An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 8.01 a chapter numbered 17.4, consisting of sections numbered 8.01-465.26 through 8.01-465.34, relating to Uniform Consumer Debt Default Judgments Act established.
HB444 adds a new chapter to Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia to establish the Uniform Consumer Debt Default Judgments Act. The bill creates a detailed set of rules governing default judgments in consumer debt collection cases, including unsecured consumer debt, secured consumer debt when only a money judgment is sought, and deficiency claims after collateral is sold. It defines key terms such as consumer debt, creditor, default, charge-off, outstanding balance, and secured versus unsecured debt, and it limits the chapter’s application to certain consumer collection actions.
The bill requires a complaint seeking a default judgment in covered consumer debt cases to meet specific pleading and notice requirements. Although the provided text cuts off before the full list of requirements, the structure of the act indicates that creditors must include more detailed information and consumer-facing notice before a court may enter default judgment. The act also excludes actions seeking possession or disposition of property and debt-collection actions brought by government entities, narrowing its reach to private consumer money-judgment cases.
HB444 changes Virginia law by adding a new statutory framework for default judgments in consumer debt cases, likely increasing procedural protections for consumers and standardizing what creditors must plead and prove before obtaining judgment by default. It affects debt buyers, original creditors, collection attorneys, and consumers facing lawsuits over personal, family, or household debts, while leaving property-recovery actions and government debt collection outside the chapter’s scope.
The available record shows the bill was enacted and approved, with no committee transcript or vote data provided to indicate opposition or debate. Based on the bill’s structure and title, the measure appears to have been treated as a consumer-protection and court-procedure reform rather than a controversial policy change. The absence of recorded dissent in the supplied materials suggests the bill likely had broad support or at least no documented public contention in the provided context.
No specific points of contention are documented in the supplied transcripts or votes. Potential areas of debate inherent in the bill include whether the added pleading and notice requirements would meaningfully protect consumers from default judgments, and whether those requirements would impose additional burdens on creditors and debt collectors. The bill’s exclusion of government debt collection and property-possession actions may also reflect a policy choice that could be relevant to stakeholders, but no direct objections are shown in the materials provided.