Virginia Court of Appeals Upholds Homeowner’s Judgment After Defective HOA Siding Repairs

The Condominium and HOA industry is a big business, particularly when it comes to maintenance and repair of improvements to property. HOA renovation projects are not just on common areas such as roads, clubhouses, tennis courts and pools. Many community associations are required to repair components that function as part of someone’s home, such as a roof, siding, ventilation, utilities and so on. When community associations make decisions, they commonly rely upon their advisors, such as managers, attorneys or other professionals. Even when volunteer leaders make significant efforts, the price paid and quality of workmanship varies. For this reason, homeowners ought to monitor such activities, especially when the cost passes through as a special assessment, or the repairs are necessary to protect their home interior.

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals of Virginia decided a case where such things did not go as desired. In Stonehenge HOA v. Tanesha Hudson, the Circuit Court of Albemarle County entered a $4,500 judgment and $44,761.50 for attorney fees in favor of Ms. Hudson. After filing the appeal, the HOA paid the $4,500. This case caught my interest because of the damage caused by defective repairs, the application of the voluntary payment doctrine, and the arguments regarding reasonableness of attorney’s fees.

Defective Exterior Repairs by Company with Relationship with Manager

The following facts are taken from the judicial opinion and supplemented by some additional research that I have done. Ms. Hudson owns a townhouse. The governing instruments require the HOA to maintain the roof, gutter and siding on the townhouses. The HOA worked with Associa. Associa is a community management holding company estimated to have over one billion annual revenue and over 10,000 employees. The HOA hired Community Group, Inc., doing business as Associa Community Group and Associa on Call to install new siding on the townhouses, including Ms. Hudson’s. Many property management companies that work with HOAs and condominiums are owned by Associa. Associa owns complementary businesses such as Community Group and Associa on Call. I do not know how Stonehenge HOA decided to do business with Associa on Call. What could happen is the manager who works for the Associa subsidiary learns that the association needs a contractor. They “refer” Associa on Call to the association. Yet they are subsidiaries of the same company and to my knowledge share common employees. I do not know whether Associa on Call has any employees who perform construction work or if they always “subcontract” the actual work to a separate company at a lower price. This judicial opinion does not say whether Associa on Call had a contractors license or if they subcontracted the work out to a third party. Associa’s management subsidiary is ordinarily familiar with what work is needed, what funds are available, and what the board members want. This practice does not necessarily lead to an unfair result. Note that Virginia law does not have statutes that regulate bidding in the community association context. Government contracting law does not apply to HOAs, but the directors are nonetheless fiduciaries. This issue was not discussed in the Hudson case opinion. Another issue that may arise with the practice of awarding exterior repair contracts to an affiliate of the manager has to do with workmanship warranties that would run from the subcontractor through the affiliate to the association. If the association terminates the management contract, that may complicate warranty claims. That issue was not discussed in the Hudson v. Stonehenge HOA case either.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Hudson alleged that the deficient siding replacement diminished her home’s value, caused black mold, water damage, and allowed rats and bees to enter the house. She sought $280,000 in damages. Ms. Hudson’s expert testified that the contractor removed and improperly re-installed the drip edge flashing, failed to make certain repairs to the roof, improperly installed kickout flashing and failed to install counterflashing. These effects allowed moisture, bees and rats to enter the townhouse. The Circuit Court agreed with her and awarded $4,500 for repairs and $44,761.50 in attorney fees against those defendants. While the appeal went on, the association paid her $4,500 for the judgment portion.

Voluntary Payment Doctrine

The Court of Appeals refused to consider the Association’s challenge to the judgment because it paid the $4,500. The Voluntary Payment Doctrine provides that absent fraud or misconduct, a claimant cannot later demand that a court return to him funds that he voluntarily paid to another. This is because the making of the payment constitutes a voluntary cessation of the dispute. An exception to this rule arises when the transfer of the money occurs due to a garnishment. But that is not voluntary. A garnishment does not require any agreement on the party of the person who puts their money in the bank account. In the appeal, the association admitted making the payment in order to avoid the accumulation of interest. The court found that the making of this payment in full waived the right to have the appellate court consider a reversal that would require return of the money.

