3 day v.s.30 day in a lease violation

[MartyC]

I have a tenant of 1 and a half years who is on a lease. I have a "no pets" clause which they have recently violated. I know that I can provide them with a "3 Day Notice to Perform Covenant or Quit" notice. My only question is: Can I send them a 30 day one instead? This is because they have informally notified me that they intend to move in response to a "nice" letter I wrote last week explaining my position with regard to the pet, and acknowledging that they have been good tenants and I had wished to keep them if they would remove the dog. Their response was a message left with my 12 y/o daughter that they will be moving Mar. 1. I simply feel that the standard three day notice, although it allows me to proceed legally should I need to, has no teeth or merit in light of their intended departure. It might be "thrown out" in an unlawful detainer action if I subsequently agree to them having more time (i.e.: 'til Mar.1) I am perfectly happy with them leaving in thirty days. It seems that this fits better in the given time frame. What do you think? THANK YOU.

 

[LL]

If you think that they are really going to leave Mar 1, and you are willing to tolerate the animals until them, its probably even wiser to ask them to sign written notice that they will be vacating Mar 1. That way, they will be less angry and may leave the place in better condition.

If they don't leave on time, you can start an Unlawful Detainer, based on the notice.

If you want them out right away, a 3-day notice tells them to do it, but only the Court can force them out.

 

[MartyC]

younglsm: Thank you for your time. I did exactly what you had suggested today before reading your reply. That is I asked them to place their intended departure date in writing and they stated they would be more than happy to do that. I feel it is probably ok to give them any amount of time you want as long as it is greater than three days (as long as you can tolerate the problem). thanks again, MartyC