Lease & Accounts

Listing agent texts plaintiff, characterizing the executed instrument

The plaintiff received the following text message, one day after the execution of Document A, from phone number (949) 923-5679. The message replied to a message from the plaintiff's household: "Not use to doing thing by text this important please let us know about our pets."

"There's no dog addendum, landlord prefers tenants without dogs, we left it out to make it easy for you." — Text message from (949) 923-5679 to Michael Gasio · April 22, 2022 · 7:46 PM

Attribution. Phone number (949) 923-5679 is attributed to Anna Ly — the same Anna Ly identified on the agency-confirmation section (¶ 41) of Document A (and of Document B) as the listing agent and property manager of record, holding California DRE Broker License #01894348. The attribution rests on the publicly declared business contact email listed on Ms. Ly's Zillow professional agent profile — lymyhoa@yahoo.com — which matches the sender address of the April 23, 2022 email at Stage 2022-B below.

Significance. The message is a contemporaneous written communication from the listing agent of record, transmitted through an unofficial personal channel (personal cell phone, not the office line printed on the listing firm's agency confirmation), characterizing an omission from the executed instrument as a benefit conferred on the tenants ("we left it out to make it easy for you") while simultaneously asserting the owner's actual preference against it ("landlord prefers tenants without dogs"). The message predates by approximately fourteen hours the listing agent's next-morning proposal of a "revised lease contract" restoring the omitted pet addendum and charging $1,000 for the pet permission (Stage 2022-B and Document B).

Source. Text message from (949) 923-5679 to Michael Gasio, April 22, 2022 7:46 PM. Phone-number attribution corroborated by: CA DRE public license record for Broker License #01894348 (April 21, 2026); Zillow professional agent profile (April 21, 2026).

Listing agent emails proposed revised terms

Email subject "Re: Agree gasio," from lymyhoa@yahoo.com to the plaintiff. Opening line preserved in a subsequent thread capture references an attached Pet Addendum. Principal body of the email reads:

"The landlord requests rent should be paid by wire/electronic transfer to his bank
  • Name: Phat Tran
  • Bank: Wellsfargo
  • Routing Number: 122000247
  • Account Number: 1005959166

Please note that:
  • The $1000 deposit is due by 4/23/2022 to secure the place.
  • The $10,375 remaining balance is due by 4/28/2022 (3 days before moving date)

Let me know if these terms are acceptable to you and I will send the revised lease contract.

Thank you, Anna Ly · 714-724-5688 · Sun Realty and Management." — Email from Anna Ly (lymyhoa@yahoo.com) to Michael Gasio (gasio77@yahoo.com), subject "Re: Agree gasio," April 23, 2022 9:28 AM PDT

The email proposes a "revised lease contract" two days after the execution of Document A. The proposed move-in cost total of $11,375 ($1,000 deposit + $10,375 balance) is $1,000 higher than the move-in total of $10,375 stated in the executed instrument. The designated rent-receiving account, Wells Fargo account number 1005959166, is the same Wells Fargo account ending …9166 to which the June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice directs payment — two years and two months later. See Section 03 (The Notice) and the Account Continuity note at the end of this stage.

Source. Email thread "Re: Agree gasio," from lymyhoa@yahoo.com to gasio77@yahoo.com, April 23, 2022 9:28 AM PDT.

First wire to Wells Fargo …9166 establishes the designated rent-receiving account

Three days after execution of Document B and per the bank-directed instructions at Stage 2022-B, the plaintiffs wired $1,000.00 from Wells Fargo Premier Checking …0732 to the designated Wells Fargo account …9166. Wells Fargo Confirmation #OW00002146396360. Processing date April 26, 2022.

This wire establishes April 26, 2022 as the commencement of the plaintiff's use of the Wells Fargo account ending …9166 as the designated rent-receiving account for 19235 Brynn Court. The $10,375 remaining move-in balance was subsequently wired to the same account on or before April 28, 2022 per the instructions at Stage 2022-B (a text message confirming the landlord's receipt of the remaining balance and turnover of garage openers and mailbox key was received on or about April 28, 2022).

Source. Wells Fargo Wire Money — Details record, Confirmation #OW00002146396360, processing date April 26, 2022.

