Va. Code » Title 43. Mechanics' and Certain Other Liens » Chapter 1. Mechanics' and Materialmen's Liens
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 43-17.1 (2026)

Hearing on validity of lien

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any party, having an interest in real property against which a lien has been filed, may, upon a showing of good cause, petition the court of equity having jurisdiction wherein the building, structure, other property, or railroad is located to hold a hearing to determine the validity of any perfected lien on the property. After reasonable notice to the lien claimant and any party to whom the benefit of the lien would inure and who has given notice as provided in § 43-18 of the Code of Virginia, the court shall hold a hearing and determine the validity of the lien. If the court finds that the lien is invalid, it shall forthwith order that the memorandum or notice of lien be released from record.

1975, c. 380; 2010, c. 352.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases, 1976–2009 · leading case: Rosser v. Cole, 379 S.E.2d 323 (Va. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rosser v. Cole, 379 S.E.2d 323 (Va. 1989). · cites it 12× “In November 1986, Dois and Shirley Rosser, as owners of the realty, filed the present proceeding by petition under Code § 43-17.1, attacking the validity of the perfected lien.”
PIC Constr. Co. v. First Union Nat'l Bank of North Carolina, 241 S.E.2d 804 (Va. 1978). · cites it 8× “*918 On March 10, 1976, First Union filed in the court below a separate proceeding, by petition under Code § 43-17.1, naming as defendants PIC and Southern Iron Works, Inc.”
BRITT CONST., INC. v. Magazzine Clean, LLC, 623 S.E.2d 886 (Va. 2006). · cites it 4× “Magazzine Clean initiated this suit by filing a petition to invalidate the mechanic's liens pursuant to Code § 43-17.1. 2 Magazzine Clean argued that none of the mechanic's liens met the perfection requirements contained in Code § 43-4 because Britt did not mail copies of the…”
Carolina Builders Corp. v. Cenit Equity Co., 512 S.E.2d 550 (Va. 1999). · cites it 4× “After conducting discovery, Cénit filed a petition to declare the mechanic’s lien invalid pursuant to Code § 43-17.1 1 and a motion for summary judgment.”
J. W. Woolard Mech. & Plumbing, Inc. v. Jones Dev. Corp., 367 S.E.2d 501 (Va. 1988). · cites it 4× “Jones also filed a petition in chancery challenging the mechanic's lien pursuant to Code § 43-17.1, on the ground that Woolard, Inc.”
McMerit Constr. Co. v. Knightsbridge Dev. Co., 367 S.E.2d 512 (Va. 1988). · cites it 2× “Knightsbridge challenged the validity of that lien pursuant to Code § 43-17.1. An evidentiary hearing was held on March 29, 1985.”
Springfield Eng'g Corp. v. Three Score Dev. Corp., 26 Va. Cir. 186 (Stafford Cir. Ct. 1992). · cites it 7× “” The question thus becomes: Did First Union, at the time it filed its March, 1976, petition, have “an interest in [the] real property against which [the] lien [had] been filed,” within the meaning of Code § 43-17.1, supra? We think it did, even if we assume delivery of the…”
United Virginia Mortg. Corp. v. Haines Paving Co., 277 S.E.2d 187 (Va. 1981). · cites it 2× “United Virginia Mortgage Corporation (UVMC), the creditor secured by a deed of trust on the property, and the trustees named in the deed filed a petition under Code § 43-17.1 for a hearing *1049 to determine the validity of the lien.”
Blue Ridge Constr. Corp. v. Stafford Dev. Grp., 421 S.E.2d 199 (Va. 1992). · cites it 4× “Stafford Development Group filed a motion to determine the validity of Blue Ridge’s lien, as permitted by Code § 43-17.1. 1 Stafford argued, and the trial court agreed, that the lien is over-inclusive and, therefore, invalid and unenforceable.”
Boehl v. BMW Restoration Co. of Va., 31 Va. Cir. 256 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “Chamblin This is a proceeding brought by Earl Boehl, who is the owner of a condominium unit in the Providence Village Townhome Condominium, pursuant to Section 43-17.1 to invalidate a mechanic’s lien on all the units of the Condominium filed by BMW Restoration Company of…”
Dallan Constr., Inc. v. Super Structures Gen. Contractors, Inc., 79 Va. Cir. 11 (Hanover Cir. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “(Super Structures) pursuant to the Code of Virginia § 43-17.1. The Court heard arguments on January 22, 2009, and took the matter under advisement.”
Fort Evans Assocs. v. Davis Buckley, P.C., 38 Va. Cir. 155 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “§ 43-17.1, Code of Virginia. They suggest that the lien is clearly without merit and jeopardizes potential financing of the building project covered by the lien.”
Show all 28 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.