AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29 and Title 66, relative to eviction actions.
Summary
HB0452 amends Tennessee’s eviction statutes to create a faster, more narrowly focused process for unlawful detainer cases based solely on nonpayment of rent. It requires the trial date in those cases to be held no later than 14 days after the landlord files the action, while still requiring the defendant to be notified of the time and place of trial and preserving a minimum six-day notice period from service. The bill also limits the scope of those hearings to issues directly related to nonpayment of rent, including the lease terms and the tenant’s payment history.
The bill further changes the post-judgment process in rent-nonpayment eviction cases. While most eviction judgments still have a 10-day delay before a writ of possession may issue, this bill would require a writ to be issued within 24 hours after judgment in nonpayment cases, direct the tenant to vacate within seven days of receiving the writ, and allow the sheriff to remove the tenant immediately if the tenant does not leave within that period. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB0452 would substantially alter Tennessee’s unlawful detainer procedures in Title 29 by accelerating court timelines and enforcement for eviction actions based solely on nonpayment of rent. It narrows what evidence and issues may be considered at hearing, and it shortens the time between judgment and physical removal from the property in those cases. Landlords, tenants, courts, and county sheriffs would all be affected by the revised deadlines and enforcement requirements.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to streamline landlord remedies in rent-default cases, which may be viewed favorably by property owners and more critically by tenant advocates concerned about reduced time to respond or remain in housing.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s acceleration of eviction timelines and its restriction of hearing scope in nonpayment cases. Supporters would likely emphasize faster resolution for landlords and clearer, more efficient court procedures, while opponents would likely focus on the shortened time to trial, the rapid issuance of writs of possession, and the limited opportunity for tenants to raise broader defenses or seek additional time before removal.