Va. Code » Title 16.1. Courts Not of Record » Chapter 11. Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts » Article 9. Disposition
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-278.19 (2026)

Attorney fees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any matter properly before the court, the court may award attorney fees and costs on behalf of any party as the court deems appropriate based on the relative financial ability of the parties and any other relevant factors to attain equity.

1991, c. 534; 2020, c. 185.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 666 S.E.2d 361 (Va. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 666 S.E.2d 361 (Va. 2008). · cites it 6× “The en banc Court of Appeals denied the Grandparents' request of an award under Code § 16.1-278.19 for the attorney's fees and costs incurred by them in that court: "[W]e cannot say DSS's position in this case was unreasonable .”
Alexander v. Flowers, 658 S.E.2d 355 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Code § 16.1-278.19 provides as follows: In any matter properly before the court, the court may award attorney’s fees and costs on behalf of any party as the court deems appropriate based on the relative financial ability of the parties.”
Donald v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Human Dev., 455 S.E.2d 740 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “" Pertinent to this case, Code § 16.1-278.19 provides as follows: In any matter properly before the court [defined by Code § 16.”
Vokes v. Vokes, 504 S.E.2d 865 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “The Court held that Code § 16.1-278.19 is “the sole authority granted to district courts for awarding attorney’s fees,” and that, under Code § 16.”
Murphy v. Charlotte Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 706 S.E.2d 546 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “Robert Murphy appeals an order that denied his petition for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code § 16.1-278.19. Murphy argues that the trial court erred when it sustained the Charlotte County Department of Social Services’ (the Department) Special Plea of Sovereign Immunity asking…”
Cartwright v. Cartwright, 635 S.E.2d 691 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “” Code § 16.1-278.19 provides as follows: In any matter properly before the court, the court may award attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of any party as the court deems appropriate based on the relative financial ability of the parties.”
Kotara v. Kotara, 688 S.E.2d 908 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “However, Code § 16.1-278.19 limits that authority to cases that are “properly before the court.”
Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 648 S.E.2d 328 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “" In sum, both the JDR court and the circuit court acted pursuant to express statutory authority in adjudicating the Cooks' petition for custody of their granddaughter, and in awarding them custody, upon finding that to be in the child's best interest.”
Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Human Dev. v. Donald, 467 S.E.2d 803 (Va. 1996). · cites it 2× “Code § 16.1-278.19 provides that, “[i]n any matter properly before the [district] court, the court may award attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of any party as the court deems appropriate based on the relative financial ability of the parties.”
Nadia Gihar Bahta v. Mohammed Seid Mohammed (Va. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 36× “Because we find the court incorrectly concluded that Code § 16.1-278.19 “barred” it from awarding attorney’s fees, we reverse.”
Horacio Eugenio Sobol v. Christine Marie Sobol (Va. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 14× “” In denying husband’s motion to reconsider the fee award, the trial court cited Code § 16.1-278.19, stating that it “permits the court to make an award of attorney’s fees and costs on behalf of either party as the court deems appropriate based on the financial ability of the…”
Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 668 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 22× “*9 In its opinion, reversing this Court for applying the wrong legal standard in determining whether to award attorney’s fees for expenses incurred on appeal, the Supreme Court noted that we relied upon Code § 16.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.