906 S.E.2d 682
Va. Ct. App.2024Background
- Woodrock River Walk, LLC (landlord) issued a notice to tenants (Rice) for failure to pay rent, referencing both Virginia law (5-day pay-or-quit) and the federal CARES Act (30-day notice to vacate).
- After 29 days (not the full 30), Woodrock filed a summons for unlawful detainer to begin eviction proceedings.
- The tenants argued this filing violated the CARES Act's 30-day notice requirement, and the circuit court dismissed the eviction.
- Woodrock appealed, asserting the 30-day requirement applies only to actual removal (execution of writ), not to summons filings.
- There were no material disputes regarding facts; the dispute centered on statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does filing a summons for unlawful detainer within 30 days of notice to vacate violate the CARES Act? | Only execution of a writ of eviction requires tenant to vacate; summons is permitted within 30 days. | Filing the summons within 30 days violates the CARES Act because it moves to require tenant to leave. | Filing a summons does not violate the CARES Act; only actual execution of writ within 30 days would. |
| Does terminating a lease during the 30-day period violate the CARES Act? | Lease can be terminated as long as tenant is given 30 days before being required to vacate. | Lease termination during 30 days strips tenant’s right to remain, violating CARES Act. | Termination does not require immediate vacancy; CARES Act preempts VA law, tenant entitled to 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cummings v. Fulghum, 261 Va. 73 (rules of statutory construction)
- Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm’n, 300 Va. 153 (legislative intent in statutory language)
- Klarfeld v. Salsbury, 233 Va. 277 (different statutory terms have different meanings)
- Parrish v. Fannie Mae, 292 Va. 44 (nature of unlawful detainer proceedings)
- Maretta v. Hillman, 283 Va. 34 (preemption when state and federal law conflict)