Title: Sweeney v. West Group Inc.

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and 
Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice 
 
JOSEPH B. SWEENEY 
 
v. Record No. 991810   OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   April 21, 2000 
WEST GROUP, INC. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 
Marcus D. Williams, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we decide whether a lease provision 
requiring a lessee to give written notice of the lessee’s 
intent to vacate leased premises at the end of a fixed-term 
residential real estate lease can be enforced by a lessor.  
Because we conclude that the provision is, in effect, a 
statutorily proscribed waiver of the lessee’s rights under 
Code § 55-222, we will reverse the circuit court’s judgment 
in favor of the lessor. 
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 
Joseph B. Sweeney signed a one-year, fixed-term lease 
agreement with West Gate1 on August 1, 1996, for an 
apartment (the premises) located in a complex known as the 
Commons of McLean.  By its terms, that lease expired on 
July 31, 1997.  It did not provide for an automatic renewal 
of the one-year term. 
                     
1 West Gate is owned by the appellee West Group, Inc. 
The form lease agreement that Sweeney executed states 
that “Lessee shall render to the Lessor a written thirty 
(30) day notice to vacate said premises in the event this 
Lease is not extended, this notice to be filed with the 
Lessor thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this 
Lease.”  A lease rider, which Sweeney also executed, 
provides that the terms of the rider control in cases of 
conflict between the provisions of the lease and those of 
the rider.  The rider also states that the rights and 
responsibilities of the lessee are governed by the Virginia 
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Act), Code §§ 55-248.2 
through –248.40, and that the Act, or other applicable 
state law, controls if any conflict exists between the 
terms of the lease and the provisions of the Act. 
In early June 1997, Sweeney visited the complex’s 
rental office and orally informed West Gate’s agent that he 
would not be extending his lease beyond its expiration on 
July 31, 1997.  Sweeney did not give the lessor any written 
notice of his intent to vacate the premises at the end of 
the fixed term, but he vacated the premises on or before 
the last day of the term of his lease. 
 
Almost one year later, West Group filed a warrant in 
debt in the Fairfax County General District Court against 
Sweeney and a co-signer of the lease, seeking damages in 
 
2
the amount of $899.75 for unpaid rent and damages,2 plus 
interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.  Sweeney answered, 
denying that he owed the amount sued for, and filed a 
counterclaim for $150 plus interest, which represented a 
portion of his security deposit that he contended West 
Group withheld from him. 
The general district court dismissed West Group’s 
warrant in debt with prejudice but granted Sweeney a 
judgment in the amount of $111.33 on his counterclaim.  
West Group appealed the general district court’s judgment 
to the circuit court.  After a bench trial, the circuit 
court entered judgment against Sweeney in the amount of 
$730 plus costs.3  This appeal followed. 
ANALYSIS 
 
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the provision 
of the lease agreement requiring Sweeney to give the lessor 
written notice of his intent to vacate the premises at the 
end of the fixed term can be enforced by West Group.  
                     
2 West Group calculated its claim in the following 
manner:  $1,049.75 for damages, utilities, and rent less 
Sweeney’s security deposit of $150, leaving an amount due 
of $899.75.  Of that amount due, West Group included $880 
as additional rent because of Sweeney’s failure to give the 
written notice to vacate. 
 
3 The circuit court’s final order does not specifically 
address Sweeney’s counterclaim.  Neither party has assigned 
 
3
Enforcement of the provision would subject Sweeney to 
additional rental payments beyond the term of his lease if 
he failed to give the written notice.  As stated in the 
rider to Sweeney’s lease, the Act governs Sweeney’s rights 
and responsibilities and thus applies to the present 
dispute.  Pursuant to Code §§ 55-248.9(A)(1) and (2), a 
rental agreement subject to the Act may not contain a 
waiver of a tenant’s rights under, inter alia, the Act or 
Chapter 13 of Title 55 of the Code.  Sweeney’s rights under 
Chapter 13 are at issue in this appeal. 
Code § 55-222, found in Chapter 13 of Title 55, 
addresses the necessity and type of notice required to 
terminate various kinds of tenancies.  That section 
provides, in pertinent part, that notice is not “necessary 
from or to a tenant whose term is to end at a certain 
time.”  The one-year, fixed term of Sweeney’s lease ended 
on July 31, 1997, which is “a certain time” within the 
meaning of Code § 55-222. 
Thus, the provision in Sweeney’s lease agreement 
requiring him to give written notice of his intent to 
vacate the premises was not only unnecessary but also 
contrary to the terms of Code § 55-222.  The requirement of 
___________________ 
error with respect to the disposition of the counterclaim. 
Thus, that issue is not before the Court in this appeal. 
 
4
written notice is, in effect, a statutorily proscribed 
waiver of Sweeney’s rights under Code § 55-222.  Such a 
waiver is not enforceable.  Code § 55-248.9(B). 
For this reason, we will reverse the circuit court’s 
judgment and enter judgment for Sweeney on the warrant in 
debt.4
Reversed and final judgment. 
                     
4 Because of our decision, we do not reach Sweeney’s 
other assignment of error. 
 
5