Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law : Virginia Construction Lawyers & Attorneys : Bean Kinney & Korman Law Firm : VA Real Estate, Land Use & Zoning

Commercial real estate landlords and the lenders for their tenants have competing interests with respect  to the tenant's personal property located at the demised premises. The landlord is looking to secure the tenant's rental obligations by taking a lien against the tenant's fixtures, inventory, and equipment located in the space, which may be particularly valuable in the case of  retail and restaurant tenants, while the tenant’s lender providing premises fit-out and/or working capital financing desires a security interest in the same property . The landlord’s lien may be created either by contract under the terms of the lease or through operation of law, and allows the landlord  to levy the property located at the demised premises of a  tenant who has failed to pay rent.  While the tenant would rather not allow either party to maintain a lien against its personal property, the tenant's action in this regard is often dictated by the requirements of its lender.  While  national retailers with strong credit typically have the leverage to insist on the  waiver or subordination of  their landlord’s lien rights, most smaller or regional tenants must navigate between their landlord's and lender's competing interests.  Part I will discuss the varied interests of the landlord and the tenant's lender in the tenant’s personal property are discussed in this article, and Part II will discuss suggested compromise solutions and a typical landlord waiver.  Note that the article that is the basis for this post first appeared in the December, 2012 issue of Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy. 

Depending on the state, there are usually three ways that landlords obtain lien or other security interests in  the tenant's personal property.  The first method is not a lien, per se, but the traditional common law rights  of distress and distraint, which enable a landlord to seize and sell a tenant’s personal property located at the premises in order to reimburse the landlord for the amount of unpaid rent and other liability.   In Virginia, the landlord must file a sworn petition with the court which demonstrates the justifications for the attachment of the levy as  set forth in the Code of Virginia, but the landlord must state that the tenant intends to flee, conceal itself from creditors or sell or destroy the property.  If the court approves the petition, the sheriff will either take possession of the property or the tenant will be unable to sell, move, destroy or dispose of the property without facing legal consequences.  

Second, in about half of the states, landlords have been given statutory landlord’s lien rights.  The statutory lien rights differ from state to state as to timing, priority and limitations, but typically provide the landlord with a lien on all of the tenant’s personal property located within the demised premises as security for the tenant’s obligations under the lease.  In many states, these statutory liens replace or supplement the common law remedies of distress and distraint.  In some states, the statutory lien rights are limited to a specific amount or period of time and many states provide that the landlord's lien is subordinate to any perfected security interests in  the tenant's personal property existing before such property was transferred to the premises. There is no uniform or model landlord’s lien law and reference must be made to the specific statutes in each applicable jurisdiction. For example, in the District of Columbia, the statutory lien terminates three months after the rent owed became due or upon the termination of any action seeking such unpaid rent brought by landlord within that three-month period.  By comparison, the statutory landlord's lien in Virginia is quite strong, relating back to the commencement of the lease and superior to any other lien upon the tenant's property located at the premises, except for liens attaching prior to the commencement of the lease term and tax liens. Maryland has no statutory lien rights in favor of a landlord, so a landlord would have to pursue an action for distress with the ability to then lien the personal property if successful in obtaining a judgment.  In all of the states, enforcement of the statutory landlord’s lien rights requires the landlord to file a court action and follow very detailed procedures designed to afford the tenant adequate due process prior to losing its property.  While the statutory landlord’s lien provides additional security for the landlord, it is also a cumbersome progress that is expensive and time consuming, limited by statute and subject to avoidance in the event of a tenant bankruptcy.

The third way that a landlord may obtain a lien against the tenant’s personal property and fixtures is through a consensual security interest under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”).  Since a written security agreement is required to create the security interest, the landlord must include language in the lease setting forth the security interest and adequately describing the collateral.  The landlord must then perfect the security interest by filing a UCC financing statement in the appropriate state filing office, which  financing statement may be filed without the tenant’s signature provided the filing is authorized by the tenant.  Without the required filing, the landlord’s security interest would be unperfected and  subordinate to any creditor who has a perfected security interest in the same personal property.  After a tenant default, the landlord may foreclose on the property pursuant to the procedures set forth in  the UCC  without requirement of filing a court action or exercising other judicial process. The UCC security interest offers significant advantages over both the common law rights of distress and distraint and a statutory landlord’s lien because it provides the landlord with greater flexibility in enforcing the lien while giving the landlord the right to immediate possession and control over the tenant’s secured property without the need for judicial action, and is a much less burdensome process than enforcing a statutory landlord’s lien or pursuing an action for distress. Additionally, in the event of the tenant’s  bankruptcy, a landlord maintaining  a perfected UCC security interest would be treated as a secured creditor, subject to the automatic stay and other bankruptcy protections offered the tenant as debtor.

