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

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-235 (2026)

Bar of expiration of limitation period raised only as affirmative defense in responsive pleading

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The objection that an action is not commenced within the limitation period prescribed by law can only be raised as an affirmative defense specifically set forth in a responsive pleading. No statutory limitation period shall have jurisdictional effects and the defense that the statutory limitation period has expired cannot be set up by demurrer. This section shall apply to all limitation periods, without regard to whether or not the statute prescribing such limitation period shall create a new right.

1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987). · cites it 8× “However, each has essentially the same prohibition against filing an action contained in Code § 8.”
In Re Varona, 388 B.R. 705 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2008). · cites it 7× “No statutory limitation period shall have jurisdictional *723 effects and the defense that the statutory limitation period has expired cannot be set up by demurrer. This section shall apply to all limitation periods, without regard to whether or not the statute prescribing such…”
Dodson v. Potomac MacK Sales & Serv., Inc., 400 S.E.2d 178 (Va. 1991). · cites it 8× “Such familiarity with the dichotomy between the application of limitation periods to statutorily created causes of action and to common law causes of action is illustrated in Code § 8.01-235, a procedural statute governing the manner of pleading statutes of limitation in both…”
Harper v. City Council of Richmond, 261 S.E.2d 560 (Va. 1980). · cites it 12× “” Second, defendants say that Code § 8.01-235 also precludes application of Charter Section 7.”
Conger v. Barrett, 702 S.E.2d 117 (Va. 2010). · cites it 2× “"); Code § 8.01-235 (A plea of the statute of limitations is a plea "that an action [was] not commenced within the limitation period prescribed by law.”
Falwell v. Roundup Funding LLC (In Re Falwell), 434 B.R. 779 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 3× “Va.Code § 8.01-235 (1950). Also see Restaurant Co.”
Monahan v. Obici Med. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 628 S.E.2d 330 (Va. 2006). · cites it 2× “01-235 an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations must be specifically pled: "[t]he objection that an action is not commenced within the limitation period prescribed by law can only be raised as an affirmative defense specifically set forth in responsive pleading"). It…”
Verizon Online LLC v. Horbal, 796 S.E.2d 409 (Va. 2017). · cites it 5× “01-235 was to remove jurisdictional considerations affecting subject matter jurisdiction from the application of statutory limitation periods.”
In Re Chen, 351 B.R. 355 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006). · cites it 6× “2d 327, 329 (1939) superseded by statute on other grounds, Va.Code (1950) § 8.01-235, as recognized in Harper v.”
RML Corp. v. Lincoln Window Prods., Inc., 67 Va. Cir. 545 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-235 (“No statutory limitation period shall have jurisdictional effects and the defense that the statutory limitation period has expired cannot be set up by demurrer.”
Jones v. Jones, 457 S.E.2d 365 (Va. 1995). · cites it 4× “01-236 is relevant to the subject matter of Jones’s suit, because Lashi failed to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in a responsive pleading, as required by *572 Code § 8.01-235. Instead, she first raised this issue after the decree confirming sale was…”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pross v. Bd. of Supervisors, 303 S.E.2d 887 (Va. 1983). · cites it 3× “” Code § 8.01-235. “Upon demurrer, the test of the sufficiency of a motion for judgment is whether it states the essential elements of a cause of action, not whether evidence might be adduced to defeat it.”
Show all 48 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.