When distress is made for rent justly due and any irregularity or unlawful act is afterwards done by the party distraining, or his agent, the distress itself shall not be deemed to be unlawful, nor is the party making it therefore deemed a trespasser ab initio. The party aggrieved by such irregularity or unlawful act may, by action, recover full satisfaction for the special damage he has sustained thereby.
§ 8.01-130.12.When distress not unlawful because of irregularity, etc.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 13.1. Warrants in Distress · Last amended 2019 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceSection 8.01-130.12 keeps a distress lawful at its root, and the person distraining from being treated as a trespasser from the start, even if an irregularity or unlawful act follows the seizure, while still letting the aggrieved party sue for the actual damage that irregularity caused.
Full Text of § 8.01-130.12
Plain-English Summary
Section 8.01-130.12 draws a line between a distress that was justified when it began and misconduct that happens afterward. Where the rent was justly due and the distress itself was proper, a later irregularity or unlawful act by the party distraining, or by an agent, does not reach back and taint the distress itself. The distrainor is not deemed a trespasser ab initio — the doctrine that can otherwise turn a lawful entry into an unlawful one retroactively because of what happened after.
The tenant is not left without a remedy for whatever went wrong. Section 8.01-130.12 lets the person aggrieved by the irregularity or unlawful act bring an action to recover full satisfaction for the special damage it caused — a remedy sized to the specific harm, rather than one that unwinds a distress that was rightfully begun.
Frequently Asked Questions
If rent was owed, can a tenant void the whole distress because of a procedural misstep during the seizure?
No. Section 8.01-130.12 keeps a distress made for rent justly due lawful even if an irregularity or unlawful act follows, rather than voiding the distress itself over that later misstep.
What does trespasser ab initio mean, and does it apply here?
It is a doctrine that can turn an originally lawful entry into an unlawful one because of later misconduct. Section 8.01-130.12 says a distrainor is not treated as a trespasser ab initio just because an irregularity happened after a lawful distress.
What can a tenant recover if the landlord or officer did something improper while carrying out a valid distress?
Section 8.01-130.12 lets the aggrieved party bring an action for full satisfaction of the special damage the irregularity or unlawful act caused.
Does the landlord lose the right to distrain because of a later irregularity?
No. Section 8.01-130.12 preserves the lawfulness of the distress itself; the consequence of an irregularity is a damages claim, not forfeiture of the underlying right to distrain.
Is a tenant’s remedy for an irregularity limited to actual damages, or can the whole distress be undone?
Under § 8.01-130.12, the remedy is an action for full satisfaction of the special damage sustained, not the undoing of a distress that was rightfully made for rent justly due.
Amendment History
Code 1919, § 5527; Code 1950, § 55-236; 2019, c. 712.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: distress warrant irregularity virginiatrespasser ab initio virginia distress lawdamages for improper distress virginiavirginia code 8.01-130.12landlord liability for distress irregularity