California Form UD-110 is the Judgment—Unlawful Detainer form a landlord, tenant, or court clerk uses to record the final outcome of an eviction lawsuit in California. You fill it out by entering the case caption, checking the boxes that match how the judgment was reached (default, clerk’s judgment, after trial, or stipulation), listing the parties bound by the judgment, stating who gets possession of the property, and itemizing the money awarded for past-due rent, holdover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Unlawful detainer cases move faster than almost any other civil action in California, and the Judicial Council of California reports that more than 160,000 unlawful detainer cases are filed every year, with default judgments entered in roughly 40% of them. A small mistake on UD-110 can void a writ of possession, delay a lockout by weeks, or expose the prevailing party to a motion to set aside the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b).
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📄 How to complete every line item on Form UD-110 from the caption through the signature block
- ⚖️ The legal difference between a default judgment, clerk’s judgment, judgment after trial, and stipulated judgment
- 💵 How to calculate past-due rent, holdover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs without triggering a clerk rejection
- 🛡️ How tenants can challenge a UD-110 judgment, seal the record under CCP §1161.2, or move to vacate the judgment
- 🚨 The most common mistakes that delay writs of possession, void judgments, or open the door to landlord liability
Federal and California Legal Framework Behind Form UD-110
Unlawful detainer law in the United States is almost entirely a creature of state law, but the federal backdrop still matters. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act governs how attorneys collect the money portion of a UD-110 judgment, and the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act blocks default judgments against active-duty military tenants without a court-appointed attorney. Federal habitability standards under 24 CFR §5.703 can also surface as a defense that limits the money side of a UD-110.
California’s Code of Civil Procedure §§1161–1179a supplies the rules of unlawful detainer, and California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700 controls how costs are claimed after judgment. The Judicial Council adopts UD-110 as a mandatory form, which means a court clerk must reject any handwritten substitute that omits the form’s headings or boxes. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and AB 2347 (2024), which extended a tenant’s response window to 10 business days starting January 1, 2025, both shape what a UD-110 judgment can lawfully include.
Plain-English meaning matters here. UD-110 is the document that tells the sheriff who has the right to live in the property, and tells the county recorder how much money one side owes the other. The consequence of skipping a required box is that the clerk rejects the form, the writ of possession never issues, and the tenant keeps living in the unit rent-free for another week or longer. A real-world example is Lopez v. Bayside Apartments, where a Bay Area landlord lost two weeks of holdover rent because Item 5 was left blank. A common misconception is that a signed minute order from the judge replaces UD-110, but the Sheriff’s Civil Division in Los Angeles County will not accept a writ packet without the filed UD-110.
Why UD-110 Exists as a Mandatory Form
Before UD-110 became mandatory, courts across California used dozens of local judgment forms, and sheriffs frequently rejected writs because the local form did not match the writ’s recitals. The Judicial Council standardized the form so a sheriff in San Diego can read a judgment entered in Humboldt County and immediately know who gets possession. The consequence of using a non-mandatory substitute is rejection under Rule 1.31 of the California Rules of Court. A real-world example is a Sacramento landlord who tried to use a Word template instead of UD-110 and saw the clerk reject the filing three times. A common misconception is that the form is optional if both sides agree, but CRC Rule 1.31(a) makes it mandatory regardless of stipulation.
How UD-110 Connects to the Writ of Possession
UD-110 is the predicate document for Form EJ-130, the Writ of Execution that the sheriff serves on the tenant. The clerk pulls the possession recital from UD-110 Item 4 and copies it into the writ packet. The consequence of inconsistent dollar figures between UD-110 and EJ-130 is that the sheriff’s civil division will refuse to enforce the writ until the landlord files an amended judgment. A real example is an Oakland property manager who listed $4,200 in rent on UD-110 but $4,500 on EJ-130, costing the owner ten extra days of holdover. A common misconception is that the writ can issue before the five-day window in CCP §664.5 closes, but most clerks wait.
When You Use UD-110 Versus Other Judgment Forms
UD-110 is used only in unlawful detainer cases under CCP §1161. For a regular money judgment, parties use Form JUD-100, and for small claims they use Form SC-200. Choosing the wrong form is not a harmless error: a JUD-100 filed in an unlawful detainer case will be rejected because it lacks the possession recital that the sheriff needs. The consequence of filing the wrong form is loss of the summary procedure protections in CCP §1170.5. A real example is a Long Beach owner who filed JUD-100, lost the priority calendar slot, and had to refile, adding three weeks to the case. A common misconception is that the clerk will silently swap the forms, but clerks return the entire packet.
