(a) In any case where an order has been entered under the provisions of this chapter, directing either party to pay any sum or sums of money for the support of his or her spouse, or concerning the care, custody or maintenance of any child, or children, the jurisdiction of the court which entered such order shall cease and its orders become inoperative upon the entry of a decree by the court or the judge thereof in vacation in a suit for divorce instituted in any circuit court in this Commonwealth having jurisdiction thereof, in which decree provision is made for support and maintenance for the spouse or concerning the care, custody or maintenance of a child or children, or concerning any matter provided in a decree in the divorce proceedings in accordance with the provisions of § 20-103.
(b) In any suit for divorce, the court in which the suit is instituted or pending, when either party to the proceedings so requests, shall provide in its decree for the maintenance, support, care or custody of the child or children in accordance with Chapter 6.1 (§ 20-124.1 et seq.), support and maintenance for the spouse, if the same be sought, and counsel fees and other costs, if in the judgment of the court any or all of the foregoing should be so decreed.
(c) Enforcement of orders. In any suit for divorce or suit for maintenance and support, the court may after a hearing, pendente lite, or in any decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, final decree for maintenance and support, or subsequent decree in such suit, transfer to the juvenile and domestic relations district court the enforcement of its orders pertaining to support and maintenance for the spouse, maintenance, support, care and custody of the child or children.
Transfer of case for modification. After the entry of a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii the court may transfer to the juvenile and domestic relations district court any other matters pertaining to support and maintenance for the spouse, maintenance, support, care and custody of the child or children on motion by either party, and may so transfer such matters before the entry of such decree on motion joined in by both parties. A court shall not (i) transfer a case for modification to the juvenile and domestic relations district court in the absence of a motion by either party or (ii) require a provision for transfer of matters for modification to the juvenile and domestic relations district court as a condition of entry of a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii.
Change of venue. In the transfer of any matters referred to herein, the court may, upon the motion of any party, or on its own motion, and for good cause shown, transfer any matters covered by said decree or decrees to any circuit court or juvenile and domestic relations district court within the Commonwealth that constitutes a more appropriate forum. An appeal of an order by such juvenile and domestic relations district court which is to enforce or modify the decree in the divorce suit shall be as provided in § 16.1-296.
Code 1919, § 1939; 1940, p. 478; 1960, c. 76; 1964, c. 636; 1970, c. 459; 1974, cc. 464, 473; 1975, c. 644; 1976, c. 345; 1977, c. 71; 1988, c. 502; 1994, c. 769; 2018, c. 254.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
97
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 435 S.E.2d 883 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 435 S.E.2d 883 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 88× “Were we to limit the circuit court's continuing jurisdiction when it might be the most appropriate forum to grant complete relief, we would be ruling in a manner contrary to the purpose of Code §§ 20-79 and 20-108.”
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 28× “33(A) is not applicable in this case, we should affirm her award of attorney’s fees under Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5) or, at the very least, remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of her request for attorney’s fees under those statutes.”
Ipsen v. Moxley, 642 S.E.2d 798 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 32× “On appeal to the circuit court, husband argued that the circuit court’s 1999 pendente lite support order nullified the district court’s 1998 support order and divested that court of jurisdiction pursuant to Code § 20-79. 2 The trial court agreed, ruling that husband owed wife no…”
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× ““In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and [former] 20-99(5) 8 provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.”
Kent M. Williams v. Kimberly D. Williams, 734 S.E.2d 186 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 26× “On appeal, father argues that the trial judge of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (trial judge) erred by (1) relying upon Code § 20-79(c) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Code §§ 20-88.”
Rebecca Allen v. Joseph William Allen, 789 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “” “In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5) provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.”
Calfee v. Calfee, 509 S.E.2d 552 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 20× “In contrast, an order adjudicating an appeal from the J & D court to the circuit court is not entitled to the procedural convenience of transfer provided by Code § 20-79. Such order, together with the related issues embraced by the appeal, rests within the exclusive jurisdiction…”
Wilson v. Wilson, 492 S.E.2d 495 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 8× “When the legislature enacted Code §§ 20-79, 20-99, and 20-103, it clearly intended to protect the ability of an eligible spouse to obtain fees for that spouse's legal counsel.”
Steven L. Romine v. Karen A. Romine, 473 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 18× “The J & DR court’s jurisdiction exists only as a result of action taken by a circuit court. Second, the cessation of a J & DR court’s concurrent jurisdiction upon a circuit court’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction is consistent with the statutory scheme.”
