Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 34-28 (2026)

Deed of trust, etc., on such property void

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every deed of trust, mortgage or other writing or pledge made by a householder to give a lien on property exempt from distress or levy under § 34-26 shall be void as to such property. However, this section shall have no application to (i) property covered by a deed of trust, mortgage or other writing or pledge given by a householder to secure a loan made for the purchase of such property or (ii) security interests in such property having priority over the claim of exemption as specifically provided in subdivisions 7 and 8 of § 34-26.

Code 1919, § 6564; 1938, p. 218; 1940, p. 615; 1992, c. 644; 2002, c. 88.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1983–2001 · leading case: Shearer v. Crestar Bank (In Re Shearer), 132 B.R. 313 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shearer v. Crestar Bank (In Re Shearer), 132 B.R. 313 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1991). · cites it 31× “The debtor responded by arguing that the bank no longer held a perfected security interest because Va.Code § 34-28 voids nonpurchase-money security interests in property claimed exempt pursuant to Va.”

Tavenner v. Smoot (In Re Smoot), 265 B.R. 128 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1999). · cites it 3× “00 for “[fjunds received pursuant to workmen’s compensation suit (FELA injury settlement)” under Va.Code § 34-28 and an exemption in the amount of $233,333.”

In re Fenessy, 156 B.R. 22 (E.D. Va. 1993). · cites it 5× “1 In addition, Virginia Code § 34-28 avoids liens on property exempt under § 34-26 except for “property covered by a .”

Reid v. Fin. One of Virginia, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 791 (W.D. Va. 1983). · cites it 13× “” Va.Code § 34-28 (1976 Repl.Vol). In turn, section 3A-26 provides that in addition to the homestead exemption, every householder shall be entitled to hold exempt from levy or distress the following articles .”

Hicks v. Washington Mut. Fin. (In re Hicks), 276 B.R. 84 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2001). · cites it 3× “Va.Code § 34-28. The Court would describe that intended scope as being personal property commonly found in Virginia households, used to support the everyday life of its members and reasonably necessary for that household to enjoy that basic standard of living which the vast…”

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.