An Act to amend and reenact § 17.1-222.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to clerks of circuit court; fees; restitution; online payment systems; report.
HB1235 amends Virginia law governing how circuit court clerks may collect fees, fines, penalties, support payments, and restitution. The bill keeps the existing authority for clerks to accept non-cash payments by methods authorized under state law, and it adds a new requirement that if a clerk’s office already uses an online payment system for court fines, fees, or costs, that same system must also be made available for restitution payments. The bill does not require a clerk’s office to create an online payment platform if none already exists.
In addition to the statutory change, the bill directs the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia to convene a stakeholder work group to study the accessibility and modernization of court payment systems for transactions in general district and circuit courts. The work group must provide an executive summary and report with findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by November 1, 2026.
The bill directly amends § 17.1-222.1 of the Code of Virginia, expanding the practical use of existing online court payment systems to include restitution when those systems are already in place. This affects circuit court clerks, court users making payments, and restitution recipients by encouraging more uniform electronic payment access without mandating new technology purchases. It also creates a formal study process through the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Executive Secretary to evaluate broader modernization and accessibility issues across court payment systems.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate strong support or opposition. The enacted chapter text suggests the bill advanced successfully through the legislature and was approved, which is consistent with a generally favorable or noncontroversial posture. The measure appears to have been treated as an administrative modernization bill rather than a major policy dispute.
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the online payment mandate: the bill requires restitution to be included only when a clerk’s office already has an online payment system for other court payments, while explicitly avoiding a mandate to build a new system. That limitation likely reflects concern about cost, implementation burden, and local office capacity. Another possible issue is the broader study directive, which may raise questions about how quickly modernization recommendations could be implemented and whether additional funding or statutory changes would be needed later.