A. The governing body of every county shall receive and audit all claims against the county, except those required to be received and audited by the county school board, and shall, by resolution or recorded vote, approve and order warrants issued in settlement of those claims that are found to be valid; provided that a county administrator, county executive or county manager may sign and issue orders or warrants under such conditions as the governing body may prescribe. Every warrant issued pursuant to the provisions of this section shall bear the date on which the governing body orders it to be issued and shall be made payable on demand, signed by the clerk of the governing body or his deputy, countersigned by the chairman or acting chairman of the governing body, and recorded in the form and manner prescribed by the Auditor of Public Accounts. Such warrant may be converted to a negotiable check by the treasurer, or appropriately designated deputy treasurer, by affixing his signature thereto in conformity with the provisions of § 58.1-3162 and by designating thereon the bank by which it is to be paid.
B. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection A, the governing body of any county may provide, by resolution, for the drawing of special warrants on the county treasurer, payable out of county funds, in payment of compensation, when such compensation has been earned or is due for (i) all employees and officers under written contract, and all officers elected or appointed for a term of office and their deputies and employees, (ii) upon receipt of certified time sheets or other evidence of services performed, the payment of all other employees whose rates of pay have been established by such governing body or its properly designated agent, or (iii) for payment on contracts for construction projects according to the terms of such contracts. All such special warrants so authorized shall be signed by the clerk of such governing body and countersigned by the chairman of such governing body. Any special warrant may be converted into a negotiable check in the manner provided in subsection A. All such payrolls and contracts so paid shall be reviewed and approved by the governing body at its next regular meeting.
C. The governing body of any county may, in its discretion, destroy the papers constituting any or all claims allowed and paid, upon the expiration of five years after audit in accordance with retention regulations established pursuant to the Virginia Public Records Act (§ 42.1-76 et seq.).
Code 1950, § 15-253; 1952, cc. 16, 304; 1954, c. 183; 1962, c. 623, § 15.1-547; 1968, c. 269; 1979, c. 206; 1982, c. 493; 1997, c. 587.
Notes of Decisions
Seabolt v. Cnty. of Albemarle, 724 S.E.2d 715 (Va. 2012).
· cites it 10× “The county next argues that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Seabolt did not allege compliance with the presentment and appeal procedures set forth in Code § 15.2-1243 et seq. According to the county, these statutes provide the "mandatory and…”
Harrison v. Prince William Cnty. Police Dep't, 640 F. Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. Va. 2009).
· cites it 2× “As an alternative defense to state law claims against the County, Defendants argued that any such causes of action were barred by Plaintiff's failure to make an initial claim to the Board of County Supervisors, as required by Va.Code Ann. §§ 15.2-1243 to 15.2-1249. Because the…”
VIKING ENT. v. Cnty. of Chesterfield, 670 S.E.2d 741 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, now Code §§ 15.2-1243 et seq., "`provide the exclusive procedure for litigating claims against a county'" and the "`[f]ailure to allege compliance with these statutes is fatal to an action against a county.”
Hartwell v. Fairfax Cnty., 83 Va. Cir. 105 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated that the requirements of Va. Code §§ 15.2-1243 et seq. “provide the exclusive procedure for litigating claims against a county.”
MCI Constructors v. Spotsylvania Cnty., 62 Va. Cir. 375 (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 3× “The Statutes Generally, the procedure for filing claims against counties in Virginia is set forth in Virginia Code § 15.2-1243 etseq. The Public Procurement Act, § 2.”
Bennett v. Nelson Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 73 Va. Cir. 109 (Nelson Cir. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 5× “2-1521 grants discretion to the Board to pay legal fees and expenses, and does not provide for review by the circuit court, the court does not have the authority to review this action by the Board of Supervisors.”
Faulconer Constr. Co. v. Branch & Assocs., Inc., 85 Va. Cir. 85 (Rockbridge Cir. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 3× “In support of its position, Faulconer relies heavily on cases that have considered notice requirements in the context of the Virginia Procurement Act, Va. Code § 15.2-1243 et seq., or similar locally adopted public procurement policy.”
Dalton v. Chesterfield Cnty., 54 Va. Cir. 621 (Chesterfield Cir. Ct. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs allege that § 15.2-1243(B) of the 1950 Code of Virginia (as amended) obviates the requirement of formal presentation to the defendant.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1243(A) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1243(B) — 1 case
Dalton v. Chesterfield Cnty., 54 Va. Cir. 621 (Chesterfield Cir. Ct. 1999).
“The plaintiffs allege that § 15.2-1243(B) of the 1950 Code of Virginia (as amended) obviates the requirement of formal presentation to the defendant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.