The Cure Tender
A documented sequence: a habitability complaint unaddressed for over two months, a lawful tenant repair under California Civil Code § 1942, and a cashier’s check tendering the lawful net rent — sent by USPS Certified Mail and acknowledged by the Court.
This section presents the documented chain of events between the report of a broken dishwasher in March 2024 and the cashier’s check tendered to the broker on May 28, 2024 — twenty-four days before the Three-Day Notice was served.
Each stage below is anchored to a primary document. The arithmetic of the cure tender is shown explicitly. The Court’s own minute order acknowledging the tender appears at the close of this section.
The dishwasher chronology
March 5, 2024 — Dishwasher failure reported to owner
Plaintiffs notified the owner that the dishwasher had failed. The dishwasher was the same appliance that had been found inoperable at move-in in May 2022 and had been the subject of an earlier email exchange in May 2022 referencing a burnt electrical outlet under the sink shared by the dishwasher.
April 18, 2024 — Broker and technician unable to repair
Hanson Le, listing agent and incoming property manager, attended the property with a handyman/technician. Text exchange the same afternoon (5:25 PM) confirms attendance: “Hello Mike, There is some delay due to additional works handyman need to fix, We will come between 6–6:30pm. Is it ok? Thanks Mike!” The dishwasher was not repaired during this visit.
April 26, 2024 — Broker promises new dishwasher in writing
On the same day the new lease was executed, Hanson Le sent a text containing the following commitment:
I will do my best to help you to have nice peaceful house to live & enjoy.
I will get the owner approval to have a new dishwasher installed for you & your family usage.
This commitment was made on broker letterhead capacity, on the same day the broker also asked the tenant to redirect rent payments to the broker’s personal Wells Fargo account (see Section 5).
On or about late April / early May 2024 — Owner’s response: towel bars
In a telephone conversation following the April 26 written promise, Hanson Le informed the plaintiff that the owner had not approved a new dishwasher and had instead offered to install towel bars in the property.
Plaintiff thereafter wrote directly to the owner, characterizing the binary plainly: either the owner had refused the new dishwasher (in which case the broker’s prior written promise had been overridden), or the broker was misrepresenting the owner’s position. The owner did not respond in writing denying the broker’s representation. Under California Evidence Code § 1221 (adoptive admission), a party’s silence in the face of a statement that, if untrue, the party would naturally deny may be received in evidence as an admission.
In a subsequent text exchange between plaintiff and Hanson Le during this same period, the broker stated: “I have to get the owner approval first for big expenses, find right product, and place order” — consistent with the broker’s position that the owner had withheld approval for the dishwasher replacement.
May 11, 2024 — Plaintiff writes owner regarding unresolved condition
Plaintiff wrote the owner inquiring on the dishwasher repair status and addressing the need for active property management following Hanson Le’s reduced involvement.
May 13, 2024 — Broker withdrew from management role
Hanson Le sent text from the “Property Manager” line at 3:50 PM:
I am no longer handling or managing this property from today 5/13/24024.
Please remove my phone and email from all of your communications.
For all matters related to this house, please contact the owner directly.
Thanks,
Hanson
This withdrawal occurred 12 days after the new lease commenced on May 1, 2024. The broker withdrew without resolving the dishwasher condition that he had committed to address in writing on April 26.
The lawful repair and the cure tender
May 15, 2024 — Plaintiffs purchased replacement dishwasher
Plaintiffs purchased a replacement dishwasher from The Home Depot for delivery to 19235 Brynn Court. Order details:
Order confirmation was emailed to gasio77@yahoo.com. Delivery address: Michael Gasio, 19235 Brynn Ct, Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
This purchase was an exercise of the tenant repair-and-deduct remedy under California Civil Code § 1942, which permits a tenant to make necessary repairs after the landlord fails to do so within a reasonable time after notice and to deduct the cost from rent (up to one month’s rent). The dishwasher had been reported broken on March 5, 2024 — over ten weeks earlier.
May 28, 2024 — Cashier’s check obtained for the lawful net rent
Plaintiffs obtained a cashier’s check in the amount of $4,338.48, dated May 28, 2024, payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices. The amount represents the contractual rent of $5,350 for May 2024 less the documented dishwasher repair under Civil Code § 1942:
The cashier’s check was made payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices — the broker named on the executed lease as receiving rent on behalf of the owner. The check was sent in four 1-pound packages via USPS Certified Mail. Each package included documentation of the dishwasher repair, including the Home Depot invoice.
May 30, 2024 — USPS Certified Mail delivered and signed for
USPS Tracking #9534914882764149935944 confirmed delivery at 3:43 PM in Huntington Beach 92649 (the ZIP code of the Berkshire Hathaway California Properties office at 5848 Edinger Ave, Huntington Beach). Status: “Delivered, Left with Individual.” Signed for by “H H.”
The cashier’s check and accompanying documentation were therefore in the possession of an individual at Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices on May 30, 2024 — twenty-two days before the Three-Day Notice was served on June 21, 2024.
Documentation in possession of the owner
Independently of the certified mailing to the broker, plaintiffs provided the owner directly with images of the cashier’s check and the Home Depot receipts. The owner accepted these documents and used them in connection with his own tax records.
As of the date the Three-Day Notice was prepared and served (June 21, 2024), the owner therefore had in his own possession the documentation establishing both (i) the tendered cashier’s check and (ii) the dishwasher purchase that anchored the deduction. The notice nonetheless demanded the gross $5,350 as if neither document existed.
The Court’s acknowledgment
On March 27, 2025, after taking the matter under submission, Commissioner Carmen D. Snuggs-Spraggins of Department C61 issued an Under Submission Ruling. The Court’s findings expressly acknowledged the cashier’s check tender:
The cashier’s check was therefore tendered, certified-mailed, signed for at delivery, documented to the owner directly, and finally entered into the Court’s own findings. The funds reflected on the check were not credited to the rent account. The check was not returned with an explanation of why it could not be applied. The Three-Day Notice issued twenty-four days after the check was sent demanded the gross amount as if the tender had not occurred.