This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 4 -
I. Appellate Review of Pleas in Bar
“A plea in bar asserts a si ngle issue, which, if proved, creates a bar to a plaintiff’s
recovery.” Harris v. Wash. & Lee Univ., 82 Va. App. 175, 204 (2024) (quoting Cornell v.
Benedict, 301 Va. 342, 349 (2022)). “[A] plea in bar can be sustained even if it presents a bar to
recovery to only some, but not all, of the plaintiff’s claims.” Smith v. McLaughlin, 289 Va. 241,
252 (2015).
“The party asserting a plea in bar bears the burden of proof on the issue presented.”
Harris, 82 Va. App. at 204 (quoting Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566, 577 (2010)). When
an appellate court reviews a ruling on a plea in bar on which the parties have presented evidence
“ore tenus, the circuit court’s factual findings ‘are accorded the weight of a jury finding and will
not be disturbed on appeal unless they are plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.’”
Cornell, 301 Va. at 349 (quoting Massenburg v. City of Petersburg, 298 Va. 212, 216 (2019)).
Yet “[s]imply holding an evidentiary hearing does not convert all of the arguments for and
against the plea in bar into factual disputes.” Harris, 82 Va. App. at 204 (quoting Cal. Condo.
Ass’n v. Peterson, 301 Va. 14, 23 (2022)). To the extent the review rests on legal questions,
including the determination of whether res judicata applies, the appellate court reviews that
aspect of the circuit court’s ruling de novo. See Lane v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 297 Va.
645, 653 (2019).
II. Res Judicata and Claim-Splitting
With this standard of review in mind, we turn to consider the inextricable link between
the doctrine of res judicata and the rule against claim-splitting. See Bill Greever Corp. v.
Tazewell Nat’l Bank, 256 Va. 250, 254 (1998). These doctrines evolved due to “public policy
considerations” to “avoid[] a multiplicity of suits, protect[] against vexatious litigation, and
avoid[] the costs and expenses associated with numerous suits on the same cause of action.” Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)