Brandon v. Cox
284 Va. 251
| Va. | 2012Background
- Brandon, a Section 8 tenant, leased property owned by Cox and managed by Horner; she terminated the lease early due to reasons beyond her control.
- Cox retained Brandon's security deposit despite a Landlord Certification of Good Standing stating no owed back rent or damages.
- Brandon sued in December 2010 in district court seeking the return of the security deposit; the district court ruled for Cox and Horner.
- The circuit court upheld the defendants on May 5, 2011; Brandon moved for reconsideration on May 17, 2011 but no hearing or ruling on the motion is evident in the record.
- Brandon appealed on June 3, 2011; the trial court entered a written statement of facts on July 15, 2011, which did not reflect any argument or ruling about the motion for reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court held Brandon failed to preserve the argument for appeal under Code § 8.01-384(A) and Rule 5:25, and thus waived the issue; the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of the security-deposit-balance argument | Brandon preserved via motion for reconsideration and memorandum. | Record lacks explicit trial-court ruling on the motion; argument not preserved. | Waived for lack of proper preservation. |
| Effect of a written motion without a hearing on preservation | Code § 8.01-384(A) preserves written trial motions absent waiver. | Preservation requires a known ruling or opportunity to rule; record shows none. | Preservation fails without an actual ruling. |
| Relation of Rule 5:25 to preservation on appeal | Rule 5:25 supports bringing arguments to the trial court for intelligent rulings. | Trial court never addressed the argument; record insufficient for review. | Argument not preserved, hence waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 (Va. 2010) (obligation to state grounds for objections to allow intelligent ruling)
- Riverside Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson, 272 Va. 518 (Va. 2006) (requires timely, explicit awareness of issues for preservation)
- Majorana v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 260 Va. 521 (Va. 2000) (adequate preservation when post-trial denial is at issue)
- Ball v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 754 (Va. 1981) (ends of justice and preservation doctrine principles)
- Cooper v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 883 (Va. 1965) (preservation requires intelligent trial-court rulings)