Va. Code » Title 59.1. Trade and Commerce » Chapter 17.3. Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-207.14 (2026)

Action to enforce provisions of chapter

✓ 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 consumer who suffers loss by reason of a violation of any provision of this chapter may bring a civil action to enforce such provision. Any consumer who is successful in such an action or any defendant in any frivolous action brought by a consumer shall recover reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees and court costs incurred by bringing such actions.

1984, c. 773; 1988, c. 603.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Chase v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 587 S.E.2d 521 (Va. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chase v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 587 S.E.2d 521 (Va. 2003). · cites it 8× “At trial, DaimlerChrysler argued that Chase had not prevailed in her action by receiving a favorable judgment in court and was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Virginia statute because she was not a “successful” party as the term was used in Code § 59.1-207.14. The…”
Hollowell v. Virginia Marine Resources Comm'n, 691 S.E.2d 500 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “In Chase , the Court was required to determine the meaning of "`successful'" as the term was used in regard to a statutory award of attorney's fees under Code § 59.1-207.14 *508 of the "so-called `Virginia Lemon Law.”
Burke v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 3d 863 (E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 3× “” Va.Code § 59.1-207.14. 1 According to Thor, the law does not cover entire motor homes, but only a motor home’s self-propelled motorized chassis.”
Smith v. Gen. Motors Corp., 35 Va. Cir. 112 (Fredericksburg Cir. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “13(A) and § 59.1-207.14. The Act provides the civil remedy described above if the manufacturer, its agents or authorized dealers “do not conform the motor vehicle to any applicable warranty by repairing or correcting any defect or condition.”
Maximus, Inc. v. Lockheed Info. Mgmt. Sys. Co., 47 Va. Cir. 193 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “158 (1998), a case involving a claim for fees under Va. Code § 59.1-207.14, part of Virginia’s “Lemon Law.”
Subaru of Am., Inc. v. Peters, 500 S.E.2d 803 (Va. 1998). · cites it 2× “Code § 59.1-207.14. The Act does not impair or limit a consumer’s rights under any other law.”
H.D. Oliver Funeral Apts., Inc. v. Dignity Funeral Servs., Inc., 964 F. Supp. 1033 (E.D. Va. 1997). “1-198); 3) if a right of action was intended to be limited to consumers, the General Assembly would have explicitly supplied the limitation as it did in the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (§ 59.1-207.14); 4) the legislative intent (§ 59.”
O'Neil v. Chrysler Corp., 54 Va. Cir. 64 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “” Virginia Code § 59.1-207.14. Among the factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the fee are the following: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;…”
Iuorno v. Ford Motor Co., 39 Va. Cir. 322 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1996). · cites it 3× “Va. Code § 59.1-207.14 (emphasis added). Within § 59.”
Daclouche v. H.B.L., Inc., 25 Va. Cir. 243 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1991). “Therefore, the defendant is granted partial summary judgment as to the Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees because this is not a recoverable expense under § 59.1-207.14 of the 1984 enactment of the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act.”
Nedelka v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc., 77 Va. Cir. 379 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “An award of attorney’s fees in cases brought under the act is authorized by Virginia Code § 59.1-207.14: Any consumer who suffers loss by reason of a violation of any provision of this chapter may bring a civil action to enforce such provision.”
Ranger v. Hyundai Motor Am., 885 S.E.2d 156 (Va. 2023). · cites it 3× “Code § 59.1-207.14. As noted above, although the “refund” definition includes “collateral charges,” such damages, as defined in the Lemon Law, do not include attorney’s fees.”
Show all 27 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.