Voluntary payment is an important doctrine for anyone in a dispute with their HOA or condominium to understand. Many homeowners assume that if they consider the payment to be made under protest then they can go back and challenge it later. But this is ordinarily not the case. However, by making a payment this does not constitute an admission or concession as to everything in dispute. On December 4, 2020, I posted an article, The Voluntary Payment Doctrine and HOA Liens, which discusses the voluntary payment doctrine in the HOA context.

Under Virginia judicial precedent, if there are several debts in dispute between two parties, the debtor can expressly or implicitly direct that a payment go to one debt and not the other. In Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority v. Blake Construction, the Supreme Court quoted an older case saying:

A payment by a debtor who owes several debts to a creditor, is to be applied to one or the other of the debts; first, as the debtor may direct at or before the time of making such payment; and such direction may be given expressly or by implication. Secondly, if the debtor give no such direction then the creditor may make the application, according to his pleasure; and he may make it, either at the time of such payment, or afterwards, before the commencement of any controversy on the subject.

This allows a homeowner, under certain circumstances, to pay their “regular” assessments while resisting payment on disputed claims.

Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees in Community Association Cases

These defendants were particularly displeased with the award of attorneys fees. Here, they were sued for $280,000. The plaintiff won $4,500.00. The attorney fee award was $44,761.50. The defendants argued that Ms. Hudson did not substantially prevail, because that was only a 1.7% success ratio. However, under judicial precedent, one may qualify as the “prevailing” party even if they do not prevail on all of their claims. The comparison of damages recovered to damages sought does not change which party prevailed.  The defendants also argued that awarding a $44,761.50 on a $4,500 judgment is excessive. The factors that the courts are to consider for attorney’s fees awards are the time and effort expended, the nature of the services rendered, the complexity of the services, the value of services provided, the results obtained, whether the fees are consistent with those for similar services, and whether the services where necessary and appropriate. The court observed that while the ratio of damages sought to damages awarded is a factor to be considered, the other factors ought to be weighed as well. I previously blogged about attorney fee awards in HOA. My July 20, 2022 article was Awards of Attorney’s Fees in Community Association Litigation.

What Should a Virginia Homeowner Do After Defective HOA Repairs?

If association-directed work may have damaged your home, or common elements upon which it relies, consider taking the following steps:

1. Take photographs and record videos. Record when you first noticed the problem and the frequency or any reoccurrence.
2. Keep notices, emails, letters, inspection reports, invoices, meeting minutes, and communications with the HOA, property manager, and contractor.
3. Review the governing document provisions that assign responsibility for the affected building component to the association or the homeowner.
4. Notify the HOA and property manager in writing. Describe the condition, identify any immediate risks, and request an inspection and written response.
5. Emergency work may be required to stop active water intrusion or protect the property. When possible, document existing conditions before repairs begin and preserve removed materials that may help establish the cause of the damage.
6. Construction-defect disputes often depend on technical issues involving flashing, roofing, moisture pathways, installation methods, and building components. An inspection may help identify both the source of the problem and the work required to correct it. HOA leaders and professional advisors take such reports seriously. Sometimes it helps to show the obvious.
7. Before paying a disputed charge or judgment, consider whether payment could affect the ability to challenge it.
8. Consult with legal counsel should a contractor, HOA lawyer, director or manager ask the homeowner to sign a release, proposal or work order when the financial responsibility is uncertain or contested.

Legal Authority:

Upper Occoquan Sewage Auth. v. Blake Constr. Co., 275 Va. 41 (2008).

Stonehenge Homeowner’s Assn v. Hudson, 2026 Va. App. Lexis 442 (Aug. 18, 2026)(Unpub).

The photo used is a free image and does not depict anything discussed in the article.