§ 8.01-465.34.(Effective July 1, 2027) Severability.
Chapter 17.4. Uniform Consumer Debt Default Judgments Act · Last amended 2026 · Last verified July 16, 2026
Full Text of § 8.01-465.34
Plain-English Summary
Statutes with many moving parts often carry a severability clause as insurance against a single defect toppling the whole structure, and this section supplies that insurance for Chapter 17.4. If a provision of the chapter, or its application to a person or circumstance, is held invalid, that invalidity does not affect any other provision or application that can be given effect without the invalid part.
The protection covers both kinds of challenges a court might face — a provision struck down outright, or a provision held invalid only as applied to particular facts. Either way, the rest of the chapter's complaint requirements, notice requirements, and other protections remain operative on their own.
This kind of clause is common drafting across Virginia's uniform acts and does not itself decide anything about validity. It only fixes the consequence if some other court, in some other case, finds a piece of the chapter wanting.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a court finds one provision of this chapter invalid?
That invalidity does not affect any other provision or application of the chapter that can still be given effect without the invalid provision.
Does this section protect the rest of the chapter from being struck down if one part fails?
Yes, that is its purpose — it isolates the invalid provision or application rather than letting it take down the rest of the chapter.
Does this apply only if an entire provision is invalid, or also if a provision is invalid as applied to specific facts?
Both, the text covers a provision “or its application to a person or circumstance” being held invalid.
Is this section unique to Chapter 17.4?
No, severability clauses like this appear throughout Virginia's statutes and uniform acts.
Does this section decide which provisions of the chapter are valid or invalid?
No, it only states the consequence if a court holds some provision or application invalid elsewhere; it does not itself adjudicate validity.
Amendment History
2026, c. 395.