The Virginia Court of Appeals recently reversed a default judgment against landlord Gary Starbuck in a case involving claims from his former tenants, R.H. and H.H., regarding mold in their rental home. The court ruled that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against Starbuck because the amended complaint filed by the tenants was not properly authorized. This decision is significant as it highlights the importance of following procedural rules in legal cases and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

The case, Gary Starbuck v. R.H., an infant by their Next Friend and Parents, was filed under record number 1032-25-1 and was heard by Chief Judge Decker and Judges Malveaux and Causey. The ruling was issued on October 27, 2026, after a series of legal disputes that began in 2019.

The dispute began when the Hopson family, which includes parents Domenic and Kara Hopson and their minor children H.H. and R.H., sued Starbuck and property manager Nachman Realty, LLC for damages related to mold in their rental home. The family claimed that the mold caused them harm and sought compensation under several legal theories, including violations of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and negligence. Starbuck, representing himself, contested the lawsuit, arguing that the court did not have proper jurisdiction over him.

The case progressed through the courts, with various motions and hearings. The Hopson children filed an amended complaint in July 2020, which added new allegations regarding the health risks associated with mold and included additional claims against both Starbuck and Nachman. However, Starbuck argued that the court had only granted the Hopson children leave to amend their complaint against Nachman, not against him. This point became central to the court's ruling.

On January 17, 2025, the Hopson children moved for a default judgment against Starbuck, claiming he failed to respond to the amended complaint. The circuit court found Starbuck in default and entered a judgment against him. Starbuck then sought to have the default judgment reconsidered, but the court denied his motion.

The Virginia Court of Appeals analyzed the situation and found that the circuit court had erred in granting the default judgment. The court noted that the amended complaint was filed without the necessary leave of court against Starbuck, making it legally ineffective. Judge Mary Bennett Malveaux wrote in the opinion, "The amended complaint was 'without legal efficacy' as to Starbuck because the Hopson children failed to obtain leave to amend against him." This ruling emphasized that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in the amended complaint.

The court's decision to reverse the default judgment means that Starbuck is no longer held liable for the damages initially awarded to the Hopson children. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, allowing the parties to present arguments regarding the viability of any claims that may still exist from the original complaint.

This ruling could have broader implications for similar cases in Virginia, as it reinforces the necessity for parties to adhere to procedural rules when filing complaints and amendments. Failure to follow these rules can result in significant consequences, including the inability to pursue claims in court.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether the Hopson children will appeal the decision or seek to refile their claims against Starbuck. The court's ruling does not preclude them from pursuing other legal avenues, and they may choose to address the original claims if they are still viable. The outcome of this case underscores the importance of understanding legal procedures and the potential impact of jurisdictional issues in civil litigation.