Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 21. Arbitration and Award » Article 1. General Provisions
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-577 (2026)

Submission of controversy; agreement to arbitrate; condition precedent to action

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

A. Persons desiring to end any controversy, whether there is a suit pending therefor or not, may submit the same to arbitration, and agree that such submission may be entered of record in any circuit court or entered by order of any general district court. Upon proof of such agreement out of court, or by consent of the parties given in court in person or by counsel, it shall be entered in the proceedings of such court. Thereupon a rule shall be made that the parties shall submit to the award which shall be made in accordance with such agreement and the provisions of this chapter.

B. Neither party shall have the right to revoke an agreement to arbitrate except on a ground which would be good for revoking or annulling other agreements. Submission of any claim or controversy to arbitration pursuant to such agreement shall be a condition precedent to institution of suit or action thereon, and the agreement to arbitrate shall be enforceable, unless the agreement also provides that submission to arbitration shall not be a condition precedent to suit or action.

Code 1950, § 8-503; 1968, c. 244; 1977, c. 617; 1983, c. 485; 1986, c. 614; 2016, c. 181.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Katz v. Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C., 332 F. Supp. 2d 909 (E.D. Va. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Katz v. Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C., 332 F. Supp. 2d 909 (E.D. Va. 2004). · cites it 3× “Matters adjudicated before the FDRP are governed by the Virginia Arbitration Act, Va.Code § 8.01-577 et seq., and thus all decisions may be enforced in accordance with that statute.”
Richard L. Deal & Assocs., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 299 S.E.2d 346 (Va. 1983). · cites it 2× “” The first question Deal raises on appeal is “[w]hether an agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration is binding upon the Commonwealth”.”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pross v. Bd. of Supervisors, 303 S.E.2d 887 (Va. 1983). · cites it 2× “2d 346 (1982) (Commonwealth not a “person” within the intendment of arbitration statute, Code § 8.01-577), has governed our construction of statutes of limitation.”
Bishop v. Med. Facilities of Am. XLVII(47), L.P., 65 Va. Cir. 187 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “02, and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-577(B). 2 In making the determinations that follow, the Court has had the benefit of the arguments advanced and memoranda filed by counsel and will consider as stipulated the following evidentiary and procedural facts: *188 1.”
Virginia Builders' Supply, Inc. v. Brooks & Co. Gen. Contractors, Inc., 462 S.E.2d 85 (Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “Nothing in the garnishment statutes, or in Virginia’s statutes dealing with arbitration, Code §§ 8.01-577 through -581.016, requires such action by a judgment creditor.”
Decisive Analytics Corp. v. Chikar, 75 Va. Cir. 337 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2008). · cites it 8× “Parties ’ Positions Defendants argue that, pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-577 and 8.01-581.01, when parties, such as those in the case at bar, “agree to submit controversies arising out of a written contract to arbitration, that agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable,…”
Interactive Return Serv., Inc. v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 52 Va. Cir. 161 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “Code § 8,01-579 to reduce the award to judgment. The Commonwealth argued that its agreement to arbitrate was not enforceable because it is not a “person” or “party” authorized by Va.”
Maynard Constr. Co. v. Driver, 334 S.E.2d 567 (Va. 1985). · cites it 7× “” At the time, Code § 8.01-577 provided: *81 “§ 8.01-577.”
Culleton v. Hour Dev. Corp., 35 Va. Cir. 348 (Stafford Cir. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “” The “2-10 Warranty” packet supplied states that when there is a dispute between the parties as to the limited warranty contained in the document either party “may request an impartial third party arbitration with a Home Buyers Warranty approved arbitration service ....”
Winston v. Tingley Constr. Co., 86 Va. Cir. 163 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “The burden is on the movant to show that, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued outside of the limitations period.”
Szego v. Craigie Inc., 1 Va. Cir. 210 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1980). · cites it 5× “The court now rules that no private cause of action exists for a violation of NASD rules under Virginia law and, even if it did exist as a common law cause of action, it would not be excluded from arbitration under Virginia’s arbitration statute, Va.”
Patin v. Patin, 45 Va. Cir. 519 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “In his response to the denial of the entry of the arbitration award, the defendant argues that Virginia Code § 8.01-577 requires the court to confirm an arbitration award arising from the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their custody dispute.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-577(B) — 5 cases
Bishop v. Med. Facilities of Am. XLVII(47), L.P., 65 Va. Cir. 187 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2004). “02, and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-577(B). 2 In making the determinations that follow, the Court has had the benefit of the arguments advanced and memoranda filed by counsel and will consider as stipulated the following evidentiary and procedural facts: *188 1.”
Decisive Analytics Corp. v. Chikar, 75 Va. Cir. 337 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2008). “Parties ’ Positions Defendants argue that, pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-577 and 8.01-581.01, when parties, such as those in the case at bar, “agree to submit controversies arising out of a written contract to arbitration, that agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable,…”
Roanoke Iron & Bridge Works, Inc. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 1 Va. Cir. 344 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 1983).
Patin v. Patin, 45 Va. Cir. 519 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998). “In his response to the denial of the entry of the arbitration award, the defendant argues that Virginia Code § 8.01-577 requires the court to confirm an arbitration award arising from the parties’ agreement to arbitrate their custody dispute.”
Meade v. Appalachian Power Co., 11 Va. Cir. 235 (Washington Cir. Ct. 1988).
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.