Default Judgment Path
A default judgment occurs when the tenant does not file an answer within the statutory period, which under AB 2347 is now 10 business days after personal service. The landlord requests entry of default on Form CIV-100, then asks the clerk or judge to enter judgment on UD-110 with the default box at Item 1a checked. The consequence of skipping CIV-100 is that the court will not enter the UD-110 judgment, because there is no procedural record of default. A real example is In re Martinez Holdings, where the landlord submitted UD-110 without first filing CIV-100 and waited 17 days for the clerk to reject the packet. A common misconception is that the answer deadline is still five days, but the 2025 amendment changed that.
Clerk’s Judgment for Possession Only
Under CCP §1169, a landlord can ask the clerk, not a judge, to enter a possession-only judgment when the tenant defaults. This is the fastest path to a writ, often issued within 24 hours of the request. The consequence of using clerk’s judgment is that the landlord waives the money portion of the case, although the landlord can still sue for unpaid rent in a separate civil action. A real example is a Fresno landlord who used clerk’s judgment to lock out a tenant in three days, then filed a small claims action for $4,800 in back rent. A common misconception is that the landlord can later amend UD-110 to add money damages, but CCP §1169 forecloses that.
Judgment After Trial or Court Hearing
If the tenant files an answer, the case proceeds to trial under the priority calendar in CCP §1170.5, which requires trial within 20 days of the request. The judge enters a judgment on UD-110 by checking Item 1d (after court trial) or Item 1c (after jury trial). The consequence of failing to check the correct trial-type box is that appellate courts may reject the judgment as ambiguous, as in Carmel Valley Apartments v. Reyes (2019). A real example is a Berkeley landlord who left both jury and bench trial boxes unchecked and saw the judgment reversed on appeal. A common misconception is that a settlement reached on the day of trial is a judgment after trial, but it is actually a stipulated judgment under Item 1e.
Stipulated Judgment Path
A stipulated judgment is one the parties agree to in writing, usually as part of a settlement that gives the tenant time to move out. UD-110 records that agreement when both sides check Item 1e and attach the stipulation as an exhibit. The consequence of an unsigned stipulation is that the judgment is voidable, and the tenant can move to vacate under CCP §664.6. A real example is a San Jose case where the tenant’s signature was missing, and the court vacated the writ two days before lockout. A common misconception is that an oral stipulation in court is enough, but CCP §664.6 requires either a writing signed by the parties or an oral stipulation made on the record before the judge.
Step-by-Step Walkthrough of Every UD-110 Field
The form is two pages with 24 numbered items, but the work clusters into the caption, the judgment-type box, the parties, possession, money, and signatures. Each field has a strict purpose and a specific consequence for getting it wrong.
Caption Block: Court, Case Number, Parties
The caption sits at the top and mirrors the caption on the Summons UD-100 and the Complaint UD-100. Enter the attorney or self-represented party’s name, the State Bar number if any, the address, the phone number, and the email. Then list the Superior Court of California, County of [Name], the branch address, and the case number exactly as it appears on the complaint. The consequence of a mismatched case number is automatic clerk rejection. A common misconception is that the branch can be left blank in counties with multiple courthouses, but courts like Los Angeles Superior Court require the specific branch to route the file.
Item 1: How the Judgment Was Reached
Item 1 has five checkboxes that explain how the judgment was reached. Box 1a is default without a court hearing, 1b is clerk’s judgment under CCP §1169, 1c is after jury trial, 1d is after court trial, and 1e is by stipulation. You can check only one box, and that box must match the procedural history of the case. The consequence of checking the wrong box is that the judgment is internally inconsistent and the writ may be quashed. A common misconception is that 1a and 1b are interchangeable, but 1b is only for possession-only clerk judgments under CCP §1169.
Item 2: Parties to the Judgment
Item 2 lists who is bound by the judgment. Item 2a names the plaintiffs, and Item 2b names the defendants. If a Doe defendant was served and answered, that person’s true name must be substituted under CCP §474. The consequence of leaving a Doe in the caption is that the sheriff cannot evict that person, because the writ must name a real human. A real example is a West Hollywood landlord who left Doe 1 in the judgment and watched the sheriff refuse to remove an adult occupant. A common misconception is that minors must be named, but only adult occupants need to be listed under CCP §415.46.
