Late Rent Fee Limits in California

At a glance

Requirements one by one

What Civil Code § 1671 says

Section 1671 does not supply a statewide dollar amount, percentage, or grace period for a rent-late charge. It addresses liquidated damages in contracts and expressly places a dwelling lease under subdivision (d):

The validity of a liquidated damages provision shall be determined under subdivision (d) ... where the liquidated damages are sought to be recovered from ... [a] party to a lease of real property for use as a dwelling.

For that category, subdivision (d) states that the provision is void, then gives the exception:

the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.

The section does not itself prescribe whether a rent-late charge is one-time or daily, what rent amount a percentage would use, or a separate notice form. It also does not say the contract must be written. Those questions must come from another applicable statute, the parties' agreement, or other law rather than being added to § 1671's text.

What trips people up

Section 1671 contains no statewide “5% rule.” It names no late-fee percentage at all. A form that uses 5% is not quoting a California statutory cap.

The eviction clock is a different question. Section 1671 states no grace period. A notice period that governs an eviction cannot be presented as this section's late-fee waiting period.

“Void” is the remedy stated here, but no multiplier follows. Subdivision (d) says a nonqualifying liquidated-damages provision is void. Section 1671 does not add treble damages, statutory damages, or an attorney-fee award for a rent- late charge.

Common questions

Does § 1671 require the late-fee agreement to be in a written lease? No writing requirement appears in this section. It says the parties may agree in the contract on the amount; another statute or the facts of the agreement may still matter.

What if a different statute specifically governs the contract or charge? Subdivision (a) says that expressly applicable statute supplies the rule instead when it prescribes the standard for a liquidated-damages provision.

Statutes and sources

• Cal. Civ. Code § 1671(a), (c), (d) — another expressly applicable statute controls where it prescribes the liquidated-damages rule; dwelling leases use subdivision (d); the provision is void unless its stated exception applies.

  (a) This section does not apply in any case where another statute expressly applicable to the contract prescribes the rules or standard for determining the validity of a provision in the contract liquidating the damages for the breach of the contract. ... (c) The validity of a liquidated damages provision shall be determined under subdivision (d) and not under subdivision (b) where the liquidated damages are sought to be recovered from either: ... (2) A party to a lease of real property for use as a dwelling by the party or those dependent upon the party for support. (d) In the cases described in subdivision (c), a provision in a contract liquidating damages for the breach of the contract is void except that the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.

Official source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1671.&lawCode=CIV (accessed 2026-07-20)