Title: Sales v. Kecoughtan Housing Co.

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
 
WILLIAM M. SALES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     OPINION BY 
v. 
 
Record No. 090143 
 
  JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN 
          
 
  February 25, 2010 
KECOUGHTAN HOUSING COMPANY, 
LTD., ET AL. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON 
Louis R. Lerner, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal we consider whether the circuit court erred 
in sustaining a demurrer filed by a landlord and its agent, 
when a tenant claimed to have suffered personal injuries and 
property damage as a result of misrepresentations and negligent 
repairs.  
William M. Sales (Sales) filed a complaint against 
Kecoughtan Housing Company (Kecoughtan) and Abbitt Management, 
Inc. (Abbitt) alleging one count of defective repair, one count 
of actual fraud and one count of constructive fraud.  
Kecoughtan and Abbitt filed a demurrer to the complaint.  The 
circuit court sustained the demurrer as to all three counts and 
granted Sales leave to amend.  Sales filed an amended 
complaint, expanding upon but including the same three counts.  
Kecoughtan and Abbitt both filed demurrers to the amended 
complaint.  After argument, the circuit court sustained the 
demurrers as to all counts and dismissed the amended complaint 
with prejudice.  Sales appeals. 
Facts 
The circuit court decided this case upon a demurrer 
without an evidentiary hearing.  Thus, we will summarize the 
facts as alleged in the pleadings.  Eagle Court Condominium 
Unit Owners Ass’n v. Heatilator, Inc., 239 Va. 325, 327, 389 
S.E.2d 304, 304 (1990).  In doing so, we consider the facts 
stated and all those reasonably and fairly implied in the light 
most favorable to the nonmoving party, Sales.  Yuzefovsky v. 
St. John’s Wood Apartments, 261 Va. 97, 102, 540 S.E.2d 134, 
137 (2001). 
Sales entered into a rental agreement for an apartment 
owned by Kecoughtan.  Throughout the time of Sales’ tenancy, 
Kecoughtan employed Abbitt to manage the apartment where Sales 
resided.  After possessing the apartment for several months, 
Sales informed Abbitt that there was mold growing in the 
property and requested repair.  Abbitt, acting as an agent for 
and in concert with Kecoughtan, entered the property to repair 
the moldy areas of the property.  Thereafter, Abbitt repeatedly 
told Sales that the mold problem had been remedied and that the 
property was safe for habitation.  Based upon Abbitt’s 
representations about the repairs, Sales continued to reside in 
the apartment and made payments pursuant to the terms of the 
rental agreement. 
 
2
A few months later, mold began growing in Sales’ eye.  
Sales claims this has caused him serious and permanent injury 
for which he has received, and in the future will continue to 
receive, medical and hospital care and treatment.  He also 
alleges that mold infested and destroyed all his personal 
property kept in the apartment. 
In his amended complaint, Sales claims that Abbitt 
performed the mold repairs in a careless, reckless and 
negligent manner, resulting in the continued growth and spread 
of mold in the property.  Specifically, Sales claims that 
Abbitt painted over the mold and did not perform any other 
remediation, and that Abbitt knew or should have known that 
painting over the mold would not remedy the mold problem.  
Sales alleges that as a result of the negligence of Kecoughtan 
and Abbitt in repairing the property, he suffered serious and 
permanent injuries to his eye as well as damage to his personal 
property. 
Sales also asserts causes of action for actual and 
constructive fraud, claiming that Kecoughtan and Abbitt knew 
that the repairs made by Abbitt were totally insufficient, but 
knowingly misrepresented to Sales that the repairs were 
adequate, that the mold problem had been remedied and that the 
property was safe for habitation, with the intent of inducing 
Sales to continue in his tenancy in the property.  Sales claims 
 
3
that he reasonably relied on these false representations and 
was damaged as a result.  Sales also claims that if the 
misrepresentations were innocently or negligently made, he 
still reasonably relied upon them and was damaged as a result 
thereof.  
Analysis 
 