Telephone conversation — plaintiffs communicate intent to vacate

Michael Gasio and Phat Tran spoke by telephone on March 20, 2024. Plaintiffs communicated their intent to vacate the property at the end of April 2024 and to request return of the full security deposit. The owner responded that he did not wish to lose the plaintiffs as tenants and committed verbally to addressing outstanding property issues. Plaintiffs requested confirmation in writing.

Source. Plaintiff communication record. The April 1, 2024 owner text (Stage 2) and the April 2, 2024 owner email (Stage 3) corroborate the substance of this telephone conversation.

Owner texts plaintiffs announcing decision to hire a manager

"Hi Michael, sorry to text you at this time, it s a little late at night, I just decided to hire a manager to take care the property, he ll call you and introduce himself. Is this ok to give him your phone number?" — Phat Tran to Michael Gasio, text message, April 1, 2024 10:04 PM

This message describes the contemplated arrangement to the tenants as the hiring of a manager — the introduction of a property manager into the existing tenancy — rather than the substitution of a new lease, a new lessor of record, or a new payment channel. The owner's phrasing places the prospective manager in a service role "to take care the property," not in the position of contractual counterparty. The owner's request for permission to share the plaintiff's phone number further establishes that, as of April 1, 2024, no manager had yet been appointed and no contact had occurred between any prospective manager and the tenants.

Source. Text message, Phat Tran to Michael Gasio, April 1, 2024 10:04 PM.

Owner's written confirmation of intent to retain

"Hi Michael, thanks for sharing rental market with me, lately I'm too busy with my practice and I'm thinking to hire the company help me to manage rental property, please do not think we're looking new lessee. Have a nice Tues Michael." — Phat Tran (kyphat@yahoo.com) to Michael Gasio, April 2, 2024 11:10 AM

This email places in writing the owner's acknowledgment that the plaintiffs were considering departure and his stated intent to retain them as tenants. The phrase "please do not think we're looking new lessee" is an affirmative representation that the contemplated arrangement was not the substitution of a new tenant. Read in sequence with the April 1 text, the two communications consistently characterize the contemplated change as a management hire within the existing tenancy.

Source. Email, kyphat@yahoo.com to gasio77@yahoo.com, April 2, 2024 11:10 AM PDT.

Owner identifies the manager as Hanson Le

"Hi Michael, sorry this late reply. The name of the manager is Hanson Le, he will contact you soon Michael." — Phat Tran to Michael Gasio, text message, April 4, 2024 2:46 PM

The plaintiff replied: "All right." The owner's message preserves the same characterization established on April 1 and April 2: a manager is being added to the existing tenancy. The message does not refer to a new lease, a new term, a rent adjustment, a new payment account, or any change in lessor or brokerage of record. Across Stages 2, 3, and 4, the owner's representations to the tenants over a four-day period are internally consistent and uniformly describe the change as a management hire, not a lease replacement.

Source. Text message, Phat Tran to Michael Gasio, April 4, 2024 2:46 PM.

Plaintiff notifies listing agent in writing that named resident does not speak English

In the course of scheduling a property visit with the prospective property manager Hanson Le (DRE License #01358448), the plaintiff sent the following text message:

"Sorry mother-in-law doesn't speak English wife won't be home and I have a [medical] appointment at 3:00 next day is okay." — Michael Gasio to Hanson Le, text message, prior to April 18, 2024 (date corroborated by the next message in the same thread, dated Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:25 PM, in which Mr. Le confirms a property visit window). Bracketed redaction: an unrelated medical disclosure; the unredacted original is preserved in the document set referenced in Section X.

This message places in writing, prior to the licensee's assumption of property-management duties of record and prior to the execution of any new lease, that one of the named residents of the Premises — Tetyana Zvyagintseva, identified in ¶ 1.B of the operative 2022 lease and subsequently re-named in ¶ 1.B of the April 26, 2024 lease (Section V, Stage 8) — did not speak English. The recipient of this message was, at the time of receipt, the listing agent of record at Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties and the prospective incoming property manager.

