Landlord and Tenant: Eviction proceeding didn’t violate CARES Act

Where a landlord initiated an eviction by filing a summons for unlawful detainer 29 days after it sent a notice of failure to pay rent, the trial court erred by dismissing the eviction proceeding. Although the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act, states a landlord may not require a tenant to vacate the premises until 30 days after receiving a notice to vacate, a summons does not require a tenant to leave the premises.

Background

Under the CARES Act, a landlord may not require a tenant to vacate the premises until 30 days after receiving a notice to vacate. Here, Woodrock River Walk LLC issued a notice of failure to pay rent, which stated that, in accordance with Virginia law, Lloyd Rice and Christine Andrade must pay their owed rent within five days or their lease would be terminated. The notice also informed Rice that under the CARES Act, they were not required to leave their premises for 30 days.

Twenty-nine days later, Woodrock initiated an eviction by filing a summons for unlawful detainer. The circuit court ruled that the summons violated the CARES Act and dismissed the eviction proceeding. Woodrock appeals, arguing that only the execution of a writ of eviction requires a tenant to vacate.

Analysis

First, the plain language of the CARES Act does not prevent a landlord from filing a summons during the 30-day period following the notice to vacate. Second, a summons does not require a tenant to leave the premises. A landlord cannot compel a tenant to vacate until an officer executes a writ of eviction; thus, it is only the execution of a writ during the 30-day timeframe that would violate the CARES Act. Third, although Woodrock terminated Rice’s lease, requiring Rice to promptly move out under Code § 55.1-1233, the CARES Act preempts Code § 55.1-1233’s promptness requirement and grants the tenant 30 days to remain on the premises after receiving a notice to vacate.

Here, the notice complied with both Virginia law and the CARES Act. The notice followed Code § 55.1-1245(F) by informing Rice that they had five days to pay their rent and late fees, or their lease would be terminated. It also adhered to the CARES Act by instructing Rice that they were not required to vacate until 30 days after receiving the notice to pay or quit. Based on this, the circuit court erred when it found that Woodrock’s initial unlawful detainer summons violated the CARES Act.

Reversed and remanded.

Woodrock River Walk LLC v. Rice, Record No. 1860-23-3, Oct. 8, 2024. CAV (Ortiz). From the Circuit Court of the City of Salem (Clemens). Patrick R. Pettitt (Senex Law, PC, on briefs), for appellant. Jarryd Smith (Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley, on brief), for appellees. VLW 024-7-309. 9 pp.