A. In any case in which a nonresident party or party originally served by publication has been served as provided by law, and notice of further proceedings in the case is required but no method of service thereof is prescribed either by statute or by order or rule of court, such notice may be served by publication thereof once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper published or circulated in the city or county in which the original proceedings are pending. If the original proceedings were instituted by order of publication, then the publication of such notice of additional or further proceedings shall be made in the same newspaper. A party, who appears pro se in an action, shall file with the clerk of the court in which the action is pending a written statement of his place of residence and mailing address, and shall inform the clerk in writing of any changes of residence and mailing address during the pendency of the action. The clerk and all parties to the action may rely on the last written statement filed as aforesaid. The court in which the action is pending may dispense with such notice for failure of the party to file the statement herein provided for or may require notice to be given in such manner as the court may determine.
B. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in paragraph A hereof, depositions may be taken, testimony heard and orders and decrees entered without an order of publication, when the defendant has been legally served with or has accepted service of process to commence a suit for divorce or for annulling or affirming a marriage, and he or she or the plaintiff:
1. Shall thereafter become a nonresident; or
2. Shall remove from the county or city in which the suit is pending, if a resident thereof, or in which he or she resided at the time of the institution of the suit, or was served with process, without having filed with the clerk of the court where the suit is pending a written statement of his or her intended future place of residence, and a like statement of subsequent changes of residence; or
3. When after such written statement has been filed with the clerk, notice shall have been served upon him or her at the last place of residence given in the written statement as provided by law; or
4. Could not be found by the sheriff of the county or city for the service of the notice, and the party sending the service makes affidavit that he has used due diligence to find the adverse party without success. If such absent party has an attorney of record in such suit, notice shall be served on such attorney, as provided by § 8.01-314.
C. This section shall not apply to orders of publication in condemnation actions.
Code 1950, § 8-76; 1950, p. 68; 1954, c. 333; 1960, c. 16; 1970, cc. 241, 279; 1977, c. 617; 1978, c. 676; 1979, c. 464; 1982, c. 384.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1983–2016 · leading case:
Eddine v. Eddine, 406 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
Eddine v. Eddine, 406 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 77× “Code § 8.01-319 imposes different, not "less," notice requirements for a pro se litigant than one represented by counsel.”
Fredericksburg Constr. Co. v. J.W. Wyne Excavating, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 148 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 13× “Wyne further asserted that service by mail on a principal of a corporation appearing pro se was proper under Code § 8.01-319. Fredericksburg filed a reply brief asserting that Wyne’s reliance on Code § 8.”
Lutes v. Alexander, 421 S.E.2d 857 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× ““Although the headline of Code § 8.01-319 reads ‘Publication of interim notice,’ we believe that this section is not limited to only those cases initiated by publication.”
Soliman v. Soliman, 402 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 16× “01-3(D) provides that in cases of a variance between a rule and an enactment of the General Assembly, the variance shall be construed so as to give effect to the enactment. Consequently, we hold that the term “counsel,” as used in Code § 20-99(5), does not include pro se…”
Faysal M. Zedan v. Sylvie E. Westheim, 729 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “01-428(C) presupposes a duty by a litigant to diligently inquire into the progress of litigation to which the litigant is a party, particularly with respect to the entry of final orders.”
Byrum v. Lowe & Gordon, Ltd., 302 S.E.2d 46 (Va. 1983).
· cites it 2× “However, this responsive pleading contained no address, in violation of Code § 8.01-319. In May, 1979, Lowe & Gordon filed a motion for default and summary judgment.”
Gregory Alan Ransom v. Tina Chang Ransom (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 10× “Husband proceeded pro se, but did not file with the clerk of court a written statement of his place of residence or mailing address as provided by Code § 8.01-319. During the ensuing proceedings, wife retained counsel.”
Omar Stephens, a/k/a Joe Black Stephens v. Yulia Chrismon (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2d at 916-17 ; Code § 8.01-319. In addition, Code § 20-99(4) indicates that notices may be mailed to pro se parties who have signed pleadings or notified the parties and the clerk of his appearance in the case.”
Karen I. Sabean Schlieper v. Charles Roy Schlieper (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Code § 8.01-319(A) provides as follows: A party, who appears pro se in an action, shall file with the clerk of the court in which the action is pending a written statement of his place of residence and mailing address, and shall inform the clerk in writing of any changes of…”
Freeman v. Popish, 69 Va. Cir. 380 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-319 (A). Moreover, the motion to withdraw the Roth’s petition to intervene was denied by the Court on May 4,2005.”
Mitter v. Mitter, 29 Va. Cir. 415 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Fortunately, Code § 8.01-319(B)(1) (Repl. Vol. 1992) applies to the facts here.”
Tignor v. Waterfield, 10 Va. Cir. 56 (Virginia Beach Cir. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Section 8.01-319(A) of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, provides in pertinent part, as follows: A party, who appears pro se in an action, shall file with the Clerk of the Court in which the action is pending a written statement of his *59 place of residence and mailing…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-319(A) — 8 cases
Eddine v. Eddine, 406 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“Code § 8.01-319 imposes different, not "less," notice requirements for a pro se litigant than one represented by counsel.”
Lutes v. Alexander, 421 S.E.2d 857 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
““Although the headline of Code § 8.01-319 reads ‘Publication of interim notice,’ we believe that this section is not limited to only those cases initiated by publication.”
Fredericksburg Constr. Co. v. J.W. Wyne Excavating, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 148 (Va. 2000).
“Wyne further asserted that service by mail on a principal of a corporation appearing pro se was proper under Code § 8.01-319. Fredericksburg filed a reply brief asserting that Wyne’s reliance on Code § 8.”
Faysal M. Zedan v. Sylvie E. Westheim, 729 S.E.2d 785 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“01-428(C) presupposes a duty by a litigant to diligently inquire into the progress of litigation to which the litigant is a party, particularly with respect to the entry of final orders.”
Soliman v. Soliman, 402 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“01-3(D) provides that in cases of a variance between a rule and an enactment of the General Assembly, the variance shall be construed so as to give effect to the enactment. Consequently, we hold that the term “counsel,” as used in Code § 20-99(5), does not include pro se…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-319(B) — 2 cases
Eddine v. Eddine, 406 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“Code § 8.01-319 imposes different, not "less," notice requirements for a pro se litigant than one represented by counsel.”
Soliman v. Soliman, 402 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“01-3(D) provides that in cases of a variance between a rule and an enactment of the General Assembly, the variance shall be construed so as to give effect to the enactment. Consequently, we hold that the term “counsel,” as used in Code § 20-99(5), does not include pro se…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-319(B)(1) — 1 case
Mitter v. Mitter, 29 Va. Cir. 415 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).
“Fortunately, Code § 8.01-319(B)(1) (Repl. Vol. 1992) applies to the facts here.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-319(B)(3) — 1 case
Soliman v. Soliman, 402 S.E.2d 922 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“01-3(D) provides that in cases of a variance between a rule and an enactment of the General Assembly, the variance shall be construed so as to give effect to the enactment. Consequently, we hold that the term “counsel,” as used in Code § 20-99(5), does not include pro se…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-319(B)(4) — 1 case
Eddine v. Eddine, 406 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
“Code § 8.01-319 imposes different, not "less," notice requirements for a pro se litigant than one represented by counsel.”
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.