The Wild Saga of a Jacumba Unlawful Detainer: Murder Allegations, Ownership Claims, Restraining Orders, and Courtroom Drama

Said to be haunted with friendly spirts, the former Bankhead Springs Hotel became the focus of two unlawful detainer trials in San Diego County within a single year.

This Jacumba unlawful detainer litigation should become a case study in how California’s summary eviction process can spiral into chaos when criminal allegations, disputed ownership, and shifting legal strategies collide. This case, now the subject of two full-blown trials, features not only competing claims to the property and a revolving cast of attorneys, but also a restraining order, allegations of attempted murder, and dramatic impeachment of a key witness.

Background: A Property in Turmoil

Earlier this year, Bankhead 220 LLC filed an unlawful detainer (UD) action seeking to evict the occupant of a dilapidated Jacumba house. The landlord claimed the occupant was a month-to-month tenant who had failed to vacate after a 60-day notice for “withdrawal from the rental market.” Before the trial started, the landlord’s attorney stated to the judge that the occupant had been charged with attempted murder of the landlord, but during trial it was revealed that the occupant’s boyfriend was investigated for attempted murder of the property’s maintenance man. (He testified that it was the maintenance man who drew a gun on him.)

The occupant, unrepresented both times, countered that she was not a tenant but the buyer, having put down $20,000 and making monthly payments toward a $100,000 purchase price under a land sale contract. She provided a grant deed, a written contract, and a recorded homestead declaration as evidence of her claim. Notably, she had also been granted a civil harassment restraining order against the landlord’s agent, Yvette Tena.

First Trial: Judge’s Ruling and Key Findings

The first trial was reassigned from the usual UD department to Dept. 2004 due to a crowded calendar. After hearing testimony from the landlord, the occupant, and the occupant’s boyfriend, the court took the matter under submission for further legal research.

San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor’s ruling was clear and instructive:

“The court finds in favor of defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to no relief on the complaint for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff failed to establish title to the premises, and failed to establish that there was a lease between plaintiff and defendant which plaintiff properly terminated by virtue of the 60-day notice which preceded this action.”

The court found that the evidence supported the existence of an unrecorded land purchase contract and that what the landlord characterized as “rent” were actually payments on a purchase money note:

“The evidence preponderated in favor of a finding that defendant entered into an unrecorded land purchase contract with Mr. Ray’s authorized agent, Yvette Tena aka Tena Jimenez. The evidence preponderated in favor of a finding that defendant paid Tena some amount of money as a down payment, and that what plaintiff now characterizes as ‘rent’ were actually payments on a purchase money note. Defendant and her boyfriend then conducted work on the very old and dilapidated house in an effort to make it habitable. This was done, the court finds, in reliance on the fact that she had an ownership interest, not merely a month-to-month tenancy.”

Judge Taylor also pointed out the landlord’s failure to call Tena as a witness:

“Plaintiff’s failure to call Ms. Tena spoke volumes. She was the one who could have said ‘it was a lease, not a land sale contract.’ But plaintiff didn’t call her. Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a lease by a preponderance of the evidence.”

He concluded:

“The foregoing findings may make this a proper case for an action in ejectment, not for the summary procedures of unlawful detainer. In an action for ejectment, the defendant would be able to cross-complain against Ms. Tena for fraud and/or assert her position that she has fee ownership and would also allow plaintiff to seek to establish defendant defaulted on the land sale contract and it is entitled to possession for that reason.”

Second Trial: New Notice, New Judge, New Drama

Undeterred, the landlord served another 60-day notice for “withdrawal from the rental market” and filed a second UD action -- this time with a different attorney (a white male, replacing the female counsel from the first case). The case was heard in Dept. 65, again, not in the specialized UD department.

For the first time in this saga, the landlord presented a lease agreement for the property. The landlord’s case in chief consisted of sparse testimony that he owned the property, permitted Tena to manage it, had the 60-day notice served, and did not enter into any agreement to sell the property to the occupant. The only other witness for the plaintiff was the property manager, Yvette Tena, who testified that she collected $1,250 in rent and a security deposit. The only exhibits introduced were the lease agreement and the 60-day notice.

The tenant, again unrepresented, made critical procedural missteps: She relied on documents from the first trial but failed to even ask the court to look at them. She brought a signed witness statement, but the witness was not present, so the judge excluded it for lack of cross-examination. Despite these errors, she managed to impeach Tena on the stand. The tenant pressed the property manager on why, if the claim was that the occupant hadn’t paid rent since September 2023, the landlord waited until April 2024 to demand it. The property manager stated they were “afraid” of the tenant. Then the occupant asked Tena -- whom the occupant was granted a restraining order against -- if she had sent a text message warning the tenant to watch out for her daughter and for Tena’s husband. Tena denied sending such a message, but when the text was introduced and read by the judge, Tena admitted she had sent the threatening text, raising serious questions about her credibility.

Unsurprisingly, when the landlord then presented the lease, the occupant denied ever signing it. But Tena, after being impeached regarding the text message, then claimed she saw the occupant sign the lease, and the judge ultimately credited Tena’s testimony.

The judge, unfamiliar with the nuances of UD law, also asked the tenant why she hadn’t brought a counterclaim for the $20,000 she said she paid for the property -- apparently unaware that tenants cannot bring counterclaims in unlawful detainer proceedings. After reopening the case to view photos and allow the occupant to testify that she had moved out months ago because of black mold (which should have divested the court of jurisdiction, as possession was no longer at issue), the judge ruled in favor of the landlord and awarded him possession of the property.

The defendant then asked, “So, do I now have an eviction on my record?”

Key Takeaways from a Legal Maelstrom

This saga illustrates several critical points:

• UD Law is Strictly Limited: As Judge Taylor wrote, “the only ‘triable’ issue is the right to possession and incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention… defendants cannot file cross-complaints.”

• Ownership Claims Belong Elsewhere: “The foregoing findings may make this a proper case for an action in ejectment, not for the summary procedures of unlawful detainer.”

• Preparation is Everything: Evidence from prior trials does not carry over. Witnesses must be present for cross-examination. Never assume the judge will “just know” the story.

• Judicial Expertise Matters: UD cases assigned to non-specialist departments risk legal missteps -- such as allowing or expecting counterclaims, or failing to recognize when jurisdiction ends.

  
  

What This Case Teaches Us About Eviction Law

The Jacumba unlawful detainer saga -- complete with murder allegations, shifting legal strategies, restraining orders, and dramatic impeachment of key witnesses -- reminds us that eviction law is never just about property. It’s about people, preparation, and the need for both sides (and the court) to know the rules. As Judge Taylor’s ruling makes clear, “Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a lease by a preponderance of the evidence.” For landlords and tenants alike, the lesson is clear: Be ready, be thorough, and know the forum you’re in.