Son renting (shared) apartment, building burns down/lady dies in fire, Landlord (LL) offers another apartment to son, son explains can't afford higher apartment offered, LL states "no problem only concern is for tenants". LL and son enter verbal agreement where son does work in lieu of rent (no witness to this verbal). LL tells son to call secretary for jobs, son completes 2 jobs, (one with the help of my younger son). LL acknowledges and credits son for money paid on burnt rental (no problem), acknowledges and credits son for work completed but ignores 2 invoices submitted by son for work completed. Son moves out, 7months later LL suing for rent not paid.

Son has copies of the 2 invoices submitted for work completed, no credits given, son had younger bother help with one job completed (witness to work done), No other witness to verbal agreement but son and LL, son has copy of credits given to him by LL.

Does my son have a good leg to stand on in court? The way I see my son followed through in good faith on verbal agreement, LL acknowledged agreement with credit for some work completed (but not all). Son charged fair market value for jobs completed.

Advise? This is in state of Virginia. Thank you.

Hello P:

Your son should file a counter complaint and let the judge sort it out. I think he has lots of leg.

excon

If I'm following you, the LL offered your son another apt after his burnt down. Your son indicated that the rental was too high so the LL offered to barter his work on something in lieu of rent.

Now your son did some work which he got credit for, but 2 invoices which he didn't. So your son decided to move out. The LL then sues for unpaid rent.

Did you son have a lease? When did that lease expire? How much notice did he give before moving?

Frankly, I don't see much of a leg for him to stand on. It really depends on the terms of his lease and whether he signed a new one or not. He probably does have a counter claim for unpaid invoices, but I would need to know more about the lease and the facts about his move out before I can say he doesn't owe rent.

There was no written lease only verbal agreement to work in lieu of rent. I would think since no lease and based on va code it would be considered month to month. Would this not be considered the landlord breaking the terms of so called "verbal agreement"?

Hello again, P:

We've got two agreements going on here. One is an employment contract between the landlord and your son. The other is a lease or a month to month rental. Whether it's a lease or month to month makes no difference, because from your description, your son can verify his claim. I don't know if the landlord can verify his.

Whether they verbally agreed to link the two agreements really doesn't matter. IF the landlord can prove his claim to rent, what he'll get will be offset by what he owes your son (assuming your son owes him anything). Or if he owes your son more than that, what your son gets will be offset too.

excon

What about the original lease, for the burnt out apartment? Did one exist or was that month to month also? What about the notice?

The burnt rental was under his roommates name (I think- but I'll check on that) but the LL is only suing for the time he was in the other aptmt. Up until he left which is about 5 months. Notice was given but not a 30 day notice which the LL aparently did not have issue with because the time frame only covers the 5 months he was in the aprtmt. I agree excon that the most he could owe would be the difference between rent and work completed $.

Thanks much to both of your insight. I work with environmental law everyday but I just wanted feedback on my "interpretation" of real estate (va code).