G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 ·
…to effect a novation there must be a clear and definite intention on the part of all concerned that such a change is the purpose of the new agreement, for it is a well settled principle that novation is never to be presumed.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu v. Kaya
Under Virginia law, “novation is defined as a mutual agreement among all parties concerned for discharge of a valid existing obligation by the substitution of a new valid obligation on the part of the debtor or another.” Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (Va. 1972); See also Smith v. Snyder, 82 Va. 614, 618 (1886) (holding that “where a valid, binding change is made in a contract, the old one is done away with, and a new one is substituted for it”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dorula v. Brooks (In re Starlight Group LLC)
Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89-90 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972) (an essential requisite of a novation is “the validity of the new contract”); see also Metrocall of Delaware, Inc. v. Cont'l Cellular Corp., 246 Va. 365, 373 , 437 S.E.2d 189, 193 (1993) (“[A] written, mutual release memorializing a compromise and settlement may be rescinded for fraud in its procurement.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Terry v. Evans (In re Evans)
Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89-90 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dorula v. Brooks (In re Starlight Group, LLC)
(2×)
If the novation was procured by fraud, it is not a valid contract and the original contract remains in effect. 10 Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89-90 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972) (an essential requisite of a novation is “the validity of the new contract”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carroll v. Commonwealth
(2×)
Appellant quite reasonably expected that he and the Commonwealth would be bound by the terms of the plea agreement. [9] "[A] novation is defined as a mutual agreement among all parties concerned for discharge of a valid existing obligation by the substitution of a new valid obligation on the part of the debtor or another." Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89-90 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Halart, L.L.C. v. Independent Auto Warehouse, Inc. (In Re Twin B Auto Parts, Inc.)
(2×)
In Virginia, a novation is the result of a “mutual agreement among all parties concerned for discharge of a valid existing obligation by the substitution of a new valid obligation on the part of the debtor or another.” Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buck v. Jordan
Co., 254 Va. 286, 291 , 492 S.E.2d 118, 121 (1997); Clarendon House, Inc. v. Helfert, 213 Va. 28, 29 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 331 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Brice
The case law defines the requisite elements of a novation as "a previous valid obligation, the agreement of all parties to the new contract, and the validity of the new contract." Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blair v. Crestar Bank (In re Blair)
The case law defines the requisite elements of a novation as “a previous valid obligation, the agreement of all parties to the new contract, and the validity of the new contract.” Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gullette v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
See Dere v. Montgomery Ward, 224 Va. 277, 280 , 295 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1982); Honeywell v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dere v. Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc.
Under a single assignment of error, defendant contends that “the agreement... to extinguish the obligation on the check and to substitute a new obligation on a credit card account, constituted a novation which is a bar to the bringing of any action on the dishonored check.” 1 Defendant relies upon Honeywell v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89 , 189 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1972), where we said: [N] ovation is defined as a mutual agreement among all parties concerned for discharge of a valid existing obligation by the substitution of a new valid obligation on the part of the debtor or another.
discussed
Cited "see"
Aca Fin. Guaranty Corp. v. City of Buena Vista
See Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott , 213 Va. 86 , 89-90, 189 S.E.2d 331 (Va. 1972) (requiring clear intention to establish novation, which is never presumed, and finding evidence lacking); Johnston v. Lamson Co. , 159 Va. 666 , 678-80, 167 S.E. 417 (Va. 1933) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ceres Assoc. Sales & Mktg., Inc. v. Veridian Corp.
See Dere v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 224, Va. 277, 280, 295 S.E.2d 794 (1982) (citing Honeywell, Inc. v. Elliott, 213 Va. 86, 89 , 189 S.E.2d 331 (1972)) (“A novation may be effected by two parties; an existing obligation is discharged when a creditor and his debtor agree to substitute a new obligation running from the debtor to his creditor.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clarendon House, Inc.
v.
Robert C. Helfert, Et Al.
v.
Robert C. Helfert, Et Al.
Record 7816.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Jun 12, 1972.
Henry F. Lerch [D.C.]; Alfred W. Trueax (Harry W. Lerch [D.C.]; William C. Nemeth, on brief), for plaintiff in error., Alexander Long Wilson (Wilson & Holland, on brief), for defendants in error.
I'Anson, Carrico, Harrison, Cochran, Harman.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs, Robert C. Helfert and Jean L. Helfert, husband and wife, instituted this action against the defendants, Clarendon House, Inc., Michael M. Abrams, and Mrs. P. N. Pavlos, to recover for trespass upon their leasehold interest in an apartment and damage to certain personal property therein. The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages against Clarendon House and found for the other defendants. On a cross-claim filed by Clarendon House the jury found for the plaintiffs. Judgment was entered on the jury’s verdict, and Clarendon House is here on a writ of error.
Clarendon House has assigned numerous errors, but after a careful examination of the record we find that it either failed to preserve its objections in the trial court or raised questions for the first time on this appeal.
[*29] Even if we assume, without deciding, that some of the errors assigned are meritorious, Clarendon House cannot now rely upon them. Rules of Court 1:8 [1] ; Boyce v. Maryland Casualty Co., Etc., 212 Va. 767, 188 S.E.2d 75 (1972).
Affirmed.
1
. Now Rule 5:7, effective March 1, 1972.