Background
Simone P. Parker filed a warrant in debt against Enterprise Trading Inc. in Stafford County General District Court and obtained a $6,050 judgment. Enterprise appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo, and the court scheduled trial for April 15, 2025, in Courtroom #1.
Parker arrived at the courthouse but did not appear in the assigned courtroom at 9:00 a.m. She later said she had been directed to the wrong courtroom and found the correct one at 9:25 a.m. After Parker remained absent when the case was called, the circuit court dismissed the case under Code § 16.1-106.1(D), entered judgment for Enterprise, and ordered Enterprise’s $6,050 appeal bond returned. The court subsequently denied Parker’s motion to reconsider without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Code § 16.1-106.1(D) did not authorize the circuit court’s disposition. The statute permits a circuit court to treat an appeal as withdrawn when the “party who has appealed” fails to appear for trial. Enterprise was the appealing party and appeared for trial; Parker was the non-appealing party. Accordingly, Parker’s absence did not trigger the statutory authority the circuit court invoked.
The court also noted that, even if Parker had been the appealing party, the statute would authorize treating the appeal as withdrawn and reinstating the general district court’s judgment—not entering judgment for Enterprise. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. It did not decide whether another remedy might be available when a non-appealing plaintiff fails to appear, nor did it reach Parker’s due-process and statement-of-facts arguments.
Key Takeaways
- Code § 16.1-106.1(D) applies when the party who appealed from district court fails to appear for the circuit-court trial.
- Treating an appeal as withdrawn under the statute restores the district court’s judgment; it does not authorize judgment for the appellant contrary to that judgment.
- The decision does not foreclose other discretionary responses to a non-appealing plaintiff’s failure to appear, provided the circuit court makes any required findings.
Why It Matters
The opinion clarifies the limited reach of Code § 16.1-106.1(D) in de novo appeals from Virginia district courts. Courts and litigants must distinguish between an absent appellant and an absent non-appellant before treating an appeal as withdrawn.
The decision also underscores that the statutory consequence of withdrawal is reinstatement of the district court’s judgment. Any different response to a non-appealing party’s absence must rest on another source of authority and an appropriate exercise of the circuit court’s discretion.