One caveat for landlords is that UCC financing statements are only valid for five years, so the landlord may want to implement a tracking system in order  to safeguard against the failure to file the necessary continuation statements prior to their expiration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Self-Help. Ok or Not?

“Self-help,” in a leasing context, typically refers to the landlord’s historical remedy of locking out a defaulting tenant and obtaining possession of the premises without going through judicial procedures. Traditionally under the common law, a landlord was subject to few limitations in choosing its remedies against a defaulting tenant, including the liberal use of self-help. However, modern jurisprudence provides tenants with much greater protection from eviction and also seeks to prevent possible violent landlord-tenant confrontations.  Therefore, the majority of states have now abolished the traditional rule of self-help and permit landlords to evict tenants only through court proceedings. In connection with the move away from self-help, most states have established summary eviction proceedings, which in theory provide landlords a more efficient and expedient method of retaking possession than traditional civil litigation.

Even with respect to those states that continue to recognize a landlord’s right to self-help, many attorneys are very reluctant to recommend this remedy for their landlord clients given (i) the exposure for significant liability to the tenant if the tenant has a valid defense to the alleged default, (ii) the availability of summary ejectment proceedings and (iii) the often correct perception that courts take a dim or outright hostile view towards self-help. Note further, that in the minority of states that still permit a landlord to exercise self-help, for the most part this remedy is expressly limited to commercial landlords with residential tenants already being afforded much greater protection. For the commercial landlord or tenant operating in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland, this article will focus on the widely differing treatment of self-help under the respective laws of these neighboring jurisdictions.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia has followed the modern trend away from self-help. It is settled law that a commercial or residential landlord in Washington, D.C. cannot use self-help to evict a tenant. In Simpson v. Lee, 499 A.2d 889 (1985), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that neither the landlords of commercial or residential property can employ the common law right of self-help.   In an earlier case, Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978), the court reasoned that, when Congress created a summary judicial process to enable a landlord to reacquire possession of property, Congress necessarily abrogated the landlord’s right of self-help. Accordingly, the Mendes decision found that a landlord cannot unilaterally evict tenants by, for example, changing the locks or removing their personal possessions.

Virginia

In Virginia, the commercial landlord retains the traditional remedy of self-help with certain importation limitations. First, the lease must not specify otherwise, so the default and remedy provisions will require great scrutiny for the existing lease and careful drafting for the lease under negotiation. Second, the landlord must not create a breach of the peace or use unreasonable force. To avoid a breach of the peace, most landlords in Virginia exercising self-help choose to change the locks in the middle of the night while the tenant’s business is closed and the premises unoccupied. As in most states, self-help remedies have been eliminated for residential landlords pursuant to Virginia Code sections 55-225.1 and 55-248.36. 

The leading Virginia case on commercial self-help remains Shorter v. Shelton, 183 Va. 819 (1945), where the Supreme Court of Virginia reaffirmed the landlord’s common law right of entry. Shorter v. Shelton makes clear, however, that no more force than is reasonably necessary is permitted, and that liability for the excessive use of force by a landlord is recognized.

Maryland.

Maryland is similar to Virginia in the approach to self-help, but Maryland courts have made very clear that they discourage the use of self-help and would prefer landlords exercise their judicial remedies. The lease must be clear that re-entry is an available remedy for the landlord without an express prohibition against self-help.  The tenant must also  be in default under the lease beyond any applicable notice and cure period. Finally, the retaking of possession by the landlord must be peaceful.  Note that a residential landlord in Maryland may never employ self-help, but only pursue eviction through the judicial process.

