AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 35, relative to foreclosure notices.
HB1127 revises Tennessee’s foreclosure notice procedures in Title 35. The bill requires that advertisements for sales of land to foreclose a deed of trust, mortgage, or other lien be published at least twice in a newspaper in the county where the sale will occur and also posted online for at least 20 continuous days by a third-party internet posting company. It further requires that the initial newspaper publication occur at least 20 days before the sale.
The bill also adds direct mailed notice requirements. The trustee or other selling party must send the statutory foreclosure notice to the debtor and any co-debtor by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, by the first publication date. The notice must go to specified mailing addresses, including the property address and any qualifying last known or designated mailing address. The bill also updates the rules for postponed or adjourned sales, allowing rescheduling without new newspaper publication if certain notice and timing requirements are met, and it requires internet posting and, in some cases, mailed notice of the new sale date.
HB1127 creates a state-level administrative role for third-party internet posting companies by requiring them to register their website address with the secretary of state’s publications division, which must maintain a public listing of those companies. The bill also makes those companies potentially liable for damages caused by failure to comply with the new registration requirement. Related sections of the foreclosure notice statutes are amended to cross-reference the new online posting process and to require the sale notice to identify the posting company’s website.
The bill appears to have been generally well received in the legislative process, advancing through subcommittee, full committee, and both chambers with strong majorities. The votes suggest broad support for modernizing foreclosure notice procedures and adding more direct notice to affected borrowers. The main policy tension is between preserving traditional newspaper publication and expanding notice through online posting and mailed notice, along with the administrative burden placed on trustees, creditors, and internet posting companies to comply with the new requirements.
Notable points of contention likely center on the shift to internet-based notice, the reliability and accessibility of online postings, and the added compliance obligations and potential liability for third-party posting companies. The bill also preserves some exceptions and contract-based notice provisions, which may reflect concern about existing mortgage terms and low-dollar indebtedness cases.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 35, specifically the foreclosure notice provisions in §§ 35-5-101, 35-5-103, 35-5-104, and 35-5-105. It adds mandatory online posting for foreclosure sales, requires mailed notice to debtors and co-debtors, sets rules for adjourned or postponed sales, and establishes a secretary of state listing for third-party internet posting companies. These changes affect trustees, lenders, debtors, co-debtors, newspapers, and online notice vendors by changing how foreclosure sales must be advertised and documented.
The legislative sentiment appears broadly favorable. The bill passed the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, House Judiciary Committee, and both floor votes with large margins, indicating bipartisan support for updating foreclosure notice procedures. The available record does not show organized opposition in committee discussion, but the vote totals suggest some members had reservations about the move toward online notice or the added procedural requirements.
The main areas of potential contention are the replacement of exclusive newspaper notice with a hybrid newspaper-and-online system, the adequacy of internet postings as public notice, and the compliance burden placed on trustees, creditors, and third-party posting companies. Some concern may also exist about the bill’s mailing requirements, the treatment of postponed sales, and the liability exposure created for posting companies. Supporters likely view these changes as improving notice and transparency, while skeptics may worry about cost, implementation, and whether all interested parties will reliably see online notices.