Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 4. Limitations of Actions » Article 1. In General
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-233 (2026)

When action deemed brought on counterclaim or cross-claim; when statute of limitations tolled; defendant's consent required for dismissal

✓ 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

A. A defendant who pleads a counterclaim or cross-claim shall be deemed to have brought an action at the time he files such pleading.

B. If the subject matter of the counterclaim or cross-claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence upon which the plaintiff's claim is based, the statute of limitations with respect to such pleading shall be tolled by the commencement of the plaintiff's action.

Code 1950, § 8-244; 1954, c. 611; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Cummings v. Fulghum, 540 S.E.2d 495 (Va. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cummings v. Fulghum, 540 S.E.2d 495 (Va. 2001). · cites it 8× “Former Code § 8-244 was recodified in 1977 as Code § 8.01-233, which retained the substance of former Code § 8-244 and contained a new provision including cross-claims in its statutory tolling provision.”
Thorsen v. Richmond Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 786 S.E.2d 453 (Va. 2016). · cites it 4× “action shall be deemed to accrue and the prescribed limitation period shall begin to run from the date the injury is sustained in the case of injury to the person or damage to property, when the breach of contract occurs in actions ex contractu and not when the resulting damage…”
Burns v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Stafford Cnty., 315 S.E.2d 856 (Va. 1984). · cites it 4× “See Code § 8.01-233 and its predecessor. Because of this, we must consider the evidentiary issue assigned as error by Staffordboro.”
Unlimited Screw Prods., Inc. v. Malm, 781 F. Supp. 1121 (E.D. Va. 1991). · cites it 5× “See Va.Code § 8.01-233(B) (1984). A. Applicable Statute of Limitations 1.”
Kerns v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 818 S.E.2d 779 (Va. 2018). · cites it 2× “on shall be deemed to accrue and the prescribed *783 limitation period shall begin to run from the date the injury is sustained in the case of injury to the person or damage to property, when the breach of contract occurs in actions ex contractu and not when the resulting damage…”
Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc., 791 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 2016). · cites it 2× “where otherwise provided under Code § 8.01-233, subsection C of § 8.01-245, §§ 8.”
Addison v. Jurgelsky, 704 S.E.2d 402 (Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “…no occasion in this opinion to comment on the statute of limitation issues that might arise in that circumstance. See Code § 8.01-233.”
Keller v. Denny, 352 S.E.2d 327 (Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “01-230, effective October 1, 1977, provides: In every action for which a limitation period is prescribed, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue and the prescribed limitation period shall begin to *329 run from the date the injury is sustained in the case of injury to the…”
Andritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 609 (M.D. Pa. 1997). · cites it 2× “Va.Code § 8.01-233. 6 Section 8.01-245 deals with actions filed upon the bond of any fiduciary or suits filed against fiduciaries themselves.”
Iliff v. Richards, 272 S.E.2d 645 (Va. 1980). · cites it 3× “§ 8.01-233 (B). 4 Stark implies that Iliff could have filed within the period of limitation extended a motion to vacate the order, could have begun a third-party action, or could have instituted a separate suit by motion for judgment against Stark and thus would not have been…”
Harbour Gate Owners' Ass'n v. Berg, 348 S.E.2d 252 (Va. 1986). “01-230, which provides: In every action for which a limitation period is prescribed, the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue and the prescribed limitation period shall begin to run from the date the injury is sustained in the case of injury to the person, when the breach…”
Douglas v. McCarty, 87 F. App'x 299 (4th Cir. 2003). “However, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-233 (B) provides that if the subject matter of a counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence upon which the plaintiffs claim is based, as here, the statute of limitations with respect to the counterclaim is tolled by the…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-233(A): 4 cases
Iliff v. Richards, 272 S.E.2d 645 (Va. 1980). “§ 8.01-233 (B). 4 Stark implies that Iliff could have filed within the period of limitation extended a motion to vacate the order, could have begun a third-party action, or could have instituted a separate suit by motion for judgment against Stark and thus would not have been…”
Safe Haven Wildlife Removal & Prop. Mgmt. Experts, LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Servs., LLC, 716 F. Supp. 3d 432 (W.D. Va. 2024).
Goodman v. Hamman, 448 S.E.2d 677 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
Allman v. Smith, 44 Va. Cir. 410 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998).
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-233(B): 6 cases
Unlimited Screw Prods., Inc. v. Malm, 781 F. Supp. 1121 (E.D. Va. 1991). “See Va.Code § 8.01-233(B) (1984). A. Applicable Statute of Limitations 1.”
Wilson v. Miller Auto Sales, Inc., 47 Va. Cir. 153 (Winchester Cir. Ct. 1998).
Chantilly Partners v. James A. Federline, Inc., 26 Va. Cir. 1 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1991).
Safe Haven Wildlife Removal & Prop. Mgmt. Experts, LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Servs., LLC, 716 F. Supp. 3d 432 (W.D. Va. 2024).
Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu v. Kaya, No. 3:20-cv-00072 (W.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2023).
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.