OK, I'm representing a tenant in a case - she's being evicted from an 'Anarchist Bed&Breakfast and Retreat Centre', which is being represented by Chuck Jensen, always a fun fight! - there are so many screwed up and interesting things about this case - and all will be detailed in subsequent posts ... but here is actually quite a boring issue - verification of the complaint.
So, in unlawful detainers, there is a requirement that the complaint be "verified" - a statement under penalty of perjury that the allegations are within the plaintiff's personal knowledge. Now this sounds like a requirement that actually means something. But in fact, it does not.
Now, in this case, Jensen had the "property manager" verify the complaint with the statement that he "knew more about the facts than the plaintiff." Can this possibly be good enough? It turns out, yes.
The verification statute (CCP 446) does allow another person to verify if there's a good reason that he should. So what's a good reason - does the third party have to explain why the plaintiff isn't able to verify? This is a case where very old law is still good law.
Back in 1882, the Cal. Supreme Court decided the issue in the case of Newman v. Bird. Here's the entirety of the decision regarding verfication.
2. The next point relates to the verification of the complaint. By Section 1175, C. C.P., it is required that the complaint in this form of action, shall be verified. The complaint in this case is verified by one Bird, who states that he is the agent of the plaintiffs; that he has heard read the foregoing complaint; that he knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated on his information or belief, etc.; that the facts stated are within the knowledge of the affiant, and therefore affiant swears that the facts stated in the complaint are within his own knowledge, and that they are true.Section 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "when a pleading is verified it must be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney resides, or for some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the knowledge of his attorney, or other person verifying the same. When the pleading is verified by the attorney, or any other person except one of the parties, he must set forth in the affidavit the reasons why it is not made by one of the parties." The reason given in this case for the verification of the complaint by the agent is, that the facts are within his knowledge, and that brings the case within the language of the section of the Code above cited. We are therefore of the opinion that the complaint was properly verified.
That's it. A third party says the facts are within his knowledge, and that's a good verification!
Bottom line: We had numerous(!) other grounds to demurrer to this case, but verification wasn't one of them!
