Landlord and Tenant: Lease remained valid despite landlord’s violation of statute

Although the landlord failed to provide its tenant with the statement of rights and responsibilities within the time required by Code § 55.1-1204, that did not render the lease invalid. Code § 55.1-1204(H) plainly states that a landlord’s failure to deliver the statement “shall not affect the validity of the agreement.”

Background      

Naima Jabeen appeals the circuit court’s judgment for Camden Development Inc. in this unlawful detainer action. Jabeen argues that the circuit court erred by: (1) admitting certain “irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence at trial,” (2) entering judgment for Camden despite a “defective” notice it would not renew her lease and (3) entering judgment for Camden despite its failure to provide Jabeen with a statement of tenant rights and responsibilities within the time required by Code § 55.1-1204(H).

Jabeen has filed several motions with this court relating to the transcript, including a motion to strike it from the record on appeal. The thrust of her motion to strike is that the transcript is “deficient and was not available to [her] for review or objection [sic] prior to certification, significantly prejudicing [her] ability to ensure its accuracy.” She argues, additionally, that errors in the certification of the statement of facts violated her procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Analysis

This court accepts the circuit court’s certification of the trial transcript as an appropriate correction to the statement of facts. When a party objects to a transcript or written statement as erroneous or incomplete, the circuit court’s options to fix the errors it finds include “mak[ing] any corrections that the trial judge deems necessary” and “includ[ing] any accurate additions to make the record complete.”

By certifying a transcript of the trial as the statement of facts, the court corrected the errors in the original statement of facts. Although Jabeen objects to the statement of facts on the basis that she was not served with the transcript before it was filed in the circuit court, Jabeen has not specified any errors or deficiencies in the transcript, even in her April 28, 2025 motion, submitted to this court months after the transcript was filed.

Thus, even assuming Camden failed to serve Jabeen with a copy of the transcript, Jabeen has not established any prejudice from the circuit court’s certification of the transcript as the statement of facts in this case. For similar reasons, any procedural error in the certification of the statement of facts was harmless. Jabeen has failed to identify any specific error in the transcript. Nor has she explained how her rights were significantly prejudiced by the transcript’s not being provided to her before the circuit court certified it, given that she was able to file objections after the certification.

Waiver

Jabeen argues in her first assignment of error that the circuit court admitted certain “confusing and misleading information.” Her brief, however, does not identify the disputed evidence, other than by stating that Camden submitted the “same . . . information” in the fair housing case. She also provides no legal authority and no argument to support her assertion that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. Jabeen’s omission of legal authority in support of her first assignment of error is significant, and therefore it is waived.

Jabeen next asserts that the circuit court erred by entering judgment for Camden despite its assertedly “defective” notice that her lease would not renew. Jabeen did not make this argument to the circuit court with sufficient specificity to preserve it for appeal. Because Jabeen did not make the argument she now advances with “reasonable certainty” in the trial court her second assignment of error is waived. Although Rule 5A:18 contains exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, Jabeen has not invoked either exception for this assignment of error, and this court does not consider them sua sponte.

Lease

Finally, Camden’s failure to provide Jabeen with the statement of tenant rights and responsibilities within the time required by Code § 55.1-1204 did not render the

lease invalid. Code § 55.1-1204(H) plainly states that a landlord’s failure to deliver the statement of tenant rights and responsibilities “shall not affect the validity of the agreement.”

Affirmed.

Jabeen v. Camden Development Inc., Record No. 0594-23-4, Sept. 23, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Smith). (Naima Jabeen, on briefs), pro se. (Anders T. Sleight; Austin C. Hinel; Offit Kurman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-262. 12 pp.