AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 13; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to housing market manipulation.
Summary
HB0298, titled the "Homes not Hedge Funds Act," would restrict large-scale business ownership of single-family homes in qualifying Tennessee counties. The bill makes it unlawful for a person or affiliated business entity that already owns 100 or more single-family homes in qualifying counties for rental use to purchase another single-family home in those counties unless the home will be used as the purchaser’s residence. The bill defines key terms such as affiliate, person, qualifying county, and single-family home, and applies only to contracts entered into on or after the effective date.
The legislation also creates enforcement mechanisms. The Tennessee attorney general and reporter may sue violators, and individual aggrieved persons may also bring civil actions. Courts may impose civil penalties of up to $100 per day per home acquired in violation, along with equitable relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages up to $50,000 or three times damages and costs, whichever is greater. The bill further allows joinder of affiliates and related parties to ensure accurate accounting of home ownership and enforcement, and it preserves other remedies available under state law.
Impact
HB0298 would add a new part to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 13 and create a state-level restriction on certain corporate and investor purchases of single-family homes in counties with populations over 150,000. In practice, it would limit expansion by institutional landlords and other large property-holding entities in the single-family housing market, while leaving ordinary homebuyers and smaller-scale landlords unaffected. It would also expand potential civil liability and enforcement authority for the attorney general and private plaintiffs, and could affect real estate transactions, rental investment strategies, and affiliate ownership structures in the covered counties.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer- and homeownership-protection measure rather than a broad regulatory overhaul. Its findings emphasize housing affordability, wealth-building through homeownership, and concern about business entities buying up homes for rental use. The overall tone of the legislation is protective of individual buyers and skeptical of large-scale investor activity in the housing market.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on business entities and affiliates that own 100 or more single-family homes, since it directly limits institutional investment in residential property. Supporters would likely argue that the measure protects housing supply and promotes homeownership, while opponents may view it as an interference with property rights, investment activity, and rental housing availability. The bill’s use of affiliate aggregation, private rights of action, and significant damages and fee-shifting provisions could also be controversial because they increase litigation risk and make enforcement broader and more aggressive.