Court
Orange County Superior Court
The Predicate of the Tenancy’s End
The Ultimatum
On April 28, 2024, the continuation of a tenancy then in good standing was conditioned on the execution of a new instrument: sign the revised agreement — with rent redirected to the broker personally — or vacate. This page documents that condition as it was presented to the plaintiffs, not as anything they proposed.
Authentisign 46CC8725 · Apr 28, 2024 · 10:36 AM PT
The predicate event · upstream of the cure tender
No Finding Has Been Made
I
Overview — What this page documents
p. 01This page preserves the condition placed on the continuation of the tenancy on April 28, 2024: the tenancy would continue only upon execution of a new instrument, with vacating stated as the alternative. The record reflects that this comply-or-vacate condition was presented to the plaintiffs — not proposed by them.
The tenancy was in good standing. Rent had been paid early and continuously since May 2022 under an executed lease (Authentisign envelope E1408B26). The instrument introduced in late April 2024 did not address a default; it changed the party to whom rent was payable and conditioned the tenancy’s continuation on signing. This page documents the sequence by which that condition was presented, the term that changed, and the questions the change raises for counsel.
Why this page sits first in the chain. The condition documented here is the predicate event. The cure tender, the “Hanson has the check” message, and the second payment made under written protest all follow from it. Read this page before Cure Tender and “Hanson Has Check.”
II
The Sequence — April 26–28, 2024
p. 02The record reflects two iterations across a single weekend. The exchange was initiated on the broker side; the plaintiffs did not solicit a change of terms.
Iteration One · Friday, April 26, 2024
The exchange is initiated
On the morning of Friday, April 26, 2024, a text message from Anna Ly (DRE Broker #01894348 — believed to be a daughter of property owner Phat L.K. Tran; not independently verified) directed that the matter be handled by email. When the plaintiffs raised the deposits already held, the response indicated the amount could be carried into a new agreement. The exchange was opened on the broker side and did not exit at the plaintiffs’ request.
Source SMS thread, April 26, 2024, and the email exchange that followed; preserved in the case file. Wording is paraphrased pending review of the message exhibit.
Iteration Two · Sunday, April 28, 2024 · 10:36 AM PT
A revised agreement is executed
A revised agreement was executed through Authentisign, envelope 46CC8725, at 10:36 AM PT on Sunday, April 28, 2024. It carried a one-year term beginning June 1, 2024 at $5,350 per month, on forms (RLMM 12/23, Animal 6/23) more recent than those used in the operative 2022 lease. The revised instrument directed rent to a personal account — addressed in the next section.
Source Authentisign certificate, envelope 46CC8725, executed April 28, 2024; preserved in the case file.
III
The Changed Term — the party to whom rent was payable
p. 03Under the operative 2022 lease, rent was payable through the channel established at the outset of the tenancy. The revised instrument directed rent instead to Hanson Le personally — a licensed California real estate broker (DRE Broker #01358448, AKA Tri G Le). The destination was a personal account.
- Operative lease
- Authentisign envelope E1408B26 (2022) — rent payable through the established channel.
- Revised instrument
- Authentisign envelope 46CC8725 (Apr 28, 2024) — rent payable to H. Le personally.
- Destination
- A personal account of H. Le. The account identifier is held in the case file and is redacted here.
- Deposits on hand
- $6,375 ($5,000 security · $375 keys · $1,000 pet) carried forward as a continuation of sums already paid — not a new charge.
The destination account identifier is redacted on this public page consistent with the editorial policy of not publishing private financial identifiers. The complete reference is retained in the case file for court and agency use.
Question this raises. A licensed broker is subject to a trust-fund duty under California Business & Professions Code § 10145(a). Whether directing tenant rent to a broker’s personal account is consistent with that duty is a question presented below. No finding has been made.
IV
The Condition — the tenancy’s continuation, conditioned
p. 04The record reflects that continuation of the tenancy was offered only upon execution of the revised instrument, with vacating stated as the alternative. The tenancy was not in default; the condition was tied to signing new terms, not to curing any breach.
The proposition presented to the plaintiffs: execute the revised agreement on its new terms — including rent payable to the broker personally — or vacate. The plaintiffs’ position is that this comply-or-vacate condition was placed upon them. This page does not characterize the conduct; it presents the instrument, the date, and the term that changed.
What followed from this condition — the cashier’s check tendered within the cure window, the contemporaneous indication that the check was in the broker’s possession, and a second payment made under written protest — is documented in the pages cross-referenced below.
V
Question Presented — for counsel
p. 05These are questions for review by qualified counsel. The plaintiffs assert no legal conclusion. No finding has been made.
B&P § 10145(a)
Real estate broker trust-fund duty — handling of funds received on behalf of others.
Cal. Civ. Code § 1927
Covenant of quiet enjoyment of the leased premises.
- Whether an executed residential lease (E1408B26) may be superseded mid-term by a successor instrument that redirects rent to a broker’s personal account, consistent with the trust-fund duty attaching to a broker’s license under B&P § 10145(a).
- Whether conditioning the continuation of a tenancy in good standing on execution of new terms is consistent with the covenant of quiet enjoyment and with applicable notice requirements.
VI
Where This Sits in the Record
p. 06Downstream of the condition
The cure tender. A cashier’s check for $4,338.48 was mailed within the cure window; the funds were not credited to the rent account. See Cure Tender.
“Hanson has the check.” A contemporaneous message indicated the tendered check was in Hanson Le’s possession during the cure period. See “Hanson Has Check.”
The second payment, under protest. A further $5,350 was paid on June 28, 2024, memo “Unknown Contract — July 27 of 37,” after the same period’s rent had already been tendered. See Lease & Accounts.
The post-notice demand. The analysis of that second payment — sought after the notice issued, under threat to the home — against California extortion (Pen. Code § 518) is treated, for counsel, on The Post-Notice Demand. Question presented; no finding has been made.
VII
Instruments Referenced
p. 07- E1408B26
- 2022 master lease (operative). Predecessor envelope BF76EC2B was voided; Pet Addendum 5D80110C is a supplement to E1408B26, not a rewrite.
- 46CC8725
- Revised agreement, executed April 28, 2024, 10:36 AM PT — the instrument documented on this page.
- F5D247C2
- Move-Out Clearance Report, August 5, 2024 — downstream; cross-referenced, not the subject of this page.
- Destination account
- Personal account of H. Le — identifier redacted; retained in the case file.
VIII
Scope of This Section
p. 08Scope and methodology
- This page is anchored to executed instruments, bank records, and contemporaneous messages preserved in the case file and referenced by envelope and date. Quotations from recollection are not reproduced as verbatim; the reporter’s transcript, where it applies, governs and is pending.
- Relationships described as “believed to be” are not independently verified. The destination account identifier and other private financial identifiers are redacted on the public page. No adverse inference is drawn from any party’s silence or election not to respond (Cal. Evid. Code § 913).
- No statement on this page characterizes any individual as having committed a crime or breached a professional duty. Those determinations are reserved to qualified counsel, regulatory agencies, and the courts. The statutory references identify frameworks for analysis only. No finding has been made.