Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-253 (2026)

Limitation of suits to avoid voluntary conveyances, etc

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

No gift, conveyance, assignment, transfer, or charge, which is not on consideration deemed valuable in law, or which is upon consideration of marriage, shall be avoided in whole or in part for that cause only, unless within five years from its recordation, and if not so recorded within five years from the time the same was or should have been discovered, suit be brought for that purpose, or the subject thereof, or some part of it, be distrained or levied on by or at the suit of a creditor, as to whom such gift, conveyance, assignment, transfer, or charge, is declared to be void by § 55.1-401.

Code 1950, § 8-19; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1982–2011 · leading case: Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987).
Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987). · cites it 4× “after twenty years from the date of such judgment"); Code § 8.01-253 ("No [voluntary] gift ...”
Matter of Abingdon Realty Corp., 21 B.R. 290 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1982). · cites it 7× “In that case, the statute runs out when five years have elapsed "from the time the same was or should have been discovered." The plaintiff's assignors as signers of the instrument will not be heard to deny knowledge *296 of it.”
Gold v. Laines (In Re Laines), 352 B.R. 397 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2005). · cites it 2× “Va.Code (1950) § 8.01-253 establishes a five-year statute of limitation for actions under Va.”
Hyman v. Porter (In Re Porter), 37 B.R. 56 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1984). “Code § 8.01-253; see In re Abingdon Realty Corp.”
Curley v. Dahlgren Chrysler-Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 429 S.E.2d 221 (Va. 1993). · cites it 2× “Next, Curley assigns error to the dismissal of Count VI, asserting that it is not a fraud count, but “an action to charge the defendants personally for the fraudulent conveyance of the Dealership’s assets,” subject to the limitation period in Code § 8.01-253. The trial court…”
In Re Massey, 225 B.R. 887 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1998). · cites it 2× “Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-253. In determining whether a debt- or was rendered insolvent by a transfer, the value of exempt assets are excluded.”
C-T of Virginia, Inc. v. Paine Webber Inc. (In Re C-T of Virginia, Inc.), 124 B.R. 700 (W.D. Va. 1990). · cites it 3× “Va.Code § 8.01-253. C-T may avoid the conveyance on the theory that either the payment of October 1986 or the assumption of May 1986 was given without valuable consideration.”
In Re Plascencia, 354 B.R. 774 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006). “§ 8.01-253, Code of Virginia. Since the deed of right to repurchase was recorded more than seven years before the bankruptcy filing, it could not be set aside as a voluntary conveyance *782 under Virginia law even assuming that a chapter 7 trustee could show that the debt- or…”
Docter, Docter & Salus v. United States, 21 B.R. 290 (E.D. Va. 1982). · cites it 7× “In that case, the statute runs out when five years have elapsed “from the time the same was or should have been discovered.” The plaintiff’s assignors as signers of the instrument will not be heard to deny knowledge *296 of it.”
Gold v. Sovereign Bank (In Re Taneja), 453 B.R. 618 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “Every gift, conveyance, assignment or transfer of, or charge upon, any estate, real or personal, every suit commenced or decree, judgment or execution suffered or obtained and every bond or other writing given with intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors, purchasers or…”
Phillips v. Habboush (In Re Bus. Commc'ns of Virginia, Inc.), 393 B.R. 133 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2008). “§ 8.01-253 (2001). (The transfers were made to defendant more than five years before debtor filed bankruptcy.”
Bernstein Bros. Mgmt. v. Miller, 44 Va. Cir. 69 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1997). · cites it 5× “Porter, supra, at 66; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-253 . The applicable statute reads in pertinent part as follows: No gift .”
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.