Appellate panel hears dispute over when apartment‑mold claims accrued after ownership change

At a hearing in Other Court, the appeals panel heard argument in Cowher v. Williams Portfolio about whether a tenant’s claims from an apartment water leak and alleged mold exposure accrued before or after the property changed hands.

Jamie Olander, attorney for appellant Navneet Kaur, argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because tort claims accrue only when all elements are provable. Olander told the court the plaintiff’s injury became provable only after medical testing in October 2020, saying the tests were “positive for mold contamination,” and urged that the post‑July 30 owner therefore can be sued for harms that continued after it took possession.

Responding for Williams Portfolio 17 and Allied Residential, Brian Sheehy told the panel the trial court correctly dismissed the case because the record does not show essential elements of the claims. Sheehy summarized the chronology in the record: the leak was reported May 21, 2020; repairs were performed in June 2020; Williams acquired the property on July 30, 2020. He argued there was no notice to the new owner of a continuing dangerous condition after the acquisition and therefore no reasonable opportunity to correct it under the Residential Landlord‑Tenant Act (RLTA). As Sheehy put it to the court, “You can’t fix a problem that you aren’t aware of.”

A central dispute before the panel was whether notice or constructive knowledge of an ongoing hazard can be imputed to the new owner through the property manager, Paul Martinez. Olander argued the manager continued in the same role after the transfer and that repeated notices to him support a fact question about whether Williams should have known of the continuing problem. Sheehy countered that the last communication in the record from the tenant to Martinez was May 21 and that the record does not show Martinez told Williams or Allied about an ongoing hazardous condition after July 30.

Counsel also discussed remediation steps after later notice: Sheehy said the tenant notified Allied in November 2020, Allied arranged remediation with Servpro and moved the tenant to a different unit on or about Nov. 24, 2020, which he offered as evidence of reasonable response once the new owner or its agent became aware of the issue. Both sides debated how the RLTA and negligence/nuisance doctrines apply when ownership changes mid‑course.

After questioning from the panel about accrual, notice and the scope of duties after a transfer of ownership, the court accepted argument, took the case under advisement and recessed. No ruling was announced.

The panel’s decision will determine whether the accrual date is the earlier report of a leak, the later medical diagnosis, or whether a continuing‑harm or constructive‑knowledge theory lets the tenant pursue claims against the post‑transfer owner.