A. Unless otherwise directed by the court, the person serving process shall make return thereof to the clerk's office within seventy-two hours of service, except when such return would be due on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. In such case, the return is due on the next day following such Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The process shall state thereon the date and manner of service and the name of the party served.
B. Proof of service shall be in the following manner:
1. If service by sheriff, the form of the return of such sheriff as provided by the Rules of the Supreme Court; or
2. If service by any other person qualified under § 8.01-293, whether service made in or out of the Commonwealth, his affidavit of such qualifications; the date and manner of service and the name of the party served; and stamped, typed, or printed on the return of process, an annotation that the service was by a private server, and the name, address, and telephone number of the server; or
3. In case of service by publication, the affidavit of the publisher or his agent giving the dates of publication and an accompanying copy of the published order.
C. The clerk's office shall accept a photocopy, facsimile, or other copy of the original proof of service as if it were an original, provided that the proponent provides a statement that any such copy is a true copy of the original.
Code 1950, §§ 8-52, 8-329; 1977, c. 617; 1996, c. 538; 2020, c. 158.
Notes of Decisions
Frey v. Jefferson Homebuilders, Inc., 467 S.E.2d 788 (Va. 1996).
· cites it 4× “In support of the latter ground, Jefferson cited Code § 8.01-325, which requires return of service to be made "promptly to the clerk's office.”
Avery v. Virginia Ret. Sys., 532 S.E.2d 348 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “[5] Code § 8.01-325. Return by person serving process.”
Harrel v. Preston, 421 S.E.2d 676 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-325 requires that when notice is served by someone other than a police officer, that person shall return proof of service whether the service is made inside or outside the Commonwealth, which must include an affidavit stating that person’s qualifications, the date of…”
Small v. Small, 58 Va. Cir. 114 (2001).
· cites it 15× “In this regard, she contends that although a return of service was filed prior to the *117 entry of the July 12,1996, decree, it may not be considered as proof of service because the return of service was not filed within 72 hours as required by Va. Code § 8.01-325. Mrs. Small…”
Schellinger v. Stearns, 43 Va. Cir. 268 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Virginia Code § 8.01-325 is controlling and requires only that a private process server return as proof of service an affidavit stating Ms qualifications under Code § 8.”
Keiler v. Valley Proteins, Inc., 25 Va. Cir. 548 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1989).
“The 1950 Code of Virginia, § 8.01-325, as amended, specifically requires that any statute of limitations must be pleaded as an affirmative defense by the party claiming its benefit.”
Thomas Edward Clark v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “A plain reading of the text of Code § 8.01-325 demonstrates that the term “irregularity” applies only to actions by the trial court clerk or trial judge.”
Edward Don & Co. v. Istriana, Inc., 71 Va. Cir. 109 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Lupo further contends that return of service was not made within 72 hours of service, in violation of then Rule 3:4 (now Rule 3:6) and Va. Code § 8.01-325. Thus, Lupo argues that the default judgment entered against him is void because, “if a statute provides for constructive…”
Shears v. Slade, 73 Va. Cir. 20 (Newport News Cir. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “It would appear on the face of the return that such attempt was made prior to January 16,2006, but simply not returned in the time required by Virginia Code § 8.01-325. The purported “return” dated February 24, 2006, is defective as no process had been issued to serve defendant…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-325(A) — 1 case
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.