No translated lease review was arranged for the named non-English-speaking resident in the period between this message and the April 26, 2024 execution of the new thirteen-month lease (Section V, Stage 8). The Three-Day Notice subsequently served on June 21, 2024 was likewise served in English only (see Section 03).

Source. Text message, Michael Gasio to Hanson Le, prior to April 18, 2024.

Plaintiffs wire $5,000 with explanatory memo

Plaintiffs wired $5,000.00 from Wells Fargo Premier Checking …0732 to recipient account ending …9166, designated "Landlord." Wells Fargo Confirmation #OW00004382456864. Zero wire fee. Sent and delivered the same day at 11:51 AM Pacific Time.

The plaintiff included the following message to the recipient's bank, visible in the Wells Fargo wire transfer detail:

Message to recipient's bank: "New lease 24 one payment at 5000." — Wells Fargo wire transfer detail, April 19, 2024 11:51 AM PT, Confirmation #OW00004382456864

Wells Fargo Wire Money — Details · Send 04/19/2024 · Deliver 04/19/2024 · Confirmation OW00004382456864 · Status Completed

The message records the plaintiff's contemporaneous understanding that the wire was a lease-period payment at the prior $5,000 rate. The wire was sent six days before the plaintiff's confirming email (Stage 7) and seven days before the new lease was executed (Section V, Stage 8). The arithmetic consequence of this payment for the August 5, 2024 Move-Out Clearance Report is examined separately on The Missing Month.

Source. Wells Fargo Wire Money — Details, Send Date 04/19/2024, Confirmation Number OW00004382456864.

Owner acknowledges the $5,000 wire as a payment "at old lease 5000"

Two minutes after the wire posted, the owner sent the following text message in the same conversation in which the wire confirmation had been forwarded:

"We are filling out new paper work understand one at old lease 5000 then new payment 5350 I want keep paying early." — Phat Tran SMS to Michael Gasio · April 19, 2024 · 11:53 AM. Followed within the same conversation by: "Thanks Michael!"

Phat Tran SMS · April 19, 2024 11:53 AM · acknowledging the $5,000 wire as a payment at the old-lease rate

The text establishes three facts in the owner's own words. First, the $5,000 wire of April 19, 2024 was for a payment at the old lease rate — that is, the May 2024 payment under the lease then in effect. Second, the owner contemplated a separate "new payment 5350" going forward — a future-dated change, not a retroactive one. Third, the owner expressed a preference that the tenant "keep paying early," i.e., on the same advance schedule the tenant had been using since 2022. Acknowledgment is uncontested on the record.

Source. Text message, Phat Tran to Michael Gasio, April 19, 2024 11:53 AM, in conversation with screenshot of Wire Money confirmation OW00004382456864 attached.

Plaintiff confirms payment characterization in writing — the day before lease execution

On April 25, 2024 at 11:18 AM PDT — the day before the new lease was executed — the plaintiff emailed Hanson Le at the broker's Berkshire Hathaway company email address, with the subject line "Witches burnt Broom." The email opened:

"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." — Michael Gasio (gasio77@yahoo.com) to Hanson Le (hansonle@bhhscaprops.com), April 25, 2024 11:18 AM PDT · Subject: "Witches burnt Broom"

This email records, in writing, sent to the broker's company email address one day before the new lease was executed: (i) that the $5,000 wired April 19 was for May 2024 ("5-24") at the existing rate, and (ii) that the plaintiff understood eleven remaining payments at the new rate of $5,350. The broker did not dispute this characterization in writing.

Source. Email, gasio77@yahoo.com to hansonle@bhhscaprops.com, subject "Witches burnt Broom," April 25, 2024 11:18 AM PDT.

Communications immediately preceding lease execution

The April 26, 2024 instrument was presented to the plaintiff for execution in the final days of the then-existing tenancy. As of April 2024, the plaintiffs had continuously occupied the Premises as named residents for approximately twenty-three and a half months under the 2022 lease (Document B). A tenancy of that duration is subject on its face to Civil Code § 1946.1 (sixty-day notice required for any termination where the tenant has resided for one year or more) and Civil Code § 1946.2 (just-cause eviction protection after twelve months of continuous occupancy). The plaintiffs' pre-existing statutory right to sixty days' notice of any owner-initiated termination was therefore operative at all times relevant to this sequence.

