Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-252 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Repealed by Acts 2005, cc. 139, 203.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: Bennett v. Commonwealth, 422 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bennett v. Commonwealth, 422 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 80× “Bennett asserts that Code § 8.01-252 operates as an absolute bar *138 to the entry of any judgment against him because the New Jersey decree was entered more than ten years before Waters commenced the URESA proceedings.”

Carter v. Carter, 349 S.E.2d 95 (Va. 1986). · cites it 44× “Also at issue is the constitutional validity of this provision when viewed in conjunction with Code § 8.”

Lavery v. Automation Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 360 S.E.2d 336 (Va. 1987). · cites it 4× “Similarly, Code § 8.01-252 acts as a cutoff provision for actions based on foreign judgments.”

Adcock v. Com., Dept. of Soc. Servs., 693 S.E.2d 757 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 28× “In Bennett , we held the limitations under Code § 8.01-252 [6] did not apply to the enforcement of a New Jersey spousal support order under Code § 20-88.”

Taylor v. Taylor, 418 S.E.2d 900 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Taylor’s claim was barred both by the twelve-year District of Columbia statute of limitations and by the ten-year limitation provided by Code § 8.01-252 on the enforcement in Virginia of a claim based on a foreign judgment.”

Adcock v. Com., Dept. of Soc. Servs., 719 S.E.2d 304 (Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “2d 458 (1992), the Court of Appeals held that the foreign judgment statute of limitations under former Code § 8.01-252 (now governed by § 8.01-251(A)) did not apply to the enforcement of a New Jersey spousal support order under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act…”

Usdin v. Boscarino, 61 Va. Cir. 264 (2003). · cites it 4× “Virginia Code § 8.01-252 provides a “cut off’ date for an “action” upon a foreign judgment.”

Robert William Fitzhugh v. Gloria Dupree (Va. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-252. Thus, under Fitzhugh's argument, Dupree's action to register the foreign order is time-barred.”

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.