MOBILE, Ala. — A former Bayou La Batre Housing Authority director accused of misconduct says evidence seized from her home six years ago and now allegedly lost or damaged would show that the agency’s own lawyer insisted on a $4.18 million retirement package in contracts for her and her husband.
The claim is at the center of a new request for sanctions against the Housing Authority, filed less than a month before the long-running civil case is scheduled to go to trial.
The motion at a glance
- Filed: Sept. 21, 2026, in Mobile County Circuit Court
- Filed by: Attorney John G. Scherf, representing former director Virginia Huddleston and her husband, Darryl Wilson
- Judge: Circuit Judge Wesley Pipes
- Request: Sanctions against the Housing Authority and an evidentiary hearing over records seized in an Oct. 5, 2020, search that were allegedly lost, destroyed or returned damaged
- Fallback request: An instruction telling jurors to view any missing evidence as favorable to Huddleston and Wilson
- Trial date: Oct. 19, 2026
What the couple says is missing
In the Sept. 21 motion, Scherf asked Judge Wesley Pipes to sanction the Housing Authority over a long list of items seized during the Oct. 5, 2020, law enforcement search: recordings, calendars, draft contracts, financial records, USB drives, computers and hard drives. The couple says those items have since been lost, destroyed or returned in damaged condition.
They are asking Pipes to hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegations, arguing the missing records are material evidence in the pending civil lawsuit and would clear them of claims of financial impropriety and misuse of funds.
At a minimum, Scherf asked the judge to instruct jurors at the Oct. 19 trial to presume that any missing evidence would have been favorable to Huddleston and Wilson. Courts sometimes give that kind of instruction, often called an “adverse inference” instruction, when one side in a lawsuit is found responsible for the loss or destruction of evidence relevant to the case.
The recordings at the heart of the claim
Among the items allegedly not returned are recordings of a December 2019 meeting between Huddleston, Wilson and the Housing Authority’s attorney, Brent Day, during which the three worked on the couple’s employment contracts. According to Scherf, one recording captured Day delivering a letter, sitting at a computer and “personally” making changes to the contracts.
The motion also says the multimillion-dollar retirement deal was added to the contracts against Huddleston’s and Wilson’s wishes.
One of the missing recordings, the couple claims, shows “Day’s decision and insistence that substantial retirement amounts be included in the contracts, his reasons for doing so, and Huddleston’s and Wilson’s objections or resistance to those amounts. Defendants contend these recordings also bear on whether Day resigned.”
Attorney denies drafting the agreements
Day has given a different account. In sworn affidavits, he has denied drafting, reviewing or approving the agreements. Huddleston and Wilson have previously argued that emails show he was at least copied on the discussions.
Day has also pointed to a letter he wrote to the Housing Authority board advising that a sale of the Safe Harbor development may violate state law, and in which he threatened to resign if the board approved it.
Judge Pipes previously ruled that Day’s affidavit could be used in court. He also said that how Day may have advised the board, or Huddleston and Wilson, could be relevant to a defense against claims of wrongdoing. But in an earlier order, Pipes noted that the couple has not raised “advice of counsel” as a defense and likely cannot do so at this stage of the case.
A dispute more than five years old
The motion is the latest development in a lengthy fight over Huddleston’s and Wilson’s time leading the Housing Authority and its 99-unit Safe Harbor housing development.
The Housing Authority sued the couple and several former board members in December 2020, alleging waste and misuse of funds.
Prosecutors later opened a criminal investigation and filed charges against Huddleston and Wilson involving missing flooring material. Those charges were dismissed last year at the request of the Housing Authority, which said the criminal case was delaying relief in its civil claims.
Huddleston and Wilson first raised the missing-evidence issue in April 2025, before Circuit Judge Michael Youngpeter dismissed the criminal case. Youngpeter said at the time that a civil court was better positioned to deal with the issue.
The sheriff’s role
The dispute has also spilled into federal court and local politics. Just days before the May 19 Republican primary, Huddleston sued Mobile County Sheriff Paul Burch in federal court over the 2020 raid. Burch oversaw the search of Huddleston’s home while also serving as a member of the Housing Authority’s board.
Burch has countersued Huddleston and Wilson in that case, arguing the lawsuit was “frivolous,” “vexatious,” and “interposed for any improper purpose,” filed to undermine his chances of winning re-election and to annoy him. Burch easily won the GOP nomination over challenger Paul Prine, whom Huddleston actively supported.
About the Bayou La Batre Housing Authority
Public housing authorities like Bayou La Batre’s are local government bodies that provide affordable housing for low-income residents, typically with federal funding and oversight from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. They are governed by appointed boards of commissioners, who hire an executive director to run day-to-day operations. Bayou La Batre is a small fishing and seafood-processing city on the south Mobile County coast.
What happens next
Judge Pipes has not yet ruled on the request for sanctions or for an evidentiary hearing. The civil trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 19. Huddleston and Wilson have not been found liable for the claims against them, and they deny wrongdoing.
This article will be updated as the case moves forward.