Hilaly v. Allen, No. JAD19-05 (S.F. Super. App. Div. May 21, 2019)
Evidence Code § 622 creates a conclusive presumption regarding the truth of recitations of fact in a “written instrument.” “Instrument” is not defined, but “[a]s used in section 622, an ‘instrument’ usually refers to a contract, but may apply to contract-like writings, such as a commercial estoppel certificate that all parties understand is ‘a binding confirmation of a lease agreement.’” The informal tenant questionnaire at issue in this case, however, is not an instrument. It was neither supported by consideration nor the subject of mutual consent.
Affirmed.
Evidence Code § 622 creates a conclusive presumption regarding the truth of recitations of fact in a “written instrument.” “Instrument” is not defined, but “[a]s used in section 622, an ‘instrument’ usually refers to a contract, but may apply to contract-like writings, such as a commercial estoppel certificate that all parties understand is ‘a binding confirmation of a lease agreement.’” The informal tenant questionnaire at issue in this case, however, is not an instrument. It was neither supported by consideration nor the subject of mutual consent.
Affirmed.