Court Opinion

ID: 9580861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:43.977652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:34.477326
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, J.,
dissenting.
With the enactment of Title 8.01 of the Code, the Revisors eliminated the distinction between direct and indirect damage to property. Code § 8.01-228 defines “personal action” as “an action wherein a judgment for money is sought, whether for damage to person or property.” (Emphasis added.) Code § 8.01-243 (“Per*82sonal action for injury to person or property generally.”) provides a two-year limitation period in actions for “personal injuries” and a five-year limitation period in actions for “injury to property.” The majority, without explanation, states, “this is not an action for ‘injury to property.’ Rather this is a ‘personal action,’ under § 8.01-248.” I believe, however, that the present case is a personal action for “injury to property,” i.e., a diminution in the market value of real estate resulting from an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. Thus, pursuant to Code § 8.01-243(8), the five-year limitation applies.
In my Opinion, the result reached by the majority will give rebirth to the malaise which the Code Revisors sought to eliminate. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.