Jackson v. Jackson - 236 Va. 199, 372 S.E.2d 155 (1988)

Rule:

An affidavit of substantial defense is not a pleading. It is a statutorily mandated filing. 

Facts:

This appeal arises from a malicious prosecution suit filed by Earline S. Jackson against her ex-husband Edward Warren Jackson, Sr. After Edward’s home was broken into, he swore out a warrant against Earline, which resulted in her arrest. He again had her arrested twice more, both on spurious claims. Earline filed a warrant in debt against Edward for medical expenses and malicious prosecution and eventually moved for judgment, which had a notice of potential default for failure to answer. Edward failed to ever file an answer, and did not respond to a motion for default judgment, which was granted. At the hearing on damages, almost a year later, Edward sought to vacate the default judgment, claiming that responses to interrogatories constituted a responsive pleading. The trial court denied the motion and Edward sought review. 

Issue:

Did Edward’s affidavit of substantial defense to the warrant in debt constitute a responsive pleading?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed, holding that Edward’s affidavit of substantial defense to the warrant in debt did not constitute a responsive pleading. The court further noted that responses to interrogatories did not constitute a pleading. The court held that Edward had completely failed to take any action in attempting to vacate the default for a long period of time and as such, there was no reason to overturn the judgment.