The leading Maryland case on this subject remains K&K Management, Inc. v. Lee, 315 Md. 137 (1989), where the Court of Appeals of Maryland makes clear that re-entry is a proper remedy after a breach of a commercial lease, and that it is not necessary for the landlord to resort to legal process provided the repossession can be effected peacefully. The court in K&K Management provides, however, that “(w)e do not encourage resort to self-help, and, for all of the practical reasons which the instant action makes abundantly clear, the Bar usually counsels against it.”

Because of Maryland’s stated preference for the judicial process and discouragement of self-help, the commercial landlord choosing to move ahead with self-help must avoid any possible disturbance of the peace, no matter how trivial.

Conclusion.

Because of the potential liability for damage to the tenant’s property and interruption of the tenant’s business, landlords must tread very carefully in Virginia and Maryland, or other states recognizing variations of the traditional common law rule, before deciding to exercise self-help.  In many cases, the practical considerations should control, with exercising every legal right afforded under the lease not always being the wisest decision for the pragmatic commercial landlord.

Many attorneys will never advise their commercial landlord clients to exercise self-help, given the risks of liability and the relative ease of modern summary ejectment. Other more aggressive attorneys will counsel their landlord clients to take a more aggressive approach, arguing that immediate repossession of the premises with the possibility to re-lease at market rates more than offsets the potential exposure to damages.

Instead of taking the view that self-help should never be utilized, it is best to analyze each situation on a case-by-case basis since self-help, when correctly applied, can be an effective option for the careful landlord. If the landlord does decide to exercise self-help, it is paramount that repossession be peaceful, witnessed and well documented with all of the tenant’s personal property inventoried and protected. Further, self-help should only take place during a time when there is no possibility for a contentious disturbance or breach of the peace. If the tenant resists in any fashion or arrives during the changing of the locks, the landlord is better served to back down as use of the formal judicial process could spare the landlord in the long run. No use of force, even minimal, should ever be used. 

If you are a commercial landord or tenant and want to discuss these issues, please contact John G. Kelly at 703-284-7251 or at jkelly@beankinney.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this series we have been examining a landlord's duty to mitigate their damages after a default by the tenant.  Earlier we looked at the laws in the District of Columbia and Virginia.  An examination of Maryland's law is below.

Maryland

Maryland courts traditionally followed the common law rule that a commercial landlord had no duty to mitigate damages, but recent decisions have modified the rule significantly and even left open the possibility that the traditional view may be in danger. In Wilson v. Ruhl, 356 A.2d 544 (Md. 1976), the Court of Appeals set forth a landlord’s option when a tenant wrongfully abandons a commercial lease prior to expiration as follows: (i) the landlord may accept the surrender, thereby terminating the tenant’s obligation to pay future rent; (ii) the landlord may re-enter for the account of the tenant, re-let, and hold the tenant liable for the deficiency; or (iii) the landlord may do nothing and hold the tenant liable for the entire amount of rent payable during the remaining term of the lease.

However, in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Rockville Pike Joint Ventures Limited Partnership, 829 A.2d 976 (Md. 2003), the Court of Appeals moved closer toward the modern rule by applying contract law principles to hold that the landlord must mitigate its damages upon the landlord’s termination of a lease because of a tenant default. The Circuit City opinion discussed how survival clauses, where a tenant is obligated to pay post-termination rent as damages, rely on contract law rather than real property law for the enforcement of such an obligation. Accordingly, because the right to collect post-termination was a contractual obligation, a landlord who terminates a lease or accepts a surrender must accept the contract law doctrine of the duty to mitigate damages. Further, the court did not expressly affirm the landlord’s common law right to do nothing, raising the possibility of a future adoption of the modern rule in Maryland.

Note that like Virginia, Maryland has also enacted a statute that imposes a duty of mitigation on residential landlords.

Both landlords and tenants need to be aware of applicable state law concerning a landlord's duty to mitigate when negotiating the default provisions of a commercial lease. Further, landlords need to understand the consequences of enforcing certain remedies such as terminating a lease or accepting a surrender after a tenant default. The laws of the states differ significantly and the parties could be exposed to unexpected consequences if they do not draft the remedies provisions with due consideration being given to the applicable law in such jurisdiction on tenants and landlords.

