Sweeney v. West Group Inc.

Present: 	Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and
Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
JOSEPH B. SWEENEY
v. Record No. 991810 	OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER
April 21, 2000
WEST GROUP, INC.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Marcus D. Williams, Judge
In this appeal, we decide whether a lease provision
requiring a lessee to give written notice of the lessee’s
intent to vacate leased premises at the end of a fixed-term
residential real estate lease can be enforced by a lessor.
Because we conclude that the provision is, in effect, a
statutorily proscribed waiver of the lessee’s rights under
Code § 55-222, we will reverse the circuit court’s judgment
in favor of the lessor.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Joseph B. Sweeney signed a one-year, fixed-term lease
agreement with West Gate1 on August 1, 1996, for an
apartment (the premises) located in a complex known as the
Commons of McLean. 	By its terms, that lease expired on
July 31, 1997. 	It did not provide for an automatic renewal
of the one-year term.
1 West Gate is owned by the appellee West Group, Inc.

The form lease agreement that Sweeney executed states
that “Lessee shall render to the Lessor a written thirty
(30) day notice to vacate said premises in the event this
Lease is not extended, this notice to be filed with the
Lessor thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this
Lease.” 	A lease rider, which Sweeney also executed,
provides that the terms of the rider control in cases of
conflict between the provisions of the lease and those of
the rider. 	The rider also states that the rights and
responsibilities of the lessee are governed by the Virginia
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Act), Code §§ 55-248.2
through –248.40, and that the Act, or other applicable
state law, controls if any conflict exists between the
terms of the lease and the provisions of the Act.
In early June 1997, Sweeney visited the complex’s
rental office and orally informed West Gate’s agent that he
would not be extending his lease beyond its expiration on
July 31, 1997. 	Sweeney did not give the lessor any written
notice of his intent to vacate the premises at the end of
the fixed term, but he vacated the premises on or before
the last day of the term of his lease.
Almost one year later, West Group filed a warrant in
debt in the Fairfax County General District Court against
Sweeney and a co-signer of the lease, seeking damages in
2

the amount of $899.75 for unpaid rent and damages,2 plus
interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. 	Sweeney answered,
denying that he owed the amount sued for, and filed a
counterclaim for $150 plus interest, which represented a
portion of his security deposit that he contended West
Group withheld from him.
The general district court dismissed West Group’s
warrant in debt with prejudice but granted Sweeney a
judgment in the amount of $111.33 on his counterclaim.
West Group appealed the general district court’s judgment
to the circuit court. 	After a bench trial, the circuit
court entered judgment against Sweeney in the amount of
$730 plus costs.3 This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the provision
of the lease agreement requiring Sweeney to give the lessor
written notice of his intent to vacate the premises at the
end of the fixed term can be enforced by West Group.
2 West Group calculated its claim in the following
manner: 	$1,049.75 for damages, utilities, and rent less
Sweeney’s security deposit of $150, leaving an amount due
of $899.75. 	Of that amount due, West Group included $880
as additional rent because of Sweeney’s failure to give the
written notice to vacate.
3 The circuit court’s final order does not specifically
address Sweeney’s counterclaim. 	Neither party has assigned
3

Enforcement of the provision would subject Sweeney to
additional rental payments beyond the term of his lease if
he failed to give the written notice. 	As stated in the
rider to Sweeney’s lease, the Act governs Sweeney’s rights
and responsibilities and thus applies to the present
dispute. 	Pursuant to Code §§ 55-248.9(A)(1) and (2), a
rental agreement subject to the Act may not contain a
waiver of a tenant’s rights under, inter alia, the Act or
Chapter 13 of Title 55 of the Code. 	Sweeney’s rights under
Chapter 13 are at issue in this appeal.
Code § 55-222, found in Chapter 13 of Title 55,
addresses the necessity and type of notice required to
terminate various kinds of tenancies. 	That section
provides, in pertinent part, that notice is not “necessary
from or to a tenant whose term is to end at a certain
time.” 	The one-year, fixed term of Sweeney’s lease ended
on July 31, 1997, which is “a certain time” within the
meaning of Code § 55-222.
Thus, the provision in Sweeney’s lease agreement
requiring him to give written notice of his intent to
vacate the premises was not only unnecessary but also
contrary to the terms of Code § 55-222. 	The requirement of
___________________
error with respect to the disposition of the counterclaim.
Thus, that issue is not before the Court in this appeal.
4

written notice is, in effect, a statutorily proscribed
waiver of Sweeney’s rights under Code § 55-222. 	Such a
waiver is not enforceable. 	Code § 55-248.9(B).
For this reason, we will reverse the circuit court’s
judgment and enter judgment for Sweeney on the warrant in
debt.4
Reversed and final judgment.
4 Because of our decision, we do not reach Sweeney’s
other assignment of error.
5