White Horse Law Group Wins $65,890.71 Mold Judgment, Including $25,000 in Punitive Damages, Against Out-of-State Landlord for "Blatant Disregard" of Virginia Law

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., June 26, 2026 — On May 22, 2026, following a two-day bench trial, the Virginia Beach General District Court entered a final judgment of $65,890.71 for a Virginia Beach tenant against his former landlord, VA8 Marina Shores, LLC, and its California-based property manager, Trinity Property Consultants, LLC, over persistent mold conditions. The award includes $21,890.71 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in punitive damages, and $19,000 in attorney’s fees. As of the date of this release, the appeal period has expired and the judgment is final. Attorney Jeff Howell of White Horse Law Group described the case as “one of the worst mold cases I have seen in my 12 years of practice.”

The case is a study in why Virginia’s Residential Landlord Tenant Act and laws on professional mold remediation exist — and in what separates the responsible majority of the real estate and construction industries from the few who ignore the rules. Those standards are clear, knowable, and the same for every owner, and the overwhelming majority of property owners and managers meet them. This judgment fell on an operator that did not.

After leasing the unit in July 2024, the tenant repeatedly reported worsening mold and moisture conditions at his unit. He even paid out of pocket for an independent mold test which he provided the landlord in writing. Despite having these materials, the landlord failed to comply with the standards of care for mold remediation and the condition worsened until a fungal body grew from his bedroom floor. The tenant relocated at his own expense before prolonged exposure could cause the kind of lasting illness mold is known to cause.

At trial, to illustrate the very real risk mold poses to tenants, counsel cited the recent 2025 unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Willow Oaks Apartments v. Urbina. Despite its unpublished status, Urbina cites to controlling precedent in Virginia, and this case was likely one of the first opportunities a court has had to consider its persuasiveness. In the Urbina case, the affected tenant endured severe muscle spasms, memory deficits, and a 20-pound weight loss before a mold-illness diagnosis. At trial, counsel argued that his client’s actions in avoiding that sort of outcome — by voluntarily relocating and filing suit for damages — were reasonable under the circumstances.

The Landlord’s Own Witnesses Admitted Key Facts

The Court’s judgment in this case relied upon testimony from the landlord’s own witnesses, who admitted key adverse facts under oath. The property manager’s regional vice president testified the company, which is based out of California, “manages over 200 properties . . . six of them in Virginia”, and yet, at the time of the events at trial, had no Virginia real estate license. Astoundingly, the on-site property manager of this large apartment complex also testified that the property had “no set rules or policies on what deadlines are” for addressing mold or moisture.

In closing, counsel Jeff S. Howell, Jr. used the Urbina case to argue that established Virginia law supports liability for landlords who negligently fail to observe the 24-to-48-hour window for professional mold remediation. Citing the controlling precedent of Cherry v. Lawson, the Urbina court looked with favor on a tenant’s suit for negligence for violations of that standard of care. The landlord, he argued, “missed” this widely known standard by “a mile,” failing “not once, not twice, but on three different occasions” to comply despite written notice from the tenant. On this basis, counsel argued that VA8 Marina Shores was “a company that has no idea how to follow the law… that has no idea what its obligations even are, and… [this company] has hundreds of tenants.”

Counsel’s arguments substantially carried the day. The Court found that a landlord’s “ignorance of its responsibilities under the law does not absolve them of culpability.” The Court also called the defendant’s attempts at remediation “appalling” and awarded punitive damages for what it called a “blatant disregard for the law” that “necessitated an action like this.”

A Friend to Those Who Follow the Law

Following the case, tenant’s counsel Jeff Howell stated: “Our firm aspires to be a friend to Virginia’s real estate and construction industries alike. We defend the builders, tradesmen, and property owners who follow the law — and we pursue those who don’t through litigation, because their unlawful conduct harms tenants and undercuts every operator who plays by the rules. This case shows exactly why these laws exist: to protect tenants and to set a standard every owner can meet, and to establish fair consequences when they do not. We were proud that our efforts ensured the rule of law prevailed over profit-driven recklessness and ignorance of the law, and we hope it sends a message to others who might otherwise be dismissive or slow to act on valid tenant complaints.”