**************

John G. Kelly is an attorney with Bean Kinney & Korman in Arlington, Virginia. He represents national retailers and landlords located primarily in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This series focuses on a commercial landlord's duty to mitigate their damges after a default by a tenant.  Earlier we discussed the District of Columbia's treatment of the duty to mitigate.  A discussion with respect to the law of Virginia is below, with Maryland to follow shortly. 

Virginia

A commercial landlord generally has no duty to mitigate under the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. However, certain older Virginia cases have held that a landlord has a duty to mitigate damages by accepting or procuring a new tenant in the rare situation where a lessee fails to ever occupy or take possession of the leased premises. These cases have not imposed a duty to mitigate upon the abandonment of premises after a tenant has taken possession. In James v. Kibler's Admr., 94 Va. 165 (1896), the tenant failed to take possession and occupy under the terms of the lease.   The court held that the landlord's measure of damages was the difference between what he had received under the violated lease, and what he would have received from the purchaser of the lease at either a private or public sale. The court also remarked that the landlord had a duty to minimize the amount of its damages.

The court in Crowder v. Virginia Bank of Commerce, 127 Va. 299 (1920), however, declined to extend the rule from James v. Kibler's Admr, to cover a tenant who had abandoned leased property after having taken possession. The court distinguished James from Crowder on the grounds that it dealt with a refusal to take possession, rather than an abandonment. The court held that upon a tenant's abandonment before the expiration of the term, a landlord will not be required to re-let the premises for the benefit of the tenant, but may, at its election, allow the premises to remain vacant and recover the rent from the tenant for the remainder of the term.

A more recent case, TenBraak v. Waffle Shops, Inc., 542 F2d 919 (4^th Cir. 1976) affirmed the older cases listed above. The court noted that the "remedies of a landlord in an action against his tenant are generally recognized, in the absence of express statutory or judicial modification, to be the same as the remedies permitted at common law." The opinion goes on to hold that the law of Virginia allows the lessor certain options when a tenant abandons the premises, the landlord can "re-enter and terminate the lease, it may reenter for the limited purpose of re-letting the premises without terminating the lease, or it may refuse to re-enter and institute an action for accrued rents."

A widely discussed 2007 U.S. District Court case, Laskin Road Associates, L.P. vs. Capitol Industries, Inc. (2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 41276) applied the rule from Crowder to find that a commercial landlord had no duty to mitigate damages where a defaulting tenant remained on the premises. The court reasoned that if a commercial landlord had no duty to mitigate with respect to a wrongful abandonment, then clearly there is no duty to mitigate when a defaulting tenant was still in possession of the premises.

Note however, that Virginia has imposed a duty to mitigate damages by statute for residential leases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We will discuss the commercial landlord's duty to mitigate damages after a default by tenant in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland.  First, Washington, D.C. is as follows.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia essentially follows the traditional common law approach. In the District of Columbia, a landlord has no duty to mitigate its damages after a tenant abandons its premises, provided the lease has no contractual provision reserving the landlord's right to re-enter and re-let while holding the tenant liable for deficiency or loss of rent upon tenant's default. If, however, the lease contains such a clause, then a landlord in the District has a duty to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages upon re-entering the premises after abandonment. In a 1971 case, Simmons v. Federal Bar Bldg. Corp, 275 A.2d 545 (D.C.App. 1971), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that "it has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that in the absence of a contractual provision reserving the landlord's right to re-enter and re-let upon tenant's default while holding the tenant liable for any deficiency or loss of rent, the landlord is under no obligation to mitigate damages before the expiration of the lease even after an abandonment." The lease clause permitting the landlord to re-enter and re-let is construed as the landlord's assumption of a duty to use "reasonable efforts" to re-let. A more recent District Columbia Court of Appeals case on the subject, Hart v. Vermont Investment Limited Partnership, 667 A.2d 578 (D.C.App 1995), affirms that D.C. law provides a landlord with three options in the event of a wrongful abandonment in a lease without a re-entry clause. First, the landlord may accept the abandonment, terminate the lease, and terminate the tenant's obligation to pay future rent. The tenant remains liable for any damages specified in the lease as a penalty for its breach. Second, the landlord may re-let the premises and hold the tenant liable for any deficiency in the rent, without acquiescing in the abandonment. The landlord's third option is to allow the premises to remain vacant and to hold the tenant liable for the full rent. Hart also affirms the mitigation exception when the lease contains a re-entry clause as discussed above.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Landlord’s Duty to Mitigate in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia

