<?xml version="1.0"?>
<law><site_title>Virginia Decoded</site_title><site_url>https://vacode.org</site_url><law_id>360501</law_id><section_number>34-25</section_number><catch_line>When homestead waived judgments and executions to so state</catch_line><edition url="https://vacode.org/2026/" slug="2026" current="TRUE" last_updated="2026-08-02">2026</edition><structure><unit label="title" level="1" order_by="79" identifier="34">Homestead and Other Exemptions</unit><unit label="chapter" level="2" order_by="2" identifier="2">Homestead Exemption of Householder</unit></structure><text>
						<section><p>Whenever a <span class="dictionary">judgment</span> or <span class="dictionary">decree</span> is rendered on an instrument waiving the homestead or upon a demand against which the homestead cannot be claimed the <span class="dictionary">court</span> shall include in its <span class="dictionary">judgment</span> or <span class="dictionary">decree</span> words to the following effect, as the case may be: &#x201C;Upon an instrument waiving the homestead,&#x201D; or &#x201C;upon a claim against which the homestead cannot be demanded.&#x201D; This statement shall be endorsed upon the executions issued upon such <span class="dictionary">judgments</span> or <span class="dictionary">decrees</span>. In any action or suit when it is not apparent from the face of the <span class="dictionary">pleadings</span> that the demand is not subject to the <span class="dictionary">homestead exemption</span> the <span class="dictionary">plaintiff</span> shall not have the benefit of the foregoing provision of this section unless in his declaration he alleges that his demand is not subject to such <span class="dictionary">homestead exemption</span>. But no <span class="dictionary">presumption</span> of nonwaiver or that the <span class="dictionary">judgment</span> or <span class="dictionary">decree</span> was rendered upon a demand against which homestead could be claimed is to be drawn from the silence of any <span class="dictionary">judgment</span>, execution or <span class="dictionary">decree</span> on the matters provided for by this section.</p></section></text><history>Code 1919, &#xA7; 6551.</history><metadata><court_decisions><item key="0"><name>No. 98-1934</name><case_number>943</case_number><citation>171 F.3d 943</citation><date>1999-03-24</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/762631/no-98-1934/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 171 F.3d 943 .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="1"><name>Michael Harrington v. James H. Schlesinger</name><case_number>74--1573</case_number><citation>528 F.2d 455</citation><date>1975-10-08</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/332130/michael-harrington-v-james-h-schlesinger/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 528 F.2d 455 .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="2"><name>Dickens v. Snellings (In Re Snellings)</name><case_number>19-70075</case_number><citation>10 B.R. 949</citation><date>1981-05-08</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1864846/dickens-v-snellings-in-re-snellings/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 10 B.R. 949 (1981) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia</court_html></item><item key="3"><name>Bryner v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours &amp; Co.</name><case_number>Civil Action No. 3:12CV103-HEH</case_number><citation>950 F. Supp. 2d 840</citation><date>2013-03-27</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8725926/bryner-v-ei-dupont-de-nemours-co/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. MEMORANDUM OPINION .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item><item key="4"><name>R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. the Wrecked &amp; Abandoned Vessel</name><case_number>2:93cv902</case_number><citation>9 F. Supp. 2d 624</citation><date>1998-06-23</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2387209/rms-titanic-inc-v-the-wrecked-abandoned-vessel/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 9 F.Supp.2d 624 (1998) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item><item key="5"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. American Canoe Ass'n v. United States Environmental .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>CIV. A. 98-979-A</case_number><citation>138 F. Supp. 2d 722</citation><date>2001-04-09</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2462214/american-canoe-assn-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 138 F.Supp.2d 722 (2001) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item><item key="6"><name>R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. Haver</name><case_number>No. 98-1934</case_number><citation>171 F.3d 943</citation><date>1999-03-24</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7077216/rms-titanic-inc-v-haver/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="7"><name>United States v. Billy Curry, Jr.</name><case_number>18-4233</case_number><citation></citation><date>2020-07-16</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4787848/united-states-v-billy-curry-jr/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. ON REHEARING EN BANC .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="8"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. Central Telephone Co. v. Sprint Communications Co. of .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>Civil 3:09cv720</case_number><citation>759 F. Supp. 2d 789</citation><date>2011-03-02</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2473844/central-telephone-co-v-sprint-communications-co-of-virginia-inc/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 759 F.Supp.2d 789 (2011) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item><item key="9"><name>Matarese v. ARCHSTONE PENTAGON CITY</name><case_number>1:09-mj-00857</case_number><citation>795 F. Supp. 2d 402</citation><date>2011-05-31</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2116742/matarese-v-archstone-pentagon-city/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 795 F.Supp.2d 402 (2011) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item></court_decisions></metadata></law>
