Classic Law is Your Friend: Virginia Tenant's Assertion

First of all, I realized today that I forgot to post last week.  I must send my sincerest apologies.  Last week, I had to spend all day Tuesday in a class in Washington, DC (I've just been admitted to the Bar there and am trying to get up to speed so that I can take cases there in the near future), then I was in court most of the day Thursday and Friday, so again, I am sorry about the oversight.

Today's classic blog post discusses tenant's assertions - one of the options available to tenants with abusive landlords who violate their lease and the law.  It was originally posted on November 13, 2013 and was titled "Avoiding Tenant 'Self-Help' Part 1 - Tenant's Assertions."

Where I felt it necessary, I have added a few lines here and there.  Additions that were not in the original blog post will be in brackets ([]).

As always, before reading my post, please review my disclaimer by clicking on the link above, or by following this link.  As always, any principles discussed apply only to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Introduction

Most of my regular readers will remember my post from several months ago talking about how it is improper when in a landlord/tenant dispute to engage in self-help.  Self-help, again, is what happens when, without a signed agreement with the other party, and without court approval, you take action altering the terms of your lease (a non-exhaustive list of examples as a tenant is withholding rent or fixing damage yourself, while for landlords can be changing the locks, cutting off power, etc.).  If you engage in self-help, even if you are legally in the right, the consequences can be very severe - heavy imposition of damages, injunctions, attorneys' fee awards, etc.  [Not to mention eviction if you are a tenant.]  As a result, it is important you avoid self-help.

Since posting my "don't do self-help" post in July [of 2013], however, I've gotten numerous questions about what the alternatives are.  Since the alternative is generally clear for landlords (legal eviction proceedings), nearly all the questions I get, and nearly all the examples of improper self-help I see, involve tenants.  While I do present these alternatives in my July post about self-help, my presentation is short, and probably not very helpful.  As a result, starting this week, I've decided to start a multi-part series discussing each of the options available to a tenant whose landlord is in active violation of the lease.  Today's post will discuss a legal proceeding known as a "Tenant's Assertion."

VRLTA vs. Common Law/Chapter 13 Lease

Regular readers will again remember that it makes a substantial difference in many areas of landlord/tenant law whether your lease is covered by the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, or if it is a Common Law/Chapter 13 lease.  While it is still true in this area of landlord/tenant law, this is not nearly to the extent that it used to be.  Prior to 2011, the only remedy a non-VRLTA tenant had to a breach of the lease by the landlord was an after-the-fact lawsuit for damages.  The law changed in 2011, however, and now, while not identical, the rights of tenants regarding a tenant's assertion are largely similar.  In fact, the only difference that seems relevant to me is that a non-VRLTA lease could theoretically waive the tenant's right to pursue an assertion (I say only theoretically because I am aware of no court case to this point directly dealing with that issue) while such a provision would be barred in a VRLTA lease by Va. Code Section 55-248.9(A)(1).

What Is A Tenant's Assertion?

So, before getting started, you might be wondering what a tenant's assertion actually is.  This is an action where the tenant "asserts" that the landlord is in active violation of the lease or the law, and that a remedy is necessary in order for the tenant to properly enjoy his rights to possession of the property.  A tenant's assertion is primarily for people who either want a problem fixed without having to move out of the property, or want their lease actively terminated by the court, instead of engaging in the notice termination (which I will discuss in part 2) and then potentially being sued by the landlord.  The major disadvantage is that a tenant's assertion, under either VRLTA or common law leases, usually cannot win attorneys' fees, while other actions sometimes can.  I generally recommend a tenant's assertion to tenant clients who like their home except for the issue causing their complaint, cannot find a new place to rent, or just cannot stand the thought of the uncertainty that comes with a notice termination.

