Boyd v. Boyd, 340 S.E.2d 578 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Boyd v. Boyd, 340 S.E.2d 578 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1995 · …a divorce suit in which the pleadings seek only to terminate a marriage is an in rem proceeding, but a proceeding seeking the entry of a decree for spousal support and maintenance is in personam. at p. 580 ✓
200 citation events (129 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Roberge v. Roberge (In Re Roberge) (vaed, 1995-11-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Roberge v. Roberge (In Re Roberge) (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
E.D. Va. · 1995 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
a divorce suit in which the pleadings seek only to terminate a marriage is an in rem proceeding, but a proceeding seeking the entry of a decree for spousal support and maintenance is in personam.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stavros P. Galiotos, Individually v. Tasos A. Galiotos, Individually
Va. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“The purpose in requiring ‘pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim, without which the most rudimentary due process safeguards would be denied.’” Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 315 (2004) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 (1986)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) George Schiano v. Falkland Farm Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.
Va. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“The office of pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Truc \Curt\" Tran v. Industrial Development Authority of the Town of Front Royal"
Va. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“The purpose in requiring ‘pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim, without which the most rudimentary due process safeguards would be denied.” Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 315 (2004) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 (1986)). “[E]very litigant is entitled to be told by his adversary in plain and explicit language what is his ground of complaint or defense.” Jenkins, 266 Va. at 43 (quoting Ted Lansing Supply Co. v. Royal Aluminum & Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Chris Kiriakou v. Heather Katherine Kiriakou
Va. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
The purpose of pleadings is to “give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim [against him], without which the most rudimentary due process safeguards would be denied.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stuart Chung v. Stephanie Chung, n/k/a Stephanie Fitzgerald
Va. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Cirrito v. Cirrito, 44 Va. App. 287, 314-15 , 605 S.E.2d 268, 281 (2004) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thaddeus Anthony Ruane v. Cynthia Ann Ruane
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Basil Gaissert v. Jennifer Joanne Estrem Gaissert
Va. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Assignment of error #4 Husband argues that the trial court erred when it allowed wife “to pursue equitable distribution and proceed on the main complaint when [she] had not asked for equitable distribution.” Husband relies on a ruling in Fadness, which stated, “Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Fadness, 52 Va. App. at 843 , 667 S.E.2d at 862 (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)). -6- During the trial, husband objected to wife requesting equitable dist…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Payne v. Fawkes
unknown court · 2014 · confidence medium
Cir. 1940); Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580-81 (1986); Arvest Bank v. SpiritBank, N.A., 2008 OK CIV APP 55 , 191 P.3d 1228, 1233 (2008).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Steven T. Russell v. Karen A. Russell (5×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Harrell v. Harrell, 272 Va. 652, 656 , 636 S.E.2d 391, 393 (2006). -5- “‘Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.’” Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 843 , 667 S.E.2d 857, 862 (2008) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)). “‘Pleadings are as essential as proof, the one being unavailing without the other.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas J. Shea, Jr. v. Teresa A. Spinicci
Va. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 207 , 181 S.E. 521, 525 (1935). “‘Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.’” Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 843 , 667 S.E.2d 857, 862 (2008) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Scott Starling v. Teresa Ann Morehead Starling
Va. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its -3- judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citing Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 207 , 181 S.E. 521, 525 (1935)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott Thomas McNamee v. Sharon Jones McNamee
Va. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Unreimbursed Medical Expenses Lastly, husband argues that the circuit court erred in taking evidence and ruling on the issue of husband’s alleged failure to pay K.M.’s unreimbursed medical expenses because wife had not filed a motion or notice alleging the same, and, therefore, husband had no notice that this was an issue in this case. “‘Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.’” Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 843 , 667 S.E.2d 857, 862 (2008) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy M. Barrett v. Valerie Jill Rhudy Barrett
Va. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“A court has jurisdiction over the subject matter if it has jurisdiction over the cause of action and of the relief sought.” Id. at 711-12 , 479 S.E.2d at 542 . “‘Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.’” Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 843 , 667 S.E.2d 857, 862 (2008) (quoting Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986)). “‘Pleadings are as essential as proof, the one being unavailing without the other.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dennis John Kappeler v. Lorie Lyn Kappeler
Va. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fleming v. Fleming, 32 Va. App. 822, 826 , 531 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2000); Reid v. Reid, 24 Va. App. 146, 149-50 , 480 S.E.2d 771, 772 (1997); Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 17-18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 579 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lora Lynn Stout v. Clair Rex Stout
Va. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 17-19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 579-80 (1986); see also Harrell v. Harrell, 272 Va. 652, 657-58 , 636 S.E.2d 391, 394-95 (2006) (holding that wife’s request for pendente lite spousal support was insufficient to request permanent spousal support); Fleming v. Fleming, 32 Va. App. 822, 826 , 531 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2000) (holding that it was error for a trial court to award a lump sum spousal support award when husband did not request spousal support in his pleadings and waived support in the parties’ written agreement). 1 The transcript from the discovery depositions was not …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Fadness v. Fadness (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Va. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Sufficiency of Wife’s Complaint “Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va.App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Victor Dritselis v. Mary Tsakires Dritselis
Va. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Wife correctly notes that “[f]undamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy Martin Barrett v. Valerie Jill Rhudy Barrett
Va. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Husband correctly notes that “[f]undamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ross Kinnison Hall v. Marlene Sue Hall
Va. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
White, 257 Va. at 144 , 509 S.E.2d at 325 . -8- “The office of pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18-19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cirrito v. Cirrito
