trial record under CCP § 1161.2(a)(1)(A). The transcript is recoverable on direct order from Dept C61 and is necessary to fix the exact wording of the on-record exchange described in Section II.D.

VII.Questions Presented for Agency Review

Question A · Rent rate

Where fifteen consecutive Wells Fargo wire transfers from defendant to "PHAT L TRAN /BNF=Phat Tran" between January 23, 2023 and April 19, 2024 are each $5,000.00, where the final wire of that series carries the memorandum "New lease 24 one payment at 5000" transmitted with the funds through the bank-instrument channel and accepted by the recipient without objection or return, and where the Move-Out Clearance Report executed under DocuSign envelope F5D247C2 on August 5, 2024 recites the rent amount as $5,000/month on its header, what review framework applies to the representation at trial that "defendant agreed to rent the subject premises for a rental amount of $5,350 per month beginning June 1, 2024"?

Question B · The on-record drop

Where plaintiff's counsel carried into the courtroom claims of $7,835 for carpet replacement and $250 for a front door lock, and where those claims were abandoned on the record at the final trial appearance following defendant's question concerning the high-definition photographic evidence transmitted to counsel, and where the deposit retention had rested in substantial part on those claims for approximately six months prior, what bearing does the on-record abandonment have on the Civil Code § 1950.5(l) bad-faith analysis?

Question C · The joint-payee instrument

Where a post-judgment cashier's check for $5,338.48 is made payable jointly to PHAT K. TRAN AND STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN, and where the face judgment in the underlying minute order is $4,325 (and $5,325 if the order's recited subtotal is taken as controlling against its recited principal), what review framework applies under California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.15(d), to the duty owed by plaintiff's counsel to the third party (the judgment debtor) with respect to any portion of the funds exceeding the judgment?

Question D · The math on the face of the minute order

Where the minute order recites a subtotal of $10,700 from components ($5,350 + $5,530) that sum to $10,880, and where the order recites a principal of $3,325 from arithmetic ($10,700 − $6,375) that produces $4,325, what procedural framework — clerical correction under CCP § 473(d), order modification, or appellate review — is appropriate to the disposition of these facial discrepancies?

Question E · The § 1950.5(l) framework

Whether, on the documentary record presented above — including the carpet-line invoice that documents flooring substitution rather than the cited replacement, the chronology of MOR execution preceding the supporting invoice by nine days, the abandonment of charges on the trial record, the absence of any restitution to defendant for the dropped amounts, and the continued retention of the full deposit — the conduct described falls within the scope of the bad-faith retention provision of Civil Code § 1950.5(l) for purposes of agency review under California Business & Professions Code § 10145 (broker trust-fund handling, where applicable to the agent-of-record), § 10176, and § 10177.

Question F · The June 28, 2024 wire and the induced-transmission record

Where the June 28, 2024 wire of $5,350 (confirmation OW00004652829145) was made during the cure window of the June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice, in response to a telephone demand from the recipient directing payment to a personal Wells Fargo account outside the lease-specified payment channel, where the recipient had within the same cure window transmitted a text message to defendant affirming that defendant had already paid the rent to the lease-specified Hanson Le account (Wells Fargo, NAME: HANSON LE, ACCOUNT #: 3312943297) — the text reproduced in Section I.E above — and where the wire was followed approximately two hours after transmission by an email from defendant to Huntington Beach Police with the recipient (Phat Tran) and a witness (Helder Pinheiro) on the addressing line, what review framework applies to the use of that wire — by any party or in any forum — as evidence of voluntary acknowledgment of a $5,350/month rate?

gasiomirror.com · investigative documentation series

Published in connection with Gasio v. Tran et al., OCSC 30-2024-01410991-CL-UD-CJC, Dept C61, Commissioner Snuggs-Spraggins.
Companion pages: instrument-authorship.html · notice.html.