Such suit shall be instituted and conducted as other suits in equity, except as otherwise provided in this section:
1. Except for a divorce granted on the grounds set forth in subdivision A (9) of § 20-91, no divorce, annulment, or affirmation of a marriage shall be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the parties or either of them.
2. Whether the defendant answers or not, the cause shall be heard independently of the admissions of either party in the pleadings or otherwise.
3. Process or notice in such proceedings shall be served in the Commonwealth by any of the methods prescribed in § 8.01-296 by any person authorized to serve process under § 8.01-293. Service may be made on a nonresident by any of the methods prescribed in § 8.01-296 by any person authorized to serve process under § 8.01-320.
4. In cases where such suits have been commenced and an appearance has been made on behalf of the defendant by counsel, then notices to take depositions and of hearings, motions, and other proceedings except contempt proceedings, may be served by delivering or mailing a copy to counsel for opposing party, the foot of such notices bearing either acceptance of service or a certificate of counsel in compliance with the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia. "Counsel for opposing party" shall include a pro se party who (i) has entered a general appearance in person or by filing a pleading or endorsing an order of withdrawal of that party's counsel or (ii) has signed a pleading in the case or who has notified the other parties and the clerk that he appears in the case.
5. In cases where such suits have been commenced, the defendant has been served pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 1 of § 8.01-296, and the defendant has failed to file an answer to the suit or otherwise appear within the time allowed by law, no further notice to take depositions or conduct an ore tenus hearing is required to be served on the defendant and the court may enter any order or final decree without further notice to the defendant.
6. Costs may be awarded to either party as equity and justice may require.
Code 1919, § 5106; 1920, p. 503; 1928, p. 535; 1938, p. 202; 1968, c. 484; 1975, c. 644; 1977, c. 60; 1984, cc. 609, 616; 1987, c. 594; 1991, c. 244; 1992, c. 563; 2012, cc. 78, 84; 2013, cc. 81, 100; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 194.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
135
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case:
O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 479 S.E.2d 98 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 479 S.E.2d 98 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “2 Taxing of costs in this proceeding is not to be considered a determination of an award of attorney’s fees or other costs for services rendered or expenditures made in connection with this appeal to which any party may be entitled in an award by the trial court under the…”
Est. of Hackler v. Hackler, 602 S.E.2d 426 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “However, I would hold that the trial court's authority to award the conservator's fees emanates from Code § 20-99(5), not Rule 4:12, and join the dissent with respect to its reasoning and conclusion that Rule 4:12, and the contempt power arising from the Rule, do not authorize…”
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 11× “” This language now appears verbatim in Code § 20-99(6)—given that the General Assembly in 2012 added a new subsection to Code § 20-99, thereby redesignating former Code § 20-99(5) as the current Code § 20-99(6).”
Faysal M. Zedan v. Sylvie E. Westheim, 729 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Small held that a divorce decree was void because wife, who had never entered an appearance, did not receive proper notice of the presentation for entry of the proposed final order of divorce as required by Code § 20-99(3). The Faine court found significant that the notice was…”
Pommerenke v. Pommerenke, 372 S.E.2d 630 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Whether the defendant answers or not, the cause shall be heard independently of the admissions of either party in the pleadings or otherwise.”
Soliman v. Soliman, 402 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 19× “*239 On the other hand, Code § 20-99, which governs the institution and conduct of divorce proceedings, provides several distinct means of obtaining service.”
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Indeed, the court made no other express findings in connection with mother’s request for attorney’s fees. In contrast, there is no prevailing-party entitlement to fees under Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5).”
Judy Kay Reaves v. James Kelly Tucker, 800 S.E.2d 188 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “In Kotara, this Court held that although we never acquired subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, we nonetheless had personal jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to Code § 20-99(5). Id. This Court concluded that “an…”
Rebecca Allen v. Joseph William Allen, 789 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Code § 20-99(6) provides that “Costs may be awarded to either party as equity and justice may require.”
Kotara v. Kotara, 688 S.E.2d 908 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Code § 20-99(5) states that “[c]osts may be awarded to either party as equity and justice may require.”
D'Auria v. D'Auria, 340 S.E.2d 164 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “See Code § 20-99; Rowlee v. Rowlee, 211 Va. 689, 690 , 179 S.”
Emrich v. Emrich, 387 S.E.2d 274 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Code § 20-99; Baker v. Baker, 194 Va. 284, 290 , 72 S.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-99(1) — 16 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-99(2) — 6 cases
Emrich v. Emrich, 387 S.E.2d 274 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
“Code § 20-99; Baker v. Baker, 194 Va. 284, 290 , 72 S.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-99(3) — 1 case
Faysal M. Zedan v. Sylvie E. Westheim, 729 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Small held that a divorce decree was void because wife, who had never entered an appearance, did not receive proper notice of the presentation for entry of the proposed final order of divorce as required by Code § 20-99(3). The Faine court found significant that the notice was…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-99(4) — 8 cases
Faysal M. Zedan v. Sylvie E. Westheim, 729 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“Small held that a divorce decree was void because wife, who had never entered an appearance, did not receive proper notice of the presentation for entry of the proposed final order of divorce as required by Code § 20-99(3). The Faine court found significant that the notice was…”
Soliman v. Soliman, 402 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“*239 On the other hand, Code § 20-99, which governs the institution and conduct of divorce proceedings, provides several distinct means of obtaining service.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-99(5) — 19 cases
Est. of Hackler v. Hackler, 602 S.E.2d 426 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“However, I would hold that the trial court's authority to award the conservator's fees emanates from Code § 20-99(5), not Rule 4:12, and join the dissent with respect to its reasoning and conclusion that Rule 4:12, and the contempt power arising from the Rule, do not authorize…”
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“Indeed, the court made no other express findings in connection with mother’s request for attorney’s fees. In contrast, there is no prevailing-party entitlement to fees under Code §§ 20-79(b) and 20-99(5).”
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
“” This language now appears verbatim in Code § 20-99(6)—given that the General Assembly in 2012 added a new subsection to Code § 20-99, thereby redesignating former Code § 20-99(5) as the current Code § 20-99(6).”
Judy Kay Reaves v. James Kelly Tucker, 800 S.E.2d 188 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
“In Kotara, this Court held that although we never acquired subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, we nonetheless had personal jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to Code § 20-99(5). Id. This Court concluded that “an…”
O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 479 S.E.2d 98 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
“2 Taxing of costs in this proceeding is not to be considered a determination of an award of attorney’s fees or other costs for services rendered or expenditures made in connection with this appeal to which any party may be entitled in an award by the trial court under the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-99(6) — 27 cases
Bruce M. Mayer v. Linda Corso-Mayer, 753 S.E.2d 263 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
“” This language now appears verbatim in Code § 20-99(6)—given that the General Assembly in 2012 added a new subsection to Code § 20-99, thereby redesignating former Code § 20-99(5) as the current Code § 20-99(6).”
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.