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Husband did not seek to compel responses to interrogatories under Rule 4:12, nor did he seek discovery of wife’s expert’s reports. 14 “Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not *315 been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va.App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dianna Perkins Millner v. Russell Edward Millner
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Russell Edward Millner v. Dianna Perkins Millner
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jodi Lynn Case v. James Samuel Case
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ira Vincent Hoffman v. Deborah Louise Cass Hoffman
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deborah Louise Cass Hoffman v. Ira Vincent Hoffman
Va. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
“Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellis Wayne Bowden v. Gail Ann Bowden
Va. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
"Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed." Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carinma T. Lawson v. James R. Lawson, III
Va. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
A decree can not be entered in the absence of pleadings upon which to found the same, and if so entered it is void." Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harry E Milner, Jr v. Sheril L Milner
Va. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fleming v. Fleming, 32 Va. App. 822, 826 , 531 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2000); Reid v. Reid, 24 Va. App. 146, 149-50 , 480 S.E.2d 771, 772-73 (1997); Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 17-18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 579 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peter W. Pantazes v. Patricia K. Drew Pantazes
Va. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer Denise (Mercer) Lowe v. Charles R. Lowe (3×) also: Cited "see"
Va. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citations omitted). - 3 - In Boyd, the wife, in her cross-bill, had prayed for custody of the parties' son, child support, equitable distribution, and "'such other and further relief as to equity may seem meet and the nature of her case may require.'" Id. at 18 , 340 S.E.2d at 579 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregory Jude DeVeau v. Mutsumi Azemoto-DeVeau
Va. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
"Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed." Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zeaman v. Zeaman
Fairfax Cir. Ct. · 2000 · confidence medium
Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 (1986); quoting Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 207 (1935).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jack J. Jenkins v. Nancy Ann Whitehead Jenkins (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
The office of pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim, without which the most rudimentary due process safeguards would be denied. - 3 - Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18-19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lee Alexander Stevenson v. Cheryl Ann Stevenson
Va. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Don Ray Hudgins v. Karen C. Hudgins
Va. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
ISSUES CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS Spousal Support "Jurisdiction in a divorce suit is purely statutory, and does not encompass broad equitable powers not conferred by statute." Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (citation omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Reid v. Reid (3×) also: Cited "see"
Va. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Clearly, the “exercise of such power remains dependent upon the pleadings having raised the issue.” Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va.App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) B.K. Cruey v. Shirley Ann Laymon
Va. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 579 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodman v. Hamman
Va. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
See, e.g., McCausey v. McCausey, 221 Va. 500, 502 , 272 S.E.2d 36, 36-37 (1980); Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986); Brawand v. Brawand, 1 Va. App. 305, 307 , 338 S.E.2d 651, 652 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hur v. Virginia Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Klopp (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 18 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gologanoff v. Gologanoff
Va. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
The issues in a case are made by the pleadings, and not by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence. *347 We held in Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 20 , 340 S.E. 2d 578, 580-81 (1986), that where a wife’s cross-bill sought a divorce but not spousal support, the court did not have authority to award support to her.
discussed Cited "see" Rahul Kishore Chaudhry v. Lisa Judith Chaudhry (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 (1986) (stating that the power to award support “remains dependent upon the pleadings having raised the issue”).
discussed Cited "see" Oscar O. Ozfidan v. Pamela L. Ozfidan (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Addressing pleas in bar specifically, Joseph Chitty noted a more general application of the rule in his seminal treatise on pleading: As it is a natural presumption that the party pleading will state his case as favorably for himself as possible, and that if he do not state it with all its legal circumstances, the case is not in fact favorable to him, it is a rule of construction, that if a plea has on the face of it two intendments, it shall be taken most strongly against the defendant; that is, the most unfavorable meaning shall be put upon the plea; a rule which we have seen obtains also in…
discussed Cited "see" Jon Thomas Dega v. Debra Ann Vitus (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 19 , 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986) (holding that the power to award support “remains dependent upon the pleadings having raised the issue”).
discussed Cited "see" Fleming v. Fleming (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va.App. 16, 17-18, 340 S.E.2d 578, 579 (1986) (“holding] that it was error for the trial court to have awarded spousal support to a party whose pleadings requested no such relief’).
discussed Cited "see" Ralph L. Bennett v. Joyce R. Bennett (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 19 , 340 S.E.2d at 579 (wife's general prayer "'for such other and further relief as to equity may seem meet 5 and the nature of her case may require'" was insufficient notice of request for spousal support).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Wilson v. Wilson (4×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Klopp, 13 Va.App. 54, 62 , 409 S.E.2d 454, 459 (1991) (citations omitted); see also Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va.App. 16, 18-19, 340 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1986); Ted Lansing Supply Co. v. Royal Aluminum & Const. Corp., 221 Va. 1139, 1141 , 277 S.E.2d 228, 229-30 (1981); Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 207 , 181 S.E. 521, 525 (1935).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Murphy v. Murphy
Fairfax Cir. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Boyd v. Boyd, 2 Va. App. 16, 20 (1986) (for court to award spousal support in a divorce proceeding where no pleading requested that spousal support be awarded “would constitute an unwarranted modification of the nature of the cause of action, with potentially far-reaching effects”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jimmie Delano Boyd
v.
Brenda Plaster Boyd
Record No. 0728-85.
Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Mar 4, 1986.
340 S.E.2d 578
Counsel, William Rogers McCall, for appellant., Linda G. Tiller (Tiller & Tiller, on brief), for appellee.
Coleman.
Cited by 64 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: E.D. Virginia (1)