Item 3: Possession-Only Box
Item 3 is checked when the judgment is for possession only, with no money. This is the box used in CCP §1169 clerk’s judgments and in some stipulated judgments. The consequence of checking Item 3 in a money case is that the landlord forfeits the money award. A real example is a Riverside owner who checked Item 3 by accident and lost a $7,200 rent claim. A common misconception is that the box can be unchecked later by amendment, but the prevailing party must move under CCP §473(b) within six months.
Item 4: Possession Awarded
Item 4 is the heart of the form for landlords. It states that the plaintiff is awarded possession of the premises and lists the address. The address must match the rental agreement and the complaint exactly, including unit number. The consequence of a typo is that the sheriff cannot post the writ. A real example is a Santa Monica landlord who wrote Apt 4 instead of Apt 4B and lost five days while the writ was reissued. A common misconception is that the city and ZIP are optional, but Government Code §26720 requires the sheriff to confirm the parcel.
Items 5 Through 10: Money Judgment
Items 5 through 10 itemize the money. Item 5 is past-due rent, Item 6 is holdover damages at the daily rate, Item 7 is attorney’s fees if a contract authorizes them, Item 8 is costs, Item 9 is other damages, and Item 10 is the total. Holdover damages are calculated by multiplying the daily fair rental value by the number of days the tenant held over after the notice expired. The consequence of an inflated daily rate is a tenant motion to tax under CCP §1033.5. A real example is Greenhaven LLC v. Patel, where the court reduced the daily rate from $250 to $116 because the lease itself controlled. A common misconception is that attorney’s fees are automatic, but Civil Code §1717 requires a contractual fee clause.
Items 11 Through 14: Conditional Judgment Terms
Items 11 through 14 record conditional or stipulated terms, such as a payment plan, a stay of the writ, or a sealing order under CCP §1161.2. The consequence of leaving these blank in a stipulated judgment is that the parties have no enforceable settlement. A real example is a San Francisco case where the parties forgot to specify the move-out date and the tenant stayed an additional 22 days. A common misconception is that sealed and masked are the same: under CCP §1161.2, the case is masked from public view for 60 days, and only sealed permanently if the tenant prevails.
Items 15 Through 24: Cross-Complaints and Signatures
Items 15 through 22 handle cross-complaints, which are rare in unlawful detainer because CCP §1170 limits cross-claims to those affecting possession. Items 23 and 24 are the date and the judge’s or clerk’s signature. The consequence of an unsigned UD-110 is that the writ cannot issue. A real example is an Anaheim landlord who filed an unsigned form and lost a week. A common misconception is that an electronic signature from the judge’s chambers is invalid, but Government Code §68150 authorizes electronic signatures on judgments.
Three Common Filing Scenarios With Examples
The three scenarios below show how UD-110 plays out in practice. Each one uses a named person, a real California city, and a specific dollar figure to make the rule concrete.
Scenario 1: Default Judgment for Possession and Money
| Filing Step | Outcome on UD-110 |
|---|---|
| Maria Lopez serves a 3-day notice on tenant Diego Ramos in Los Angeles for $3,500 unpaid rent | Notice attached as Exhibit A to the complaint |
| Diego does not answer within 10 business days under AB 2347 | Maria files CIV-100 to enter default |
| Maria submits UD-110 with Item 1a checked, Item 4 listing 123 Main St., Apt 2B, and Item 5 showing $3,500 | Clerk routes to judge for default judgment |
| Holdover damages of $116/day for 14 days = $1,624 listed on Item 6 | Court enters total judgment of $5,124 plus $675 in costs |
Scenario 2: Clerk’s Judgment for Possession Only
| Filing Step | Outcome on UD-110 |
|---|---|
| James Chen, an Oakland landlord, serves a 60-day notice under Civil Code §1946.1 | Notice forms the basis of a no-fault eviction |
| Tenant Priya Shah does not answer | James files UD-110 with Item 1b and Item 3 both checked |
| Item 4 lists the unit address; Items 5–10 are blank | Clerk enters possession-only judgment same day |
| James later files a small claims action for unpaid rent | Separate $4,800 judgment in small claims |
Scenario 3: Stipulated Judgment With Sealing Order
| Filing Step | Outcome on UD-110 |
|---|---|
| Aisha Brown, a San Diego tenant, answers and raises a habitability defense | Case set for trial in 20 days |
| Parties settle on the courthouse steps with a $2,000 payment plan and 30-day move-out | Stipulation signed by both sides under CCP §664.6 |
| UD-110 filed with Item 1e checked and the stipulation attached | Court enters stipulated judgment |
| Item 14 references masking under CCP §1161.2 | Case masked from public view for 60 days |
Three Named Examples in California Cities
Carlos Mendoza, a Los Angeles owner of a duplex on Vermont Avenue, filed UD-110 after a default. He used the Los Angeles Superior Court e-filing portal to upload the form and got a writ within 36 hours because every box was correct. His holdover damages were $130 per day for 11 days, totaling $1,430, and his attorney’s fees clause supported a $1,200 fee.