The DocuSign envelope through which the new instrument was transmitted was titled "Revised renewal lease agreement." The instrument inside the envelope was a new thirteen-month lease on a different form (C.A.R. Form RLMM) with a different rent rate, a different payment account, and a different term structure from the 2022 C.A.R. Form LR lease (Document B) it was characterized as renewing. The mismatch between the envelope title and the contents of the instrument appears on the face of the DocuSign record.

The rent increase from $5,000.00 per month (2022 lease) to $5,350.00 per month (proposed new instrument) was not preceded by a statutory notice of rent increase. Civil Code § 827 requires a written notice of any increase in rent given at least thirty days in advance (or ninety days for an increase exceeding ten percent). The proposed new rent rate was first presented to the plaintiff in the body of the new lease instrument itself, not as a prior notice.

The plaintiff's contemporaneous recollection, further memorialized in the plaintiff's written communications to Mr. Le both before and after Mr. Le's May 13, 2024 management-role withdrawal (preserved on Section 04, Stage 6), includes the following telephone communications in the days immediately preceding execution of the new lease:

(a) Mr. Le proposed by telephone that the plaintiff's April 19, 2024 wire transfer of $5,000.00 to the owner's Wells Fargo account …9166 could be re-characterized as a tenant-originated notice to terminate the tenancy. The plaintiff objected on the call and in subsequent writing, noting that a completed rent payment cannot lawfully be re-characterized after the fact as a tenant's notice of termination.

(b) Mr. Le acknowledged on the call that the owner would be required to provide sixty days' notice to terminate the tenancy (consistent with Civil Code § 1946.1) and stated that the owner "couldn't afford" a sixty-day notice period without rent.

(c) The plaintiff responded that if the owner's side wished to treat the April 19 wire as a notice event, the plaintiff would vacate voluntarily within the sixty-day period, consistent with the statutory notice period Mr. Le had just acknowledged. The plaintiff's willingness to depart voluntarily was not accepted.

(d) Mr. Le communicated, in substance, that the owner would commence eviction proceedings on the following Monday if the plaintiff did not sign the new lease. The new lease was executed by all parties on April 26, 2024 (Section V, Stage 8).

These phone-call statements, as recalled by the plaintiff and referenced in the plaintiff's subsequent written communications to Mr. Le, have not been produced in audio recording form. The plaintiff relies on his contemporaneous written memorializations of the exchange and the documentary record surrounding the April 19 wire (Stage 6), the April 25 confirming email (Stage 7), the April 26 lease execution (Section V, Stage 8), the April 26 broker text proposing payment redirection "to me instead of to the owner" (Section V, Stage 9), and the June 22, 2024 owner same-day-after text-message admission (Section VII below) — the last of which is inconsistent with the eviction threat Mr. Le represented to the plaintiff as originating from the owner.

Source. Plaintiff communication record. The DocuSign envelope title and contents of the April 26, 2024 lease are independently verifiable from the executed instrument preserved in the document set.

Property-Manager renewal-proposal sequence — with bank-account solicitation

In the days preceding the April 26, 2024 lease execution, the listing-agent line saved in the plaintiff's phone as "Property Manager" — the same line subsequently identified in writing as belonging to Hanson Le by his May 13, 2024 withdrawal text (preserved on Section 04, Stage 6) — transmitted a multi-text renewal-proposal sequence to the plaintiff. The four messages below are excerpted from that sequence as preserved on the plaintiff's mobile device. The screenshots carry capture timestamps of May 6, 2024; the underlying text events occurred earlier in the pre-execution window described above at Stage 7.5.

Opening of the renewal-proposal sequence: "I just talked with the owner Dr. Phat Tran . . . renewal lease term as follows"

First proposed effective date: "Renewal rent rate: $5,350/month · Effective: 5/1/2024"

Second proposed start date: "start date: 6/1/2024 · rent rate: $5,350/month"

The bank-account solicitation: "my bank account number to transfer monthly rent to me instead of to the owner"

Three observations on the face of these messages.