Opinion

COLEMAN, J.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in awarding spousal support to the wife upon granting the husband a “no-fault” divorce. The thrust of appellant-husband’s argument is two-fold: first, husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding the wife permanent spousal support since no appropriate pleading or motion for spousal support was tendered by the wife; and second, he contends that the trial court erred in not granting him a divorce based on desertion, or, in the alternative, erred in granting a “no-fault” divorce without making any findings as to “fault.” Because we hold that it was error for the trial court to have awarded spousal support to a party whose pleadings requested no such relief, we do[*18] not address appellant’s challenge to the grounds for divorce which he raised solely to establish a bar to permanent spousal support.

After a marriage of twenty years, the husband, Jimmie Delano Boyd, filed a bill of complaint for divorce alleging willful desertion and abandonment by the wife, Brenda Plaster Boyd. Mr. Boyd requested custody of the parties’ eight year old son but did not seek child or spousal support. Mrs. Boyd filed an answer denying willful desertion and a cross-bill for divorce alleging cruelty and constructive desertion, and praying for an award of child custody, child support and maintenance, attorney’s fees and court costs, and an award of equitable distribution pursuant to Code § 20-107.3. The cross-bill contained no specific request for spousal support or maintenance, but did include a general prayer “for such other and further relief as to equity may seem meet and the nature of her case may require.” No petition or motion requesting spousal support or maintenance pendente lite was filed, nor was any decree entered providing support during the pendency of the suit. Although counsel for both parties filed trial court memoranda, neither raised the issue of spousal support.

