Over the past few years I have noticed several large unlawful detainer law firms are verifying the complaints of their clients. They do this because unlawful detainer complaints must be verified. Verified means signed under penalty of perjury by the plaintiff. The practice of an attorney verifying a complaint troublesome for both the firm’s clients and for the opposing defendants. Quite frankly, it is poor practice and likely unethical.
The only time the plaintiff’s attorney may verify the complaint is when the plaintiff is absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office or is otherwise unable to verify the complaint; or the facts are within the personal knowledge of the attorney verifying the complaint. CCP § 446; League of Women Voters v. Eu (1992) 7 CA4th 649, 656.
The Court of Appeals has interpreted Code of Civil Procedure section 446 to permit attorney verification only where the client’s absence from the county makes it impractical or impossible to obtain the client’s signature. If the client can be reached by mail, no such impossibility exists…and the attorney verification is not allowed. DeCamp v. First Kensington Corp. (1978) 83 CA3d 268, 275.
Even if such verification were permissible, an attorney’s verification of a complaint makes him or her witness to the facts verified. In such a scenario, the attorney providing the verification may properly be deposed by the other side. CRPC 5-210.
In other words the attorney is generally not permitted to verify his/her client’s unlawful detainer complaint. In today’s advanced world of communication there are few scenarios where the client is truly unavailable to provide a verification.
Thus, attorney verification of unlawful detainer complaints is poor practice which poses ethical and legal problems right at the outset of the case. From the plaintiff’s perspective, the law firm they hired to pursue an unlawful detainer action has started their case with a fraudulent or sham verification. This can handicap the plaintiff landlord’s case from the outset of the unlawful detainer action. At least one well-known unlawful detainer firm in Los Angeles employs this tactic routinely. I suggest landlords oversee and monitor their own attorneys so that they do not get caught starting the case in an improper manner.
On the other hand, if you are a tenant who received an unlawful detainer complaint verified by the plaintiff’s attorney, you should attack it. This opens the door to having the entire complaint thrown out because it is procedural improper.
This practice marks a key difference in strategy between some of the unlawful detainer “mills” in Los Angeles and other lawyers who give their cases the personal attention they deserve.
For additional information or help with your unlawful detainer action contact Zachary D. Schorr at Schorr Law, A Professional Corporation, 310-954-1877, zschorr@schorr-law.com, www.schorr-law.com.
This is one of the smartest attorneys I have ever seen. Every sentence, every page is full of useful, pertaint information wrote in a way all can understand. I paid $260.00 to talk to a attorney for 40min. and walked away with nothing. First page here I have two very strong defenses. You are a unlawful detainer god, keep up the great work. The attorney verification issue is brilliant and will most likely result in my case being thrown out.
“Verification” as it is used in court is what exactly?
Can a person who is not the landlord (owner), R or landlords attorney, provide signed verification on an unlawful detainer complaint because they are “more informed” of the details and persons of the complaint?
When a landlord is actually a Trust, is it to proceed in the manner in which corporations do? Or is the Trustee considered the Trust, for all intents and purposes, and to proceed and be seen as an individual person and property owner (to any and all parts of the Trust). Will this person be providing their own verification or may their lawyer do it, as one would for their hiring corporation?
The verification is the landlord signing under penalty of purjury that why they are evicting the perdon is truthgul (not made up).
Some landlords make up conditions to evict tenants, and if they make up a story yo evict you and its not true tbey can be criminally charged with having misreoresented the facts to the court.
Curious,
What recourse does a tenant have if just prior to a UD trial the plaintiff (plaintiff is LLC and person verifiying complaints and discovery is President and managing partner), during a hearing on a motion for a protective order filed by plaintiff to prevent tenant from requiring plaintiff, person who verified the complaint from attending and giving testimony at trial, admits that he committed perjury when he verified the operative complaint and that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case.
Is this grounds to get the case dismissed with prejudice? This person also perjured himself when he verified all the discovery. Is the proper vehicle a MSJ / Motion to Dismiss / Motion to Strike Complaint??? any suggestions?
I am an attorney and new to UD defense. But when looking over the paperwork for a case in which I have to demur on tomorrow, one of the first things I zeroed in on was the attorney verification. Good to see that I am not the only one who thinks this looks shady. And seeing the legal support sited here is a great help.
Yes I too had a complaint sent to my family without the landlords signature however the attorney signed it. I filed for a motion to quash but the judge overruled it. Sigh. Now I have to answer in less than three days and….plaintiff has used one of these eviction services that you refer to.
I recently appeared in Superior Court, Alameda County regarding a Motion to Strike based on Attorney Verification. This was a case where Fannie Mae was involved and the complaint was verified by their Attorney. I argued that Fannie Mae is a Federal Agency with 4 office in the 4 corners of the US. West,, East, North and South and that there would be no situation possible, in today’s hi-tech world that verification by the principal would be impossible. I even injected that while Banks using MERS could sell millions of mortgages with a click of a mouse…Attorney claiming verification was not possible because the principal is not in the same County his Office is located did not seem plausible. I LOST…because that was the Law….But…the catch is that the attorney has to claim that the facts are “personally known to him”…and not simply based on information and belief…. but that is amendable. Make sure to only use it when the principal and attorney are in the same County. and the Attorney verifies the complaint….at least in California.
If the complaint verification is unsigned does that mean that the complaint invalid?
Thanks for showing us Pro Se folks the way. Bless you you are one of the good ones (Ren Hoek’s voice). Have a great weekend!!