Pre-Conditions to a Tenant's Assertion

The law for tenant's assertions is laid out for non-VRLTA tenants in Va. Code Section 55-225.12 and for VRLTA tenants in Va. Code Section 55-248.27.  You will notice the two sections are very similar but have some differences.  Both sections include the following required pre-conditions to a tenant's assertion:

• A condition must exist on the property that allows an assertion to be approved.  This condition must be a "material" violation of the lease or of the law, a fire hazard or serious threat to the life, health or safety of occupants, a lack of heat or hot or cold running water, a lack of light, electricity or adequate sewage disposal facilities, an infestation of rodents, or the existence of paint containing lead pigment on surfaces within the dwelling
• The landlord must have been "served" with a written notice from the tenant or a state agency of the condition and failed, within a reasonable amount of time after that service, to fix the condition (note that more than 30 days is presumed unreasonable)
• The condition must remain up to the day of the trial

Additionally, the VRLTA has these provisions (which the common law assertion does not):

• The "condition" on the property cannot be a rodent infestation if the property is a single-family dwelling (namely a detached home or townhouse).
• Va. Code Section 55-248.4 allows notices to be served simply by first-class mail as long as you also simultaneously swear out a certificate that you've sent the mail.  The non-VRLTA tenant needs to serve notice either by formal service, or by certified mail (unless he can show proof that the landlord actually received the notice).

If those pre-conditions are met, however, you can go ahead and file your tenant's assertion (note that if you file the assertion before giving the landlord a reasonable time to remedy under the assumption that any trial will occur after such amount of time has elapsed, you are in violation of the statute and could be sanctioned by the court).

While Assertion is Pending

While your tenant's assertion is pending, you must continue to pay your rent in full.  Instead of paying it to your landlord, however, you must pay it to the court.  If you don't pay your full amount of rent to the court within 5 days of its due date your assertion will be dismissed, the money you've paid to the court will be released to the landlord, and you start over again.  If you do, however, your money is held in escrow.  This is the true advantage of a tenant's assertion over an after-the-fact lawsuit.  If you win damages, your escrow gives you a source from which you can collect immediately, instead of having to engage in post-judgment collections.

Trial

Somewhere around 5 weeks after filing your assertion, assuming it is contested, you will have a trial.  It's important to note that both the VRLTA and non-VRLTA assertion statutes allow as a complete defense a landlord to say "the condition's been fixed."  This means, if the landlord fixes the problem while the assertion is pending, your assertion will lose, even if it was proper at the start!  The remedy to this is to try to convince the judge to let you amend your case to a warrant in debt for damages, then still seek any monetary damages you may have suffered (you may even be able to still pull that money out of escrow).

If, however, the condition does remain as of the date of trial, you must prove the following things in order to win your assertion:

• That the condition is, in fact, of the type listed in the statute (material noncompliance with lease or law, hazard to health and safety, etc.),
• That the condition still exists,
• That notice was properly given to the landlord, or that the landlord had actually received notice even if not properly given,
• That the landlord was given a reasonable amount of time to remedy the problem before the assertion was filed, and
• That you have paid all rent, in full, into the court while the assertion has been pending.

If you successfully show all of those things, you will win, and the judge will grant you one, some, or all of a myriad of possible remedies, which include, but are not limited to:

• Terminating the lease,
• Dividing some or all of the money in the escrow account between the tenant and/or landlord as the court sees fit,
• Ordering the escrowing of rent continue until the repairs are complete,
• Abating rent prospectively and/or retroactively,
• Ordering money in escrow be paid directly to a contractor in order to repair the property,
• Referring the matter to a state or municipal agency for investigation, and
• Ordering escrow funds be used to pay a mortgage in order to prevent foreclosure.

After Trial

It is very rare for a trial to end a tenant's assertion unless the landlord prevails.  Instead, some form of continuing of the escrow account usually occurs.  If this is the case, no escrow money can be distributed without a hearing, so there may be occasional hearings going forward to decide what to do with escrow money, or if a party is not following the terms of the order.  Perhaps the most serious issue, however, is that if the condition is not remedied within six months of the date the escrow account was established, the court is then required to return to the tenant all money then in the escrow account (unless the landlord can prove he has made a reasonable effort to finish the repairs).  When that happens, though, the escrow is not terminated, but a new six month period begins.

The assertion really does not end until the condition is repaired and/or the lease has ended, and all money in escrow has been distributed.

Conclusion

When a landlord is in violation of his lease obligations, a tenant's assertion is a very robust and flexible means for a tenant to assert his or her rights without risking a lawsuit from the landlord, and without necessarily having to terminate the tenancy.  If you are in a landlord/tenant dispute that already involves, or may require, a tenant's assertion, please feel free to call (703)281-0134 or e-mail me at sleven@thebaldwinlawfirm.com to discuss representation.  Our initial consultations are free for up to half an hour!