By letter opinion, the chancellor, without addressing or making any findings as to the parties’ averments of willful desertion, cruelty or constructive desertion, granted the husband a final divorce “on the grounds of continuous and uninterrupted separation for a period in excess of one (1) year,” [1] granted custody of the child to Mr. Boyd and reasonable visitation rights to Mrs. Boyd, granted Mrs. Boyd the monthly sum of $130 as “separate maintenance and support,” and made a monetary award to Mrs. Boyd for her interest in the marital estate. A decree incorporating the court’s rulings was entered over Mr. Boyd’s objection and this appeal, limited to the grounds affecting spousal support, followed.

Fundamental rules of pleading provide that no court can base its judgment or decree upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed. Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va.[*19] 196, 207, 181 S.E. 521, 525 (1935). The office of pleadings is to give notice to the opposing party of the nature and character of the claim, without which the most rudimentary due process safeguards would be denied. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). The rule is clearly stated in Potts:

The basis of every right of recovery under our system of jurisprudence is a pleading setting forth facts warranting the granting of the relief sought. It is the sine qua non of every judgment or decree. No court can base its decree upon facts not alleged, nor render its judgment upon a right, however meritorious, which has not been pleaded and claimed, (citation omitted). Pleadings are as essential as proof, the one being unavailing without the other. A decree can not be entered in the absence of pleadings upon which to found the same, and if so entered it is void.

165 Va. at 207, 181 S.E. at 525.

The provision of Code § 20-107.1 that upon decreeing a divorce “the court may make such further decree as it shall deem expedient concerning the maintenance and support of the spouses” grants to the divorce court the power to award maintenance and support, but the exercise of such power remains dependent upon the pleadings having raised the issue. Jurisdiction in a divorce suit is purely statutory, Watkins v. Watkins, 220 Va. 1051, 1054, 265 S.E.2d 750, 752 (1980), and does not encompass broad equitable powers not conferred by statute. While the power to award spousal support and maintenance (formerly alimony) is given to a divorce court by statute, it can also be the basis of an independent suit in equity. Latham v. Latham, 71 Va. (30 Gratt.) 307, 338 (1878); Code § 16.1-241(L). However, the power of a court of equity to grant such further relief as necessary extends only to those powers required to effectually carry out its decrees in matters over which it has the power to act; it does not extend to an award of relief not raised by the pleadings. The general prayer in appellee’s cross-bill for “further relief,” in the absence of a pleading or motion requesting such relief, did not justify an award by the chancellor of spousal support.

Furthermore, the distinction between a cause of action which seeks merely to terminate a marriage and one which also[*20] seeks spousal support involves fundamental due process issues which govern permissible means of service of process and determine the breadth and limitations of a court’s power to grant the relief requested. A divorce suit in which the pleadings seek only to terminate a marriage is an in rem proceeding, but a proceeding seeking the entry of a decree for spousal support and maintenance is in personam. Bailey v. Bailey, 172 Va. 18, 21, 200 S.E. 622, 623 (1939). For us to hold that a pleading which seeks a divorce without requesting spousal support nevertheless empowers a court to award support would constitute an unwarranted modification of the nature of the cause of action, with potentially far-reaching effects. We decline to do so.

Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s award of spousal support to appellee.

Reversed.

Cole, J., and Moon, J., concurred.

1

Code § 20-121.02 provides: “Decree of divorce without amended bill. — In any case where the ground for divorce from the bond of matrimony is set out in § 20-91(6) or where willful desertion or cruelty is the ground for divorce from bed and board and the bill of complaint prays for a divorce from bed and board, either party may move the court for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the grounds set out in § 20-91(9), if the statutory period set out therein has elapsed, and no amended bill of complaint or cross bill shall be required to be filed.”