A Virginia appellate court has reversed a lower court's dismissal of Eldridge Bolling's claims against his former landlords, CH Realty VI–Alliance MF Alexandria Van Dorn, L.L.C., and Combined Van Dorn Towers, L.L.C. The Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled on November 4, 2026, that Bolling presented sufficient evidence to support his claims of retaliation and racial discrimination under Virginia law. This ruling could have significant implications for tenants facing similar issues.

The case stems from Bolling's allegations that his landlords retaliated against him for raising concerns about pest infestations in his apartment and for filing a Tenant's Assertion lawsuit. Bolling's claims are based on the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act (VRLTA) and the Virginia Fair Housing Law (VFHL). The court's decision to reverse the lower court's dismissal allows Bolling's case to proceed to trial.

Background

Eldridge Bolling, III, signed a lease for an apartment in Alexandria, Virginia, in February 2018. Shortly after moving in, he discovered significant pest problems, including mice and bedbugs. Bolling reported these issues to the building manager, Michelle Prasasouk, who he claims responded dismissively and made racially charged comments. Frustrated with the lack of action, Bolling contacted various government agencies to report the infestations.

In November 2018, Bolling filed a Tenant's Assertion lawsuit against CH Realty, seeking an abatement of rent due to the pest issues. Following this, he experienced continued harassment from the management, including late payment notices despite his payments being made into escrow as required by law. Bolling's complaints about the treatment he received escalated, leading to further confrontations with the management.

In March 2021, Bolling filed a civil complaint against both CH Realty and Van Dorn, claiming retaliation and racial discrimination. After a trial in April 2024, the lower court dismissed his claims, stating that the evidence was insufficient to support his allegations. This prompted Bolling to appeal the decision.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled in favor of Bolling, stating that he had indeed presented sufficient evidence to create a jury issue on both claims. The court emphasized that Bolling's actions of reporting the pest issues and filing the Tenant's Assertion lawsuit were protected activities under the VRLTA. The court noted, "Bolling presented evidence that he took at least three actions protected by this section," which included reporting the infestations to government agencies and filing a lawsuit against his landlord.

The appellate court found that CH Realty's actions, including the issuance of a notice to cure or vacate, constituted retaliation against Bolling for exercising his rights as a tenant. The court stated, "CH Realty made a conditional promise to bring an action for possession against Bolling—both explicitly and implicitly—in the December notice." This ruling highlighted the importance of protecting tenants from retaliatory actions by landlords when they assert their rights.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for tenants in Virginia and potentially beyond. It reinforces the protections afforded to tenants under the VRLTA and the VFHL, particularly regarding retaliation for asserting their rights. The court's decision to reverse the dismissal allows Bolling's claims to proceed to trial, where a jury will now have the opportunity to hear the evidence and make a determination on the merits of his case.

The ruling also serves as a reminder to landlords about the legal consequences of retaliatory actions against tenants. It emphasizes that landlords must take tenant complaints seriously and cannot retaliate against tenants for exercising their rights under the law.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen how the case will unfold, but Bolling's claims will now have the opportunity to be fully heard by a jury. There are no indications in the court filing that the decision will be appealed further at this time.