First, the dates contradict each other. One message states the new rate of $5,350 is to be effective May 1, 2024. A second message states the new rate would commence on a start date of June 1, 2024. Both were transmitted from the same contact in the same pre-execution window. The two cannot both be correct.

Second, the larger market figure has no relationship to either the rate proposed or the contractual rate. The "Market rent: $5,500–$5,800" line in the first message is unsupported and inconsistent with the post-eviction conversion of the unit, which was let as a short-term rental at $7,995 per month — one hundred twenty-two percent above the $5,350 figure proposed to plaintiffs. Whether the $5,500–$5,800 line was a representation of comparable market rent for purposes of California's anti-retaliation provisions is a question for the regulatory record. No finding has been made.

Third — and dispositive of the trust-fund question — the listing agent solicited routing of monthly rent into a personal account, in writing, before the new lease was executed. The verbatim text reads: "Also what bank do you use? So I can provide you my bank account number to transfer monthly rent to me instead of to the owner." California Business & Professions Code § 10145 requires that funds received by a real estate licensee on behalf of another, in connection with a transaction, be placed into a broker trust account established for that purpose. A solicitation, in writing, to route monthly rent into the licensee's personal account "instead of to the owner" presents a documentary question under § 10145, § 10176(e), and § 10177(d). The same solicitation appears again in the record on April 26, 2024 (Section V, Stage 9), the day the new lease was executed.

Source. Plaintiff's mobile device — text messages from the contact saved as "Property Manager." The contact line is identified as Hanson Le by his withdrawal text of May 13, 2024 3:50 PM, preserved on Section 04 (Cure Tender), Stage 6. Hanson Le, DRE Broker License #01358448 (verified on the public DRE roster).

Same-day broker text proposing redirection of payments — second occurrence

On the same day the lease was executed routing payment to Wells Fargo account #3312943297, the broker sent the following text from the "Property Manager" line:

"Also what bank do you use? So I can provide you my bank account number to transfer monthly rent to me instead of to the owner. Thank you Mr Gasio!" — Hanson Le to Michael Gasio, text message, April 26, 2024

The text proposes redirecting rent payments from the owner to the broker personally. This is distinct from a broker acting as agent receiving rent on the owner's behalf and depositing to a designated trust account; the text expressly characterizes the transfer as going "to me instead of to the owner."

This is the second occurrence of substantially the same solicitation in the documentary record. The first occurrence appears in the pre-execution renewal-proposal sequence at Section IV, Stage 7.6 above. Both events are independently preserved on the plaintiff's mobile device. Both are sent from the contact line subsequently identified as Hanson Le by his May 13, 2024 management-role withdrawal text.

Source. Text message, Hanson Le ("Property Manager" line) to Michael Gasio, April 26, 2024.

Plaintiff raises deposit accounting in writing

In the same day's text exchange, the plaintiff raised in writing that the new contract did not reflect previously paid deposits:

"You do not show the $6,000 deposit the $1,000 for the pet the $350 for the keys on the contract will we be receiving that back or getting credit in writing. Section 13 does not show that we have two large dogs on this property as agreed." — Michael Gasio to Hanson Le, text message, April 26, 2024

Total deposits not reflected in the new contract: $7,350. The plaintiff requested confirmation in writing of either return or credit. The broker's same-day response did not address the deposit accounting question; the broker pivoted to asking what bank the plaintiff used (Stage 9). The deposit-accounting question subsequently surfaces again on the August 5, 2024 Move-Out Clearance Report, where the deposits are recorded under the headings "Security Deposit $5,000" and "Other Deposit $1,375" (key + pet) but are netted against an unauthorized Attorney Fees deduction of $2,005 and a post-inspection contractor invoice of $7,835. The Move-Out form analysis is preserved on the §1950.5 Form Examination and on The Missing Month.

Source. Text message, Michael Gasio to Hanson Le, April 26, 2024.

Wire transfer of $5,350 with documentary protest memo

Seven days after the unsigned Three-Day Notice was served on June 21, 2024 (see Section 03), the plaintiff sent a wire transfer of $5,350.00 from Wells Fargo Premier Checking …0732 directly to PHAT L TRAN. Wells Fargo Confirmation #OW00004652829145. Zero wire fee. Sent and delivered the same day.

