Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 2. Parties » Article 1. General Provisions
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6 (2026)

Amending pleading; relation back to original pleading

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

A misnomer in any pleading may, on the motion of any party, and on affidavit of the right name, be amended by inserting the right name. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted, whether to correct a misnomer or otherwise, relates back to the date of the original pleading if (i) the claim asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, (ii) within the limitations period prescribed for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by the amendment, that party or its agent received notice of the institution of the action, (iii) that party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (iv) that party knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against that party.

Code 1950, § 8-97; 1954, c. 333; 1977, c. 617; 1990, c. 80; 1996, c. 693; 2004, cc. 141, 326.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Richmond v. Volk, 781 S.E.2d 191 (Va. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richmond v. Volk, 781 S.E.2d 191 (Va. 2016). · cites it 48× “In her plea in bar, Volk argued that the 2011 complaint did not toll the statute of limitations because the 2012 complaint did not relate back to the 2011 complaint due to Richmond's failure to meet the requirements of Code § 8.01-6. *193 **64 After hearing argument on the…”
Gearing v. Every Citizen Has Opportunities, Inc., 59 Va. Cir. 41 (2002). · cites it 45× “Accordingly, under Va. Code § 8.01-6, she argues that she is permitted to *43 amend her pleadings and proceed against Lawson Road.”
Ricketts v. Strange, 796 S.E.2d 182 (Va. 2017). · cites it 10× “To avoid the statute of limitations bar, Ricketts moved, pursuant to Code § 8.01-6, for the circuit court to "amend the named plaintiff [in her pleadings] to [George McLean, the bankruptcy trustee], due to the misnomer.”
Est. of James v. Peyton, 674 S.E.2d 864 (Va. 2009). · cites it 10× “Peyton requested the court to set aside the prior order granting summary judgment and, pursuant to Code § 8.01-6, to permit a further amendment of the motion for judgment "correcting" the style of the defendant to be "Edwin F.”
Swann v. Marks, 476 S.E.2d 170 (Va. 1996). · cites it 6× “In this personal injury action, we consider whether a motion for judgment filed against the “estate” of a deceased person tolls the statute of limitations, and whether substitution of the personal representative for the “estate” is the correction of a misnomer under Code §…”
Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 795 S.E.2d 887 (Va. 2017). · cites it 2× “1, enacted in 1990 and 1996 respectively, which likewise use the same "conduct, transaction[,] or occurrence" test to determine whether an amendment to a pleading relates back to the time of filing of the initial pleading for purposes of the statute of limitations. For an…”
Miller v. Univ. of Virginia Med. Ctr., 58 Va. Cir. 240 (2002). · cites it 20× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6 (Michie 2001). Plaintiff would normally be barred from adding the Commonwealth as a defendant to this action at such a late date under the VTCA’s eighteen month statute of limitations; 3 however, § 8.”
Cook v. Radford Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 536 S.E.2d 906 (Va. 2000). · cites it 4× “Agreeing that Cook did not have standing to sue in her own right, the trial court determined that Cook was not entitled to amend her pleadings under either the misnomer statute, Code § 8.01-6, or the misjoinder statute, Code § 8.”
Miller v. Highland Cnty., 650 S.E.2d 532 (Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “Likewise, Miller cannot employ the statutory remedy provided by Code § 8.01-6 for correcting a misnomer. A misnomer occurs when the right person or entity is incorrectly named.”
Kone v. Wilson, 630 S.E.2d 744 (Va. 2006). · cites it 2× “2, which permit a circuit court to authorize amendments to pleadings to relate back to the date of an original pleading in a case, are limited to instances in which a party seeks to correct a misnomer, add a party, or add a claim or defense.”
Shipe v. Hunter, 699 S.E.2d 519 (Va. 2010). · cites it 2× “We held in Kone that Code §§ 8.01-6 through -6.2 govern the "relation back" of amendments to pleadings and that those sections authorize such amendments to relate back to the filing of the initial pleading in only three situations: (1) correction of a misnomer, *522 (2) adding a…”
Whelan v. DavCo Restaurants, Inc., 38 Va. Cir. 105 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1995). · cites it 10× “Virginia Code § 8.01-6 reads as follows: Amending pleading to correct misnomer; relation back to original pleading.”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6(i) — 1 case
Isaias Tessema v. Catherine Ann Moulthrop (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6(ii) — 6 cases
Claiborne v. Bernanu, 44 Va. Cir. 186 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1997).
Bryant v. Rorer, 66 Va. Cir. 226 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2004).
Taylor v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 48 Va. Cir. 381 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1999).
Edwards v. Omni Int'l Servs., Inc. (Va. 2022).
Isaias Tessema v. Catherine Ann Moulthrop (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-6(iii) — 2 cases
Isaias Tessema v. Catherine Ann Moulthrop (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
Edwards v. Omni Int'l Servs., Inc. (Va. 2022).
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.