On February 10, 2026, in Hong Thanh Ha v. Philip Ha, Record No. 1348-24-4 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2026), the Court of Appeals of Virginia decided a significant case affirming an order entered by the Circuit Court of Prince William County holding that a joint tenant has the right to bring an action against an occupant under Virginia’s unlawful detainer statute, even if another co-tenant has granted that occupant permission to stay. On appeal, Hong Thanh Ha argued that (1) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of an agreement between Hong and an owner of the home that Hong could “stay” in the home; and (2) a tenant in common cannot file an unlawful detainer action for possession of the co-owned property without consent from other co-tenants. The Court of Appeals of Virginia disagreed with Hong on both issues.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Four siblings lived together in a home owned by three siblings. Philip Ha, Tu Hoang Ha, and Geraud Ha owned the home as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The fourth sibling, Hong Thanh Ha, did not have an ownership interest in the home but moved in to help care for their aging parents in 2010. Hong lived in the home without paying rent until 2022.
In 2022, Philip and Hong orally agreed that Hong would pay Philip $400 per month in rent, but Hong failed to make the rent payment regularly. On June 23, 2023, after several missed payments, Philip posted a 30-day notice on Hong’s door asking her to vacate the property, but Hong did not leave. On July 12, 2023, the sheriff delivered another notice to vacate to Hong, but Hong did not vacate.
Philip filed an unlawful detainer suit against Hong for possession of the home under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act in the General District Court of Prince William County. The trial court entered default judgment against Hong for her failure to appear and awarded possession of the home to Philip. Hong appealed this outcome to the Circuit Court.
At trial in the Circuit Court, two issues emerged. The first was an evidentiary matter regarding the admissibility of a document that Hong attempted to introduce which purported to set forth an agreement between Hong and Geraud, one of the co-tenant siblings. The agreement dated June 17, 2023, stated that Hong could “stay” in the home from June 17, 2023, to December 31, 2024. Philip was unaware of the document and objected to its admission as hearsay. The Court agreed with Philip that the document did not meet the hearsay exception for statements contained in documents that purport to establish or affect an interest in property under Virginia Rules of Evidence 2:803(15) and excluded the document.
The second issue concerned whether Philip, as a joint tenant, needed the permission of each co-tenant to have standing to bring an unlawful detainer action against Hong. The trial court determined that because Philip had a superior property interest to Hong, he had standing to bring an unlawful detainer action against her without the other co-tenants’ permission or consent. Philip was granted possession of the home. Hong appealed.
APPEAL
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decisions on both issues. First, the Court held that the agreement between Hong and Geraud was not admissible. It found that the document containing the agreement did not fall under Rule 2:803(15), the hearsay exception for statements contained in a document that purport to establish or affect an interest in property. The Court acknowledged that no Virginia Case Law had previously interpreted this hearsay exception. The Court examined the Federal Advisory Committee Notes for the parallel Federal Rule of Evidence 803(15), and found that the document was properly excluded because it did not give Hong an ownership or renter interest in the home, and the circumstances of its creation, along with Philip’s lack of knowledge about the document, did not support its reliability or trustworthiness.
Next, the Court held that Philip did not need to obtain consent from his co-tenants before filing the unlawful detainer action against Hong. Hong argued that because Geraud had equal property rights to Philip, Philip’s decision to evict Hong could not override Geraud’s permission. The Court disagreed, and found Philip’s right to bring an unlawful detainer action under Virginia Code § 55.1-1253(C) was not dependent upon his co-tenants consenting. Instead, the Court explained that in an unlawful detainer action, the dispute is only between the defendant who is unlawfully withholding possession of real property, and the plaintiff who is lawfully entitled to possession. In the Court’s view, any dispute between Geraud’s and Philip’s property interests was entirely separate from the unlawful detainer proceeding. The Court stated that the “dispute is between Philip’s property rights and Hong’s possession,” and the only issue for the Court to resolve was whether Philip had a superior right of possession in the home to Hong.
To resolve this dispute, the Court found that long-standing Virginia precedent recognized the authority of a tenant in common to bring a proceeding for possession without needing to join co-tenants. Given this precedent, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court and held that Geraud’s permission to Hong did not diminish Philip’s right to recover possession from Hong. Philip had standing to bring the unlawful detainer action without his sibling co-tenant’s consent, and the Circuit Court properly granted Philip possession.
DISSENT
Though the dissent is not controlling law, it previews some of the arguments a litigant may later make to challenge or distinguish the majority’s ruling. The dissent disagreed with the majority opinion on both issues. The dissent asserted that, where joint owners of a home jointly agree to allow a person to occupy the home, that permission can only be revoked jointly. The dissent acknowledged that this case addressed a gap in Virginia unlawful detainer law and argued that the Court should resolve any ambiguity in the law to promote stability and prevent Hong from being unilaterally evicted by her brother.
The dissent also took issue with the majority’s evidentiary ruling. The dissent asserted that the document containing the agreement between Hong and Geraud rendered Hong an “authorized occupant” of the home. The dissent explained that “an authorized occupant” is a person with the legal right to occupy a Residence without a tenant’s obligation to pay rent, as defined in the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. The dissent argued that this legal right is a property right because it gives Hong a right regarding the home and prevents the other siblings from exercising the full extent of their ownership rights.
TAKEAWAYS
The takeaway best practice pointers for Virginia eviction lawyers (whether representing landlords or tenants) are that unanimous joint tenant approval or consent is not required to evict an occupant from co-owned property. This holds true even when a co-tenant opposes the eviction and has expressly granted the tenant permission to occupy the premises. When the superiority of property rights in a premise is evaluated, Virginia Courts focus on the rights of a joint tenant-owner and occupant, and if the owner’s rights are superior, the owner has standing to evict the occupant without the co-tenant’s permission or consent.
Further, hearsay objections and exceptions may be applied to letters or writings purporting to grant permission to occupants to remain in premises notwithstanding the non-payment of rent, awareness of other joint owners of the letters or writings, and the lack of consent of other owners as to the same.
Further still, the Virginia Court of Appeals closed the gap and resolved any ambiguity that joint revocation of an occupant’s permission to reside in a home is not required when joint owners initially agree to the occupant’s possession initially.
Finally, only one co-owner may unilaterally evict an occupant of a Virginia residence. Eviction litigants and their counsel should heed the guidance in the Hong Thanh Ha v. Philip Ha case and govern themselves accordingly.