An Act to amend and reenact § 8.01-676.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to civil litigation; suspension bonds and irrevocable letters of credit upon appeal.
HB1111 amends Virginia’s appeal-security statute, § 8.01-676.1, governing when parties must post an appeal bond, suspension bond, or irrevocable letter of credit in civil cases. The bill restates and updates the rules for security on appeal of right to the Court of Appeals and on petitions for appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, including the required amount, timing, and conditions for payment of costs, damages, and fees. It also preserves the existing distinction between ordinary appeal security and security needed to suspend execution of a judgment while the appeal is pending.
The bill further clarifies procedures for modifying the amount or terms of security, including motions to increase or decrease the bond or letter of credit, review by appellate courts, filing of affidavits and counter-affidavits, and the consequences for failing to timely comply with an ordered increase. It also specifies who may execute the bond and that letters of credit must be in a form acceptable to the clerk and issued by a qualifying bank. Overall, the measure is a technical civil procedure update focused on appellate practice and judgment enforcement rather than a substantive change to underlying rights or remedies.
HB1111 amends § 8.01-676.1 of the Code of Virginia, affecting civil appellate procedure, judgment enforcement, and the requirements for staying execution of judgments during appeal. It impacts appellants in civil cases, sureties, banks issuing letters of credit, trial court clerks, and appellate courts by clarifying security requirements, modification procedures, and dismissal or discontinuance consequences for noncompliance. The bill does not create a new cause of action or alter substantive civil liability, but it does refine the mechanics of appeal bonds and suspension security in Virginia courts.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or support in the available materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears technical and procedural, which often draws limited controversy compared with substantive policy bills. The enacted chapter status suggests it advanced successfully through the legislative process without any documented public dispute in the provided record.
The main potential points of contention are procedural rather than ideological: the amount of security required, the discretion given to trial and appellate courts to modify bond terms, and the consequences of failing to post increased security within the deadline. Parties appealing judgments may view these requirements as burdensome, while appellees and judgment creditors may favor them as protection against delay and nonpayment. The bill also implicates the acceptability of irrevocable letters of credit versus traditional surety bonds, which can matter to litigants and financial institutions.