Viracon, Inc. v. Southeastern Glass & Door

Chesterfield County Circuit Court

Viracon, Inc. v. Southeastern Glass & Door

20 Va. Cir. 374, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 223

CourtChesterfield County Circuit Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1990

DocketCase No. (Chancery) 90-365

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Va. Cir. 374 (Viracon, Inc. v. Southeastern Glass & Door) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Chesterfield County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Viracon, Inc. v. Southeastern Glass & Door, 20 Va. Cir. 374, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 223 (Va. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE WILLIAM R. SHELTON

The Court finds that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted. In the case before us, the Memorandum of Mechanic’s Lien was filed September 14, 1989. The suit was presented to the Clerk’s office for filing on March 13, 1990. The Clerk’s office after determining that the filing fees attached were insufficient, notified plaintiff’s counsel of the error on March 14, 1990. The correct amount of filing fees was received by mail on March 15, 1990.

Va. Code Section 43-17 provides in part that:

No suit to enforce any lien perfected under Sections 43-4, 43-5, and 43-7 to 43-10 shall be brought after six months from the time when the memorandum of lien was recorded or after sixty days from the time the building, structure or railroad was completed or the work thereon otherwise terminated, whichever time shall last occur.

The defendant argues that plaintiff’s suit cannot be considered filed until the fees are paid in full. Thus, the suit was not filed until March 15, 1990, which is one day beyond the statutory period and, therefore, it should be dismissed.

[375]*375Upon a review of the various statutes, this Court is of the impression that a suit cannot be considered filed until all fees and writ taxes have been paid in full. To hold otherwise would create an onerous burden on the Court in applying statutory time constraints marked by the filing of the suit. In this case, since the fee was not paid in full until March 15, 1990, the suit was not filed until March 15, 1990. Thus, the suit was filed one day beyond the statutory time limit, and the Court must grant the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE WILLIAM R. SHELTON

The Court finds that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted. In the case before us, the Memorandum of Mechanic’s Lien was filed September 14, 1989. The suit was presented to the Clerk’s office for filing on March 13, 1990. The Clerk’s office after determining that the filing fees attached were insufficient, notified plaintiff’s counsel of the error on March 14, 1990. The correct amount of filing fees was received by mail on March 15, 1990.

Va. Code Section 43-17 provides in part that:

No suit to enforce any lien perfected under Sections 43-4, 43-5, and 43-7 to 43-10 shall be brought after six months from the time when the memorandum of lien was recorded or after sixty days from the time the building, structure or railroad was completed or the work thereon otherwise terminated, whichever time shall last occur.

The defendant argues that plaintiff’s suit cannot be considered filed until the fees are paid in full. Thus, the suit was not filed until March 15, 1990, which is one day beyond the statutory period and, therefore, it should be dismissed.

[375]*375Upon a review of the various statutes, this Court is of the impression that a suit cannot be considered filed until all fees and writ taxes have been paid in full. To hold otherwise would create an onerous burden on the Court in applying statutory time constraints marked by the filing of the suit. In this case, since the fee was not paid in full until March 15, 1990, the suit was not filed until March 15, 1990. Thus, the suit was filed one day beyond the statutory time limit, and the Court must grant the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Va. Cir. 374, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viracon-inc-v-southeastern-glass-door-vaccchesterfiel-1990.