When it is suggested by the plaintiff in any attachment that a codefendant has not fully disclosed the debts owing by him, or effects in his hands belonging to the principal defendant in such attachment, the court, without any formal pleading, shall inquire as to such debts and effects, or, if either party demand, it shall cause a jury to be impaneled for that purpose, and proceed in respect to any such debts or effects found by the court or the jury in the same manner as if they had been confessed by such codefendant. If the judgment of the court or verdict of the jury be in favor of such codefendant, he shall have judgment for his costs against the plaintiff.
§ 8.01-565.Suggestion that codefendant has not made full disclosure.
Chapter 20. Attachments and Bail in Civil Cases · Article 3. Subsequent Proceedings Generally · Last amended 1977 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceWhen a plaintiff suggests to the court that a codefendant has not fully disclosed the debts owed or property held for the principal defendant, the court investigates without any formal pleading, or convenes a jury if either side demands one, treating whatever debts or effects are found as though the codefendant had confessed to them, while awarding the codefendant costs if the outcome favors the codefendant.
Full Text of § 8.01-565
Plain-English Summary
The sworn examination and answer process assumes codefendants tell the whole truth, but plaintiffs sometimes suspect otherwise. This section gives them a way to press the point without launching a full lawsuit within the lawsuit — raising a suggestion to the court that a codefendant has not fully disclosed debts or property belonging to the principal defendant. No formal pleading is required to trigger the inquiry — the court can look into it on its own, or, if either the plaintiff or the codefendant demands one, a jury can be impaneled to sort out the facts.
Whatever debts or effects the court or jury finds beyond what was disclosed get treated procedurally as if the codefendant had confessed to them outright, moving the case forward without extra litigation over that finding. But the process cuts both ways: if the court or jury sides with the codefendant instead, the codefendant recovers costs from the plaintiff for having to defend against the suggestion.
Frequently Asked Questions
What triggers the inquiry under this section?
The plaintiff suggesting that a codefendant has not fully disclosed the debts owed to, or effects held for, the principal defendant.
Is a formal pleading required to raise this issue?
No. The court inquires into the suggestion without any formal pleading.
Can either party demand a jury to resolve the disclosure question?
Yes. If either party demands it, a jury shall be impaneled to inquire into the debts and effects.
How are debts or effects found through this inquiry treated?
They are treated in the same manner as if they had been confessed by the codefendant.
What happens if the court or jury rules in the codefendant’s favor?
The codefendant recovers costs against the plaintiff.
Amendment History
Code 1950, § 8-553; 1977, c. 617.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: full disclosure codefendant attachment virginiajury impaneled codefendant debts virginiaconfession of debt attachment codefendant