Real Property: Title challenge to real property fails

Where a couple responded to an unlawful detainer action by attempting to challenge whether the plaintiff had valid title to the property in the first place, but their title challenge was insufficiently pleaded, the issue was not properly before the court.

Background

The circuit court entered a decree in April 2014 ordering that real property be sold via public auction to the highest bidder. The property was eventually sold on March 9, 2021, at public auction, to “Jayne A. Foster-Fair for FRP, LLC.” Jayne A. Foster-Fair is the owner and a “managing member” of FRP LLC. On May 25, 2022, before circuit court issued its final decree confirming the judicial sale of the property, FRP executed a deed of bargain and sale conveying the Property to 1309 Taylors Point Road LLC, or TPR.

Subsequently, Michael R. Agnew and Barbara Agnew filed a motion in the circuit court, seeking to set aside the judicial sale to FRP based on a claim of fraud. The circuit court disagreed, and entered an “Order and Decree of Sale and Confirmation” on July 22, 2021, that “accepted, approved, ratified, and confirmed in all respects” the sale of the Property to FRP for $1,800,000. This court previously affirmed that decision.

On Aug. 23, 2022, TPR issued appellants a “Notice to Vacate” the property. When they failed to do so, TPR filed an unlawful detainer action in the Virginia Beach General District Court, or GDC. Appellants raised two “affirmative defenses”: (a) that TPR was not entitled to possess the property and thus lacked standing and (b) that TPR’s claims were barred by its fraud, FRP’s fraud “and unclean hands.”

Following a hearing, the GDC granted TPR immediate possession of the property as well as $40,000 in damages. Following an appeal, the circuit court, based on the admitted documents, the testimony presented ore tenus, and the parties’ arguments regarding the issue of possession, determined that TPR had “a possessory interest in the property” and that appellants were “tenant[s] at sufferance” who owed TPR “the fair market rental value.” This appeal followed.

Analysis

Appellants claim the circuit court erred in finding that TPR had a right to possession of the property. In support of that claim, appellants argue only that TPR did not receive and could not have received valid title from FRP LLC because FRP itself, prior to conveying the property to TPR, did not obtain valid title from the 2021 judicial sale. Appellants thus attempt to challenge the validity of TPR’s title by collaterally attacking the judgment of the Richmond Circuit Court, which confirmed the sale to FRP and rejected the same claims appellants raise again here.

Because appellants’ title challenge was insufficiently pled in the GDC, however, the circuit court did not err in limiting its ruling in the unlawful detainer case to the issue of possession, rather than title. Viewing the record in that light, the circuit court did not err in granting TPR’s motion for summary judgment where TPR established a prima facie case of its right to possession and appellants did not provide any contradictory evidence. That judgment is supported by the evidence and remains undisturbed by appellants’ wholly unsupported arguments contesting title.

By failing to establish a genuine material dispute of title in the GDC, appellants’ insufficient allegations of fraud had no proper place in TPR’s action for unlawful detainer. The same remains true on appeal in both the circuit court and this court. Thus, this court finds that the circuit court did not err in disregarding appellants’ unsupported accusations of fraud when determining whether TPR established its right to possess the property against appellants. Furthermore, based on the uncontradicted evidence of possession presented by TPR, this court finds no error in the circuit court’s decision granting TPR’s motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

Agnew v. 1309 Taylors Point Road LLC, Record No. 0516-23-1, July 30, 2024. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Huff). From the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach (Bullock). David C. Reinhardt (Steven S. Biss; Law Office of Steven S. Biss, on brief), for appellants. John F. Sawyer (Wolcott Rivers Gates, on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-240. 15 pp.