The purpose of a demurrer is to determine whether a 
complaint states a cause of action upon which relief may be 
granted.  Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 272 Va. 709, 
712-13, 636 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2006); Welding, Inc. v. Bland 
County Service Auth., 261 Va. 218, 226, 541 S.E.2d 909, 913 
(2001).  “A demurrer admits the truth of all properly pleaded 
material facts.  ‘All reasonable factual inferences fairly and 
justly drawn from the facts alleged must be considered in aid 
of the pleading.’”  Dodge v. Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, 
276 Va. 1, 5, 661 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2008) (citation omitted); 
accord Tronfeld, 272 Va. at 713, 636 S.E.2d at 449; Fuste v. 
Riverside Healthcare Ass’n, 265 Va. 127, 131, 575 S.E.2d 858, 
861 (2003).  On appeal, the granting of a demurrer is reviewed 
de novo because it is a question of law.  Mark Five 
Construction, Inc. v. Castle Contractors, 274 Va. 283, 287, 645 
S.E.2d 475, 477 (2007). 
Sales claims that his amended complaint properly pleads a 
cause of action for defective repair.  He argues that the 
 
4
amended complaint states that Abbitt, acting as agent for and 
in concert with Kecoughtan, entered the property for the 
purpose of making repairs.  Sales claims that Abbitt performed 
the repairs in a careless, reckless and negligent manner, and 
that as a result of the defendants’ negligence, mold began 
growing in Sales’ eye and infested and destroyed Sales’ 
personal property in the apartment. 
Kecoughtan and Abbitt claim that Sales failed to state a 
cause of action for negligent repair because there is no 
allegation that the defective condition resulted from Abbitt’s 
repairs.  Kecoughtan and Abbitt argue that in order to be 
liable for breach of the duty to make repairs in a non-
negligent fashion, the repairs must create the danger that 
causes the injury, i.e., the repairs must result in a new 
danger.  They point out that because the painting over the mold 
did not create any new defective condition, Kecoughtan and 
Abbitt should not be held liable for the injuries resulting 
from the mold. 
Although a landlord does not have a common law duty to 
make repairs after delivering possession to the tenant, see 
Paytan v. Roland, 208 Va. 24, 26, 155 S.E.2d 36, 37 (1967), 
where the landlord enters leased premises for the purpose of 
making repairs, he must use reasonable care in performing the 
work.  Holland v. Shively, 243 Va. 308, 311, 415 S.E.2d 222, 
 
5
224 (1992).  “In order to recover against the landlord for 
injuries arising from a defective condition resulting from the 
repairs, the tenant has the burden of proving that the landlord 
failed to use reasonable care.  The mere fact that a defect 
remained after the work was done is not alone sufficient.”  
Kesler v. Allen, 233 Va. 130, 133, 353 S.E.2d 777, 779-80 
(1987) (citing Oden v. Housing Authority, 203 Va. 638, 640, 125 
S.E.2d 843, 845 (1962)). 
In Holland, the plaintiff was injured on the steps of the 
porch of the subject property following the landlord’s 
negligent repair of the porch.  243 Va. at 310, 415 S.E.2d at 
223.  As in the instant case, the danger that led to the 
Holland plaintiff’s injury was not a new condition created by 
the landlord’s attempt to repair.  The plaintiff was injured by 
the faulty steps, which existed before and after the landlord’s 
repair.  Id.  However, this Court stated: 
We hold that the record contains sufficient evidence 
upon which the jury could have relied to find that Mr. 
Shively was negligent.  Before Mrs. Holland fell, her 
husband had fallen through the porch.  Thereafter Mr. 
Shively entered the premises and repaired a portion of 
the porch.  The jury was entitled to find that Mr. 
Shively was negligent because his actions of merely 
removing the rotten boards did not correct the defects 
in the steps which are an integral component of the 
porch. 
 
Id. at 311, 415 S.E.2d at 224. 
 
