Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.26 (2026)

Vacating orders and agreements

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

Upon the filing of an independent action by a party, the court shall vacate a mediated agreement reached in a mediation pursuant to this chapter, or vacate an order incorporating or resulting from such agreement, where:

1. The agreement was procured by fraud or duress, or is unconscionable;

2. If property or financial matters in domestic relations cases involving divorce, property, support or the welfare of a child are in dispute, the parties failed to provide substantial full disclosure of all relevant property and financial information; or

3. There was evident partiality or misconduct by the mediator, prejudicing the rights of any party.

For purposes of this section, "misconduct" includes failure of the mediator to inform the parties at the commencement of the mediation process that: (i) the mediator does not provide legal advice, (ii) any mediated agreement may affect the legal rights of the parties, (iii) each party to the mediation has the opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel at any time and is encouraged to do so, and (iv) each party to the mediation should have any draft agreement reviewed by independent counsel prior to signing the agreement.

2002, c. 718.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: Montalla, LLC V. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
Montalla, LLC V. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 19× “Montalla also asked the circuit court to vacate the settlement agreement under Code § 8.01-581.26 which permits the voiding of a mediation for fraud or other improprieties (count two).”
Montalla, LLC v. Commonwealth, 303 Va. 150 (Va. 2024). · cites it 11× “In Count II, Montalla seeks to vacate the settlement agreement pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.26. In Count III, Montalla asserts that VDOT breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing regarding all of the services contracts.”
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.