No suit for annulling a marriage or for divorce shall be maintainable, unless one of the parties was at the time of the filing of the suit and had been for at least six months preceding the filing of the suit an actual bona fide resident and domiciliary of the Commonwealth, nor shall any suit for affirming a marriage be maintainable, unless one of the parties be domiciled in, and is and has been an actual bona fide resident of, the Commonwealth at the time of filing such suit.
For the purposes of this section only:
1. If a member of the Armed Forces of the United States has been stationed or resided in the Commonwealth and has lived for a period of six months or more in the Commonwealth next preceding the filing of the suit, then such person shall be presumed to be domiciled in and to have been a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth during such period of time.
2. Being stationed or residing in the Commonwealth includes a member of the Armed Forces being stationed or residing upon a ship having its home port in the Commonwealth or at an air, naval, or military base located within the Commonwealth over which the United States enjoys exclusive federal jurisdiction.
3. Any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or any civilian employee of the United States, including any foreign service officer, who (i) at the time the suit is filed is, or immediately preceding such suit was, stationed in any territory or foreign country, or at the time the suit is filed, or immediately preceding such suit, has returned to the Commonwealth following being stationed in any territory or foreign country and (ii) resided or lived in the Commonwealth for the six-month period immediately preceding his being stationed in such territory or country shall be deemed to have been domiciled in and to have been a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth during the six months preceding the filing of a suit for annulment or divorce.
4. Upon separation of a married couple, either spouse may establish his own and separate domicile, though the separation may have been caused under such circumstances as would entitle such spouse to a divorce or annulment.
Code 1919, § 5105; 1922, p. 589; 1958, c. 169; 1968, c. 455; 1974, c. 278; 1978, c. 412; 1985, c. 304; 1987, c. 35; 1988, c. 448; 1991, c. 259; 2009, c. 582; 2015, c. 315; 2017, c. 480; 2020, c. 900; 2026, c. 469.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2023 · leading case:
Blackson v. Blackson, 579 S.E.2d 704 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Blackson v. Blackson, 579 S.E.2d 704 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 22× “Trent Blackson (“husband”) contends on appeal that the trial court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings because neither party qualified as a bona fide resident and domiciliary of Virginia under any provision of Code § 20-97; (2) did not have…”
Adoteye v. Adoteye, 527 S.E.2d 453 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “The trial court dismissed her bill of complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that she had not proved bona fide residence in Virginia as required by Code § 20-97. Code § 20-97 provides, in relevant part: No suit for annulling a marriage or for divorce shall be maintainable,…”
Price v. Price, 435 S.E.2d 652 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Code § 20-97. See also Estin v. Estin, 334 U.”
Rock v. Rock, 372 S.E.2d 211 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 20-97 requires that at least one of the parties to the divorce suit be domiciled in Virginia and have been an actual bona fide resident of Virginia for at least six months preceding the commencement of the suit.”
Dunham v. Hotelera Canco S.A. De C.V., 933 F. Supp. 543 (E.D. Va. 1996).
“Having (i) executed an agreement in this Commonwealth which obligates the person to pay spousal support or child support to a domiciliary of this Commonwealth or to a person who has satisfied the residency requirements in suits for annulments or divorce for members of the armed…”
Westfall v. Westfall, 82 S.E.2d 487 (Va. 1954).
“(2d) 888, 892, 893 , we pointed out that Code, § 20-97, prescribing the domicile and residential requirements for divorce suits, and section 20-99, prescribing how such suits are to be instituted and conducted, show that there are marked differences between suits for divorce and…”
DeRyder v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 145 S.E.2d 177 (Va. 1965).
“Unquestionably, at that time he was domiciled in, and was and had been an actual bona fide resident of this State for at least the preceding year, as required by Code, § 5105 (now § 20-97) in order to maintain a suit for divorce.”
Meade v. Meade, 650 F. Supp. 205 (M.D.N.C. 1986).
“” Va.Code § 20-97. Since all parties resided in Virginia on the date the divorce proceedings were commenced, and for at least six months prior to that date, Virginia had jurisdiction to make the initial custody award and the November 10, 1982, award is consistent with the PKPA.”
Davis v. Davis, 143 S.E.2d 835 (Va. 1965).
“There was ample evidence presented to satisfy the jurisdictional and venue requirements of Code, §§ 20-97 and 20-98 and the trial court, therefore, was established as the proper forum for the complainant’s divorce suit.”
Gramelspacher v. Gramelspacher, 134 S.E.2d 285 (Va. 1964).
“270, in effect at the time of the institution of this suit, provided: “Upon decreeing the dissolution of a marriage, and also upon decreeing a divorce, whether from the bond of matrimony or from bed and board, and upon decreeing that neither party is entitled to a divorce the…”
George v. King, 156 S.E.2d 615 (Va. 1967).
“rcuit Court of Prince William county, Virginia, that decree “was void for want of jurisdiction” of the court, because at the time of the institution of the divorce proceeding by Judith Sides King she was not a resident of and had not been domiciled in the State of Virginia and…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-97(1) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-97(3) — 1 case
Blackson v. Blackson, 579 S.E.2d 704 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“Trent Blackson (“husband”) contends on appeal that the trial court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings because neither party qualified as a bona fide resident and domiciliary of Virginia under any provision of Code § 20-97; (2) did not have…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-97(3)(ii) — 1 case
Blackson v. Blackson, 579 S.E.2d 704 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
“Trent Blackson (“husband”) contends on appeal that the trial court (1) did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings because neither party qualified as a bona fide resident and domiciliary of Virginia under any provision of Code § 20-97; (2) did not have…”
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.