6
 
Applying these well-established principles, we hold that 
Sales pled a cause of action for negligent repair sufficient to 
withstand a demurrer.  The amended complaint states that 
Abbitt, acting as agent for and in concert with Kecoughtan, 
entered the property for the purpose of making repairs, that it 
performed the repairs in a careless, reckless and negligent 
manner, and that as a result of the negligent conduct, mold 
began growing in Sales’ eye and infested his property, causing 
personal injury and property damage.  The circuit court erred 
in granting the demurrer on the defective repair cause of 
action, and the plaintiff should be given the opportunity to 
prove his allegations concerning the negligence of Kecoughtan 
and Abbitt and that such negligence proximately resulted in 
Sales’ alleged damages.  
 
Sales asserts causes of action for fraud, both actual and 
constructive, based on Kecoughtan’s and Abbitt’s alleged 
misrepresentations that the property was safe for habitation 
and that the mold problem had been remedied.  Kecoughtan and 
Abbitt argue that Sales fails to state a cause of action for 
actual or constructive fraud because the claimed 
representations that the apartment was safe for habitation and 
 
7
that the mold problem had been remedied were matters of opinion 
and not statements of fact.* 
 
In order to state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff 
must plead that there was “a false representation of a material 
fact, made intentionally and knowingly, with intent to 
mislead.”  Elliott v. Shore Stop, Inc., 238 Va. 237, 244, 384 
S.E.2d 752, 756 (1989).  The plaintiff must also plead that he 
relied on that false representation and his reliance led to 
damages.  Id.  In order to state a cause of action for 
constructive fraud, the plaintiff is only required to plead 
that the false representation was made innocently or 
negligently, while all other elements remain the same.  
Prospect Dev. Co. v. Bershader, 258 Va. 75, 86, 515 S.E.2d 291, 
297 (1999).  An action based on fraud may not be predicated on 
unfulfilled promises or statements about future events.  Id.  
Further, the statement that serves as the foundation for an 
action in fraud, either actual or constructive, must be a 
misrepresentation of an existing fact and not the expression of 
an opinion.  McMillion v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 262 Va. 463, 
471, 552 S.E.2d 364, 368-69 (2001). 
                     
* An appellate court’s consideration of the demurrer on 
appeal is limited to the grounds raised by the demurrer.  
McMillion v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 262 Va. 463, 470, 552 S.E.2d 
364, 368 (2001). 
 
8
 
Whether a statement is a statement of fact or a statement 
of opinion is determined on a case-by-case basis, “taking into 
consideration the nature of the representation and the meaning 
of the language used as applied to the subject matter and as 
interpreted by the surrounding circumstances.”  Packard 
Norfolk, Inc. v. Miller, 198 Va. 557, 562, 95 S.E.2d 207, 211 
(1956).  In Packard, this Court held that the statement that a 
car was in perfect condition was “a representation as to the 
present quality or character of the article” and “clearly a 
representation of fact and not a promise as to something to be 
done in the future.”  Id. at 563, 95 S.E.2d at 211.  In Tate v. 
Colony House Builders, 257 Va. 78, 83-84, 508 S.E.2d 597, 600 
(1999), this Court stated that “the new dwelling house was fit 
for habitation” was a statement of fact because it was a 
representation of the present quality or character of the 
property.  
 
In this case, we hold that Abbitt’s alleged statements 
that the apartment was safe for habitation and that the mold 
problem had been remedied were statements of the present 
quality or character of the instant property, and thus 
statements of fact rather than opinion.  These statements are 
alleged in the amended complaint to be misrepresentations of a 
material fact that were made to Sales, that Sales relied upon 
them, and that he was damaged as a result thereof.  Thus, 
 
9
whether made intentionally or negligently, these alleged 
statements may serve as a basis for an action for actual or 
constructive fraud.  The circuit court erred in sustaining the 
demurrer and dismissing Sales’ claims for actual and 
constructive fraud.  
Conclusion 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the circuit court 
erred in sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to Sales’ amended 
complaint.  Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the 
circuit court and remand this matter to the circuit court for 
further proceedings. 
Reversed and remanded. 
  
 
10