Tennessee House Bill HB1798

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 2/2/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Chaptered: 4/27/26
• Passed: 4/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 21, Part 9, relative to fees for services rendered.

Summary

HB1798 amends Tennessee law governing fees for service of garnishments by sheriffs and other authorized persons. The bill provides that, for purposes of the fee statute, all garnishments are to be treated as original garnishments, and the serving officer is entitled to the statutory fee for each garnishment served. It also expressly allows the sheriff or other authorized server to require payment of the service fee in advance of performing the garnishment service. In practical terms, the bill clarifies and standardizes how garnishment service fees are assessed and collected under Tennessee Code Annotated Title 8, Chapter 21, Part 9. It affects sheriffs, process servers, creditors, employers, and other parties involved in garnishment proceedings by confirming that each garnishment served generates a separate fee and by permitting prepayment before service is completed.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-21-901(a)(2)(B)(ii) to change the treatment of garnishments for fee purposes. The legal effect is to ensure that each garnishment is deemed an original garnishment for fee collection, which can increase or clarify fee recovery for sheriffs and other authorized servers. It also authorizes advance payment of the service fee, affecting the administration of garnishment process and the costs borne by parties seeking service.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The bill passed the House Civil Justice Subcommittee unanimously, advanced through the House Judiciary Committee on a 19-0 vote, and then passed on the House floor on consent calendar with only one dissenting vote. There are no committee transcripts provided, but the near-unanimous votes indicate the measure was generally viewed favorably as a technical or administrative clarification.

Contention

There is little evidence of significant controversy in the available record. The main policy point is whether sheriffs and other authorized process servers should be allowed to charge a fee for each garnishment as if it were an original service and to collect that fee in advance. Any potential concern would likely come from creditors, employers, or other litigants who may face higher or more immediate service costs, while sheriffs and process servers would favor clearer fee authority and guaranteed payment.