Under common law, a landlord had no duty to accept or procure a new tenant in order to mitigate damages (i.e., take reasonable action to avoid additional injury or loss) resulting from a tenant's breach of a lease, including with respect to an abandonment or refusal to occupy its premises. The rationale for this traditional view arose from the characterization of a lease as a conveyance of a real property interest, and not as a contract. In recent years, many states have enacted statutes applicable to residential landlords that impose a duty to mitigate damages.   There is no clear consistency, however, in the law regarding a commercial landlord's duty to mitigate damages. The modem trend, followed in approximately half of the states, is to require commercial landlords to mitigate damages. This modern view characterizes the lease as a contract rather than a conveyance of real estate, and it is an established principle of contract law that parties to an agreement have a duty to mitigate their damages. There are certain exceptions to the historical common law view that a landlord has no duty to mitigate, which in different variations, are currently recognized by some of the "traditional view" states. One exception imposes a duty to mitigate once the landlord re-enters the premises following an abandonment by the tenant. There are different standards as to what constitutes re-entry. For example, merely accepting the keys to the premises or keeping the premises in good repair would not typically be considered a re-entry. A second exception imposes a duty to mitigate on a landlord if the lease contains the common "re-entry clause," which permits the re-entry of the premises following abandonment of the premises by the tenant. The District of Columbia, as discussed below, is among the jurisdictions that follow this exception. 

Among the states that impose the duty to mitigate on commercial landlords, there is no consensus as to when, or how, that duty is met. Further, there is no consensus among the states as to whether the landlord or the tenant has the burden of proof regarding the landlords efforts to mitigate damages. Typically, the landlord does not need to re-let the premises in order to satisfy the duty to mitigate. Instead, the landlord must only exercise reasonable diligence by taking steps such as advertising and engaging the services of a broker.

It is an important reminder to note that in the states that do not impose a duty on a commercial landlord to mitigate damages following a default by tenant, the parties can agree to the contrary in the lease. The default law only comes into play absent clear language in the agreement. Even in some states that do impose a duty to mitigate, the landlord and tenant can usually agree to negate such a duty contractually provided there is no violation of public policy. Commercial landlords and tenants are thus better served by agreeing on the respective rights of each party in the lease document, and it is crucial that the parties negotiating and drafting the lease understand the governing law. The laws of the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland relating to the duty to mitigate will be discussed more fully in Parts II, III  and IV to follow. 

Note that the article that is the basis for this post first appeared in the October, 2011 issue of Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy.      

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Virginia federal court has ruled that by proactively replacing defective drywall rather than waiting to get sued and found liable, a contractor was left without liability insurance coverage. This decision should send shivers down the spine of not just contractors, but also owners and developers.

The builder, Dragas Management, built 70 houses in the Tidewater Virginia area with Chinese drywall. After it received multiple reports of health symptoms and property damages, Dragas filed claims on multiple liability and umbrella insurance policies. It also stated in writing to the carriers that it was planning on beginning a remediation protocol and forwarded the same to the carriers. Four home owners filed suit against Dragas and later voluntarily dismissed the cases based on the remediation protocol.

Initially, both insurance companies denied coverage and one filed a declaratory judgment suit. Eventually, one carrier agreed to defend Dragas subject to a reservation of rights. Dragas in turn claimed it was entitled to coverage for its remediation costs. The carriers argued that because the liability policies obligated the insurers to pay damages for which the builder became legally obligated to pay, the builder’s voluntary remediation plan was not covered under the policies.

The recent decision is actually round three of this issue in the case. The trial court initially agreed with the insurance carriers and found that Dragas’ complaint seeking coverage failed to state a claim. In round two, Dragas’ amended complaint survived a motion to dismiss by alleging more facts surrounding the threats of litigation by the homeowners as justification for its remediation protocol. Third time being the charm, on summary judgment the court ruled that in fact there was no insurance coverage. The mere threat of litigation did not rise to the level of a “legal obligation to pay”, so there was no insurance coverage. As stated by my good friend Chris Hill at Construction Law Musings, apparently good deeds still go punished.

