Craving Oyer

Brien Roche

Complete Analysis of Craving Oyer

A motion craving oyer is an old form of pleading in Virginia.  The purpose is to compel the other party to attach to the initial pleading an important document.  In most cases that important document is the contract that is being sued upon.

As far back as 1937, the Virginia Supreme Court stated there is no way to interpret any writing unless all of it is produced.  Culpeper National Bank of Culpeper v. Morris, 168 Va. 379, 382 (1937)

Split Among The Circuits

However there is some dispute among the different circuits in Virginia as to exactly what types of cases may be subject to craving oyer.  One judge has stated that craving oyer is limited to deeds, letters of probate, things that supplement those items or the contract between the parties.  Antigone v. Taustin, 2018 WL 6794671 (Fairfax County 2018)

Also courts have addressed the issue by saying that the documents being sought must be a necessary part of the plaintiff’s claim.  Monger v. Herring, 79 Va. Cir. 470, 472 (2009); Ragone v. Waldvogel, 54 Va. Cir. 581 (2001)

In a contract action, if the contract is alleged to be in writing then the contract should probably be attached to the pleading.  

Likewise if a deed is a crucial part of the claim then the deed should probably be attached to the pleading.  Also if the pleading raises an issue about the qualification of the PR of an estate then the letter appointing that PR should probably be attached to the pleading.

The thrust of motions craving oyer is not to delay the proceedings. In contrast the idea is to allow the court to decide if the pleading can stand on its own.  However without that core document attached to the pleading, the court cannot rule on whether the pleading stands.

VSC Statement

In June of 2020, the Virginia Supreme Court dealt with a motion craving oyer.  The case is Byrne v. City of Alexandria 298 Va 694(2020).  In Byrne the Court granted the motion craving oyer.  The holding of the case is that for the motion to be granted, the document for which oyer is sought must be the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim.  The mere fact that the document is mentioned in the pleadings or that it may be material or that it may be proper evidence at trial is not enough.  Rather the document must be the basis that the plaintiff claims under.  

The Court addressed the case of Langhorne v. Richmond Railway, 91 Va. 369, 372 (1895).  In that case there was mentioned in the pleadings a merger between two railroad companies.  There was also reference to a series of documents pertaining to the merger.  That alone was not a basis for oyer.  That is, the plaintiff was not claiming under those documents and therefore oyer should not be granted.  

Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on contracts see the the pages on this site. For more info on contract litigation see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with contract issues.