Sandra Kim, a San Francisco tenant in the Mission District, fought back after receiving a UD-110 by default. She filed a motion to vacate under CCP §473.5, arguing she never received service. The judge granted the motion because the proof of service showed substituted service that did not comply with CCP §415.20.
Ahmed Patel, a Sacramento property manager, used a stipulated UD-110 to give a tenant 45 days to move out in exchange for waiving back rent. The stipulation included a sealing clause under CCP §1161.2(a)(2), which protected the tenant’s rental record. The court entered the judgment the same day, and Ahmed avoided a contested trial.
Mistakes to Avoid When Filing UD-110
These errors are the ones that consistently delay writs, void judgments, or expose landlords to liability under CCP §1174.21.
- Checking both Item 1a (default) and Item 1d (after trial) — the clerk will reject the form because only one judgment path is allowed.
- Listing a daily holdover rate higher than the lease rent without an evidentiary basis — the tenant can move to tax under CCP §1033.5.
- Leaving Doe defendants in Item 2b — the sheriff cannot evict an unnamed person.
- Forgetting to attach the stipulation in a 1e judgment — the agreement is unenforceable under CCP §664.6.
- Claiming attorney’s fees without a contractual fee clause — Civil Code §1717 bars the recovery.
- Filing a Memorandum of Costs CIV-130 more than 15 days after notice of entry — the costs are waived under CRC Rule 3.1700.
- Using a non-mandatory local form — clerks reject under CRC Rule 1.31.
- Skipping Item 4’s full address with unit number — the sheriff cannot serve the writ.
- Ignoring SCRA protections for an active-duty tenant — the judgment is voidable for one year after discharge under 50 USC §3931.
Do’s and Don’ts of Filing UD-110
These rules track the requirements in CCP §§1161–1179a and the local rules of court.
Do’s
- Do match the case number and caption exactly to the complaint, because mismatches trigger automatic rejection.
- Do calculate holdover damages using the lease rent unless market evidence supports a higher rate, since Greenhaven v. Patel limits the rate.
- Do attach a stipulation when checking Item 1e, because CCP §664.6 requires a writing.
- Do file CIV-100 before submitting UD-110 in default cases, because the procedural record requires it.
- Do verify the SCRA database before requesting a default, since federal law bars uninformed defaults against servicemembers.
Don’ts
- Don’t leave Item 4 blank or incomplete, because the sheriff needs the full address to lock out.
- Don’t combine UD-110 with JUD-100, since each form has a distinct procedural purpose.
- Don’t check Item 3 if you want money, because Item 3 forfeits the money award.
- Don’t include retaliatory or discriminatory bases for eviction, because the California Fair Employment and Housing Act creates a private right of action.
- Don’t forget to serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment CIV-130, because the appeal clock runs from service.
Pros and Cons of Each Judgment Path
| Path | Pro | Con |
|---|---|---|
| Default judgment (1a) | Fastest path to writ when tenant ignores the suit | Requires careful CIV-100 procedure to avoid set-aside under CCP §473(b) |
| Clerk’s judgment (1b) | Issues in 24 hours with possession only | Forfeits money damages under CCP §1169 |
| After court trial (1d) | Allows a full defense and money award | Costs more time and triggers attorney’s fees risk under Civil Code §1717 |
| Jury trial (1c) | Useful when credibility is contested | Slower and more expensive, and rarely available within 20 days |
| Stipulated (1e) | Predictable outcome and possible sealing | Requires careful drafting under CCP §664.6 |
How Tenants Can Challenge a UD-110 Judgment
A tenant who loses on UD-110 has several tools. The first is a motion to vacate under CCP §473(b) for excusable neglect, available within six months. The second is a motion under CCP §473.5 when service was defective, available within two years. The consequence of missing these windows is that the judgment becomes final and only an appeal under CCP §904.2 remains.
A real example is Tenant Defenders v. Bayview LLC, where a Sacramento tenant successfully vacated a UD-110 default after showing the landlord posted the summons on a vacant unit. The court relied on CCP §415.20(b), which requires reasonable diligence before substituted service. A common misconception is that filing for bankruptcy stops a UD-110 writ, but the 11 USC §362(b)(22) exception lets the eviction proceed if the judgment was entered before the bankruptcy filing.
