Landlord and Tenant: Tenant awarded almost $590,000 for damages from moldy apartment

Where the tenant lived with mold or black mold or both in the apartment from 2018, became seriously ill from mold-related maladies in March 2019 and left the apartment with his children only after the ceiling collapsed in August 2019, exposing even more black mold and ruining many of his belongings, and his health problems have persisted, he was awarded almost $590,000 in damages.

Background

Willow Oaks Apartments L.C. and Landmark Property Services Inc. appeal the trial court’s judgment on a jury verdict awarding William Urbina $93,000 from Willow Oaks and $495,000 from Landmark.

Negligence

Landmark concedes that it performed repairs in Urbina’s apartment to address moisture levels and water leaks. At trial, Landmark admitted that the repair work included preventing and assessing for mold. The evidence showed that Landmark entered Urbina’s unit repeatedly over an extended period to make repairs for water leaks and intrusion, including searching for the leak source, addressing saturation and assessing the potential for mold. Thus, Landmark assumed a duty to Urbina to make the repairs with reasonable care.

Urbina presented sufficient expert testimony on the necessary standard of care to prevent mold. Whether landlord satisfied that standard was properly a question for the jury. The record supports the jury’s factual finding that Landmark failed to use reasonable care in identifying and correcting water leaks. A jury reasonably could infer from the facts that Landmark made negligent repairs that created a consistently wet environment and allowed significant amounts of mold to grow

Landmark contends Urbina “failed to prove proximate causation” because he did not prove the apartment contained mold before June 2019 or what kind of mold caused his injuries. Landmark’s argument erroneously overlooks the value of circumstantial evidence. The evidence Urbina presented permitted the jury to conclude with probable certainty that mold in Urbina’s apartment caused his sickness.

Remittitur

Nothing in the record suggests that the jury’s verdict resulted from any passion, prejudice or corruption or any misconception of the facts or the law. Yet landlord contends that the jury verdict is shocking, excessive and unsupported by the evidence. As Landmark sees it, Urbina did not present evidence of expenses related to his treating physicians or that he was prevented from performing primary life functions. The court disagrees. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying remittitur.

Breach of contract/VRLTA

Willow Oaks argues that because the trial court struck the replacement costs of Urbina’s abandoned personal property, the verdicts for violating the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act, or VRLTA, and breach of the lease were based on speculation or conjecture. Willow Oaks also concludes that the jury must have disregarded instructions not to consider personal injury damages for these claims.

But Urbina provided other evidence of loss under the VRLTA, including the loss of use of his apartment. Urbina suffered loss of use of his personal property and the residence when thousands of pounds of drywall ceiling, coated in toxic black mold, collapsed into his living room. Expert testimony established that these conditions rendered the apartment unsafe for habitation.

Having notified Willow Oaks of the catastrophic collapse of the ceiling that damaged his personal property beyond repair, Urbina was entitled to damages for the loss of use of the property. The evidence supported awards for Willow Oaks’s violation of the VRLTA and the breach of Urbina’s lease. In addition, the circuit court properly instructed the jury not to consider personal injury damages, and the record does not suggest that the jury failed to follow the court’s instructions.

Experts

Landlord argues the trial court should have struck the testimony of both Dr. Harbor and Dr. Madaan because their opinions were based on speculation and facts not in evidence. But Landlord did not object to either doctor’s testimony until the doctors had been excused. By waiting until well after the claimed “flaws had become apparent” in the experts’ testimony, Landlord waived their objection to the admissibility of that testimony.

Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. However this matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error noted on the jury trial order and the final judgment order.

Affirmed and remanded.

Willow Oaks Apartments L.C. v. Urbina, Record No. 1138-24-2, Nov. 18, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Chaney). From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Cavedo). Kevin E. Martingayle (Herbert V. Kelly, Jr.; Bischoff Martingayle, P.C.; Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. David S. Bailey (Jonathan E. Halperin; Environmental Law Group, PLLC; Halperin Law Center, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-334. 25 pp.