Hollowell v. Virginia Marine Resources Comm'n, 691 S.E.2d 500 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “2d 49, 56 (2008) ("Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5) provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney's fees .”
Harrell v. Harrell, 636 S.E.2d 391 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Code § 20-79(b) states "[i]n any suit for divorce, the court in which the suit is instituted or pending, when either party to the proceedings so requests, shall provide in its decree .”
Noel J. Albert v. Cynthia G. Albert, 563 S.E.2d 389 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Essentially, father maintains that counsel fees can only be awarded pendente lite in divorce actions, see Code § 20-103(A), in a decree in which a divorce is “instituted or pending,” see Code § 20-79(B), or when a party is found in contempt, see Wilson v.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-79(B) — 3 cases
Noel J. Albert v. Cynthia G. Albert, 563 S.E.2d 389 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
“Essentially, father maintains that counsel fees can only be awarded pendente lite in divorce actions, see Code § 20-103(A), in a decree in which a divorce is “instituted or pending,” see Code § 20-79(B), or when a party is found in contempt, see Wilson v.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-79(C) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-79(a) — 12 cases
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 435 S.E.2d 883 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“Were we to limit the circuit court's continuing jurisdiction when it might be the most appropriate forum to grant complete relief, we would be ruling in a manner contrary to the purpose of Code §§ 20-79 and 20-108.”
Ipsen v. Moxley, 642 S.E.2d 798 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
“On appeal to the circuit court, husband argued that the circuit court’s 1999 pendente lite support order nullified the district court’s 1998 support order and divested that court of jurisdiction pursuant to Code § 20-79. 2 The trial court agreed, ruling that husband owed wife no…”
Calfee v. Calfee, 509 S.E.2d 552 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
“In contrast, an order adjudicating an appeal from the J & D court to the circuit court is not entitled to the procedural convenience of transfer provided by Code § 20-79. Such order, together with the related issues embraced by the appeal, rests within the exclusive jurisdiction…”
Steven L. Romine v. Karen A. Romine, 473 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
“The J & DR court’s jurisdiction exists only as a result of action taken by a circuit court. Second, the cessation of a J & DR court’s concurrent jurisdiction upon a circuit court’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction is consistent with the statutory scheme.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-79(b) — 48 cases
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“33(A) is not applicable in this case, we should affirm her award of attorney’s fees under Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5) or, at the very least, remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of her request for attorney’s fees under those statutes.”
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
““In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and [former] 20-99(5) 8 provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.”
Rebecca Allen v. Joseph William Allen, 789 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
“” “In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5) provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.”
Hollowell v. Virginia Marine Resources Comm'n, 691 S.E.2d 500 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
“2d 49, 56 (2008) ("Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5) provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney's fees .”
Harrell v. Harrell, 636 S.E.2d 391 (Va. 2006).
“Code § 20-79(b) states "[i]n any suit for divorce, the court in which the suit is instituted or pending, when either party to the proceedings so requests, shall provide in its decree .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-79(c) — 32 cases
Crabtree v. Crabtree, 435 S.E.2d 883 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
“Were we to limit the circuit court's continuing jurisdiction when it might be the most appropriate forum to grant complete relief, we would be ruling in a manner contrary to the purpose of Code §§ 20-79 and 20-108.”
Kent M. Williams v. Kimberly D. Williams, 734 S.E.2d 186 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“On appeal, father argues that the trial judge of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (trial judge) erred by (1) relying upon Code § 20-79(c) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Code §§ 20-88.”
Steven L. Romine v. Karen A. Romine, 473 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
“The J & DR court’s jurisdiction exists only as a result of action taken by a circuit court. Second, the cessation of a J & DR court’s concurrent jurisdiction upon a circuit court’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction is consistent with the statutory scheme.”
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
““In Virginia, Code §§ 20-79(b) and [former] 20-99(5) 8 provide the statutory basis for the broad discretionary authority circuit courts have to award attorney’s fees and other costs as the equities of a divorce case and its ancillary proceedings may require.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-79(e) — 1 case
Kent M. Williams v. Kimberly D. Williams, 734 S.E.2d 186 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“On appeal, father argues that the trial judge of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (trial judge) erred by (1) relying upon Code § 20-79(c) and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Code §§ 20-88.”
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.