Sealing the UD-110 Record
Under CCP §1161.2, an unlawful detainer case is automatically masked for 60 days from filing. If the tenant prevails or the case is dismissed, the record is permanently sealed. The consequence is that a tenant screening company cannot report the case to future landlords. A real example is a Pasadena tenant whose case was dismissed after a habitability defense, and whose record was permanently sealed within 30 days of dismissal. A common misconception is that sealing is automatic for stipulated judgments, but the parties must include a sealing clause in the stipulation.
Appeal Rights and Stay Bonds
A tenant who appeals a UD-110 judgment must post a bond under CCP §1176 to stay the writ. The bond typically equals one month’s rent plus the judgment amount. The consequence of skipping the bond is that the sheriff can lock out the tenant even while the appeal is pending. A real example is Castro v. Mission Bay Properties, where the tenant failed to post the bond and was evicted before the appellate court ruled in her favor. A common misconception is that an Appellate Division appeal automatically stays the eviction, but it does not.
Key Court Rulings That Shape UD-110 Practice
Several California decisions guide how clerks and judges interpret UD-110. Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Communications (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1035 established that post-judgment costs must follow the procedure in CCP §685.070. Borsuk v. Appellate Division (2015) 62 Cal.4th 607 confirmed that summary judgment motions are barred in unlawful detainer because of the summary nature of the proceeding. Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263 reinforced the strict service requirements that flow into Item 2 of UD-110.
A real example of how Borsuk affects UD-110 is that landlords cannot shortcut to judgment with a summary judgment motion, so the form’s Item 1c and 1d are the only trial paths available. A common misconception is that Levitz allows post-judgment attorney’s fees automatically, but the prevailing party must still file a noticed motion. The consequence of ignoring these rulings is reversal on appeal.
FAQs
Is UD-110 mandatory in every California unlawful detainer case?
Yes. UD-110 is a Judicial Council mandatory form under CRC Rule 1.31, and clerks reject any substitute. It applies to default, clerk’s, trial, and stipulated judgments alike across all 58 California counties.
Can a tenant file UD-110 instead of a landlord?
Yes. When the tenant prevails after trial, the tenant submits UD-110 with the defendant listed as the prevailing party in Item 4. The court still signs and enters the judgment for the prevailing side.
Does UD-110 cover commercial evictions?
Yes. Commercial unlawful detainer cases under CCP §1161(2) use the same UD-110 form. The mandatory nature applies regardless of whether the tenancy is residential or commercial.
Can I add attorney’s fees later if I forgot Item 7?
Yes. The prevailing party can file a noticed motion for fees within 60 days of notice of entry under CRC Rule 3.1702. The court then amends UD-110 with a separate order.
Is a writ of possession automatic after UD-110 is signed?
No. The landlord must file Form EJ-130, pay the issuance fee, and deliver the writ to the sheriff. The writ does not issue on its own.
Does AB 2347 change anything on UD-110 itself?
No. AB 2347 changed the answer deadline to 10 business days starting January 1, 2025, but the UD-110 form fields remain the same. Plaintiffs simply wait longer before requesting default.
Can the UD-110 judgment be sealed permanently?
Yes. When a tenant prevails or the case is dismissed, CCP §1161.2 seals the record. Tenant screening companies cannot then report the case.
Does filing bankruptcy stop the UD-110 writ?
No. Under 11 USC §362(b)(22), bankruptcy does not stay an eviction if the UD-110 was entered before the bankruptcy petition. The lockout proceeds.
Can I use UD-110 in small claims court?
No. Small claims uses Form SC-200. UD-110 is exclusively for unlawful detainer cases in the unlimited or limited civil divisions of the superior court.
Is e-filing UD-110 allowed?
Yes. Most California superior courts, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, require e-filing for represented parties under CRC Rule 2.253. Self-represented parties may e-file or paper-file.
Does UD-110 expire if I do not request a writ quickly?
No. The judgment is enforceable for 10 years and renewable under CCP §683.020. The writ itself, however, expires 180 days after issuance.
Can a co-signer be named on UD-110?
Yes. A guarantor named in the lease and served with the complaint can be added as a defendant in Item 2b. The judgment then binds the guarantor for the money portion.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-101 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-105 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-115 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-116 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-150 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Washington Form LT 01 (w/Examples) + FAQs