The plaintiff included the following message to the recipient's bank:

Message to recipient's bank: "Unknown Contract for July payment 27 of 37 on contracts." — Wells Fargo wire transfer detail, June 28, 2024, Confirmation #OW00004652829145

Wells Fargo Review Transfer · Send 06/28/2024 · $5,350.00 · Memo: Unknown Contract for July payment 27 of 37 on contracts

The message records, in a contemporaneous Wells Fargo wire transmission directly to the owner: (i) that the payment was for July 2024; (ii) that the plaintiff considered the contract under which the payment was being made to be of disputed or unknown status; and (iii) that the plaintiff was tracking the cumulative payment count at 27 of 37 contemplated total payments. The wire posted to the owner's receiving account. The owner accepted the funds.

The owner's representation to the court via counsel that a refund of this $5,350 was subsequently mailed to plaintiffs is addressed on Section 06 (Court Record). USPS produced no proof of service for that representation. Payment was made a second time under protest, with both parties signing an acknowledgment that no prior repayment had occurred. The arithmetic consequence of this wire for the August 5, 2024 Move-Out Clearance Report is preserved on The Missing Month.

Source. Wells Fargo Wire Money — Details, Send Date 06/28/2024, Confirmation Number OW00004652829145, Beneficiary PHAT L TRAN, recipient account ending …9166. The bank's separate transfer-detail record reflects beneficiary account number 1005959166, the same account number identified in the April 23, 2022 email (Section II, Stage 2022-B) and in the June 21, 2024 Three-Day Notice (Section 03).

Rent routing to the broker's account

"Sorry I did nt know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account." The owner acknowledges, the day after authorizing service of a nonpayment Three-Day Notice, that he did not know his tenant had been making payments to the broker's personal Wells Fargo account designated by the April 26, 2024 lease (Section V, Stage 8). His follow-up — "I just texted him to find out" — establishes that at the moment of Notice service the owner had received neither the funds nor an accounting from the broker. California Business & Professions Code § 10145 requires a broker receiving trust funds from a principal to deposit them into a designated trust account and to account to the principal. The owner's written statement that he did not know rent had been received on his behalf, and was contacting the broker to find out, is in written tension with the compliant operation of a § 10145 trust-fund relationship.

Broker representation to owner that plaintiffs did not want to sign

"Hanson told me that you did nt want to sign the new lease." This is the owner's contemporaneous written report of a statement made by the broker to the owner about the tenants' position on execution. The report is in tension with the apparent consent reflected on the face of the executed April 26, 2024 lease (Section V, Stage 8). Either the broker misrepresented the tenants' position to the owner while simultaneously procuring DocuSign signatures from the tenants, or the broker procured those signatures over the tenants' expressed unwillingness and reported that unwillingness to the owner afterward. On either reading, the apparent consent reflected on the face of the executed instrument is called into question by the owner's own written account of what the broker told him.

Owner's unfamiliarity with the contract value

"You mentioned about the 67k contract, I got confused about this part." The plaintiff had identified the approximate total contract value (13 months × $5,350 = $69,550, referenced in conversation as the "67k contract"). The owner's stated confusion as to this figure, in writing, is consistent with the account of the transaction documented in Stages 2, 3, and 4 of Section IV — in which the owner represented the contemplated change to the tenants as the hire of a manager rather than the negotiation of a new lease — and is not consistent with the owner having personally negotiated the terms of the instrument executed in his name on April 26, 2024.

Owner caused the Notice to be sent based on broker's false representation that no payment had been received

"and I dont [re]ceive the payment so I sent…" The owner's own writing, the day after Notice service, attributes his decision to authorize the Notice to the broker's false report that no payment had been received. The broker (Hanson Le) had received the cure-tendered cashier's check for $4,338.48 on May 30, 2024 (see Section 04) — twenty-two days before the Notice was served.

Source. Text message, Phat L.K. Tran to Michael A. Gasio, dated June 22, 2024. The plaintiff received the message during the statutory three-day cure window and reasonably believed the matter was resolved. The unlawful detainer complaint was nonetheless filed twelve days later, on July 3, 2024 (Section 06), with no disclosure to the Court of the owner's written admission.