While this decision may be correct from a strict language reading, the policy and industry implications are just horrible. This result basically states that to keep your insurance coverage intact, you cannot fix the problem, mitigate damages, and remove the condition that may even be creating significant personal injuries to occupants as alleged in these drywall lawsuits. This would seem to be an arena where the General Assembly in Virginia can and should pass a statute that affords some level of cushion to builders for doing the right thing.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A decision issued this month by the Supreme Court of Virginia, Kaltman v All American Pest, answers a question often debated by Virginia lawyers regarding the economic loss rule.  The case also may contain a hidden Trojan horse to contract defenses that everyone should pay attention to.

As we have discussed here on several occasions, the economic loss rule is a critical concept in Virginia construction law.  Stated simply, a party cannot sue under Virginia law for economic losses without establishing they have a contract.  Another case and its progeny, Richmond v. McDevitt Street, ruled that a plaintiff cannot sue in tort for a duty assumed solely by contract.

In Kaltman, a worker failed to properly clean his equipment after a commercial job.  The next day, he used the same equipment on a residential home, including on porous surfaces.  The result was a high-powered commercial pesticide was used on home despite it being inappropriate for residential use.  Despite multiple rounds of cleaning, the owners could not remove the pesticide smell from the home.  The owners claimed personal injuries and property damage from their home being rendered uninhabitable by the smell.

The defendants request that the trial court dismiss the case based on the economic loss rule barring tort claims.  The court agreed.  On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and found that the owners could allege an independent tort duty to protect against personal injury and property damage.  While the court threw out the willful and wanton conduct allegations, it allowed both negligence and negligence per se to survive.

Why does it matter if you can sue in both contract and tort?  I can think of several strategic and practical reasons:

1. The tort claims may more easily trigger insurance coverage;
2. The tort claims may escape the net of contractual notice of claims provisions; and
3. The tort claims may escape the restrictions of limitations of liability clauses.
4. The tort claims may allow broader damages more easily than contract claims.

Image by US Air Force

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We delve into a more legal, technical and lengthy post this week for a good reason — a recent decision from a Virginia trial court (PDF of decision) points to a new avenue for claims by buyers of real estate in Virginia.

Virginia generally looks to the sales contract to evaluate liability. Sales contracts often have very limited warranty and disclosure obligations placing the buyer into the position of "caveat emptor," or let the buyer beware. Fraud claims have traditionally operated as a separate path to liability; however, fraud claims are notoriously difficult to allege prove. They require the buyer to allege claims with extreme specificity and prove them to the elevated standard of "clear and convincing evidence" rather than a simple preponderance. Fraud claims also exclude liability for statements of opinion or future performance.

A decision from Charlottesville, just reported this week by Virginia Lawyer's Weekly (VLW subscription only) allowed a new potential claim to survive the initial pleading stage. A buyer of a residence suffered flooding caused by a clogged drain of a neighboring property. The buyer learned that the drain had clogged and caused flooding of the residence several times before the purchase. The purchase contract contained a home inspection contingency, but the inspection did not reveal the problem. The sellers and agent did not disclose the problem.

The buyer sued the real estate agent who was also a partial owner and thus seller of the property. The buyer included claims for fraud, constructive fraud and also for a violation of the agent's statutory duty to disclose known property defects contained in Virginia Code § 54.1-2131(B). On motions, the court dismissed the fraud and constructive fraud claims finding there was no showing of active concealment of the flooding as opposed to mere lack of disclosure. The court permitted a count based on "Breach of Statutory Duty to Disclose Material Adverse Facts" based on the code section.

This case may present a novel situation in that the agent was also a partial owner and thus seller of the property. The statute does not create a specific cause of action. A prior 2004 case from Loudoun County (VLW subscription only) had ruled the statute does not allow a separate cause of action. Agents and sellers should beware of this case as it may provide a complete end run around the contract and traditional concepts of caveat emptor.

Originally posted at the Washington Business Journal, reprinted with permission.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link