Tennessee House Bill HB2026

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 2/11/26
• Refer: 2/18/26
• Refer: 4/15/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39; Title 62, Chapter 18 and Title 66, relative to land surveying monuments.

Summary

HB2026 creates a new criminal offense for intentionally moving, altering, destroying, or removing certain land surveying monuments without replacing them, when the person knows or reasonably should know the monument is protected. The bill covers three categories of monuments: property corner monuments used to mark property lines and corners, historic land surveying monuments that establish governmental boundaries, and geodetic control monuments used by surveyors and government agencies as reference points. The bill defines each category broadly and includes examples such as pins, disks, pipes, rebar, concrete markers, stones, trees, stakes, and other recorded monument types. A violation is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. The act would take effect July 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 39, 62, and 66 by adding a new criminal prohibition in Title 39 and by tying the offense to surveying and property-record concepts in the other titles. It would give law enforcement and prosecutors a specific misdemeanor charge for interference with survey monuments, and it would provide additional legal protection for boundary markers, property corner markers, and geodetic control points used by surveyors, governments, landowners, and the real estate industry.

Sentiment

The available committee votes show strong and unanimous support throughout the legislative process, with every recorded vote passing 8-0, 22-0, 26-0, and 13-0. That pattern suggests the bill was viewed favorably and as a relatively noncontroversial measure aimed at protecting property and boundary markers.

Contention

No recorded committee transcript is available, and the voting history shows no opposition in committee. Any potential points of contention would likely center on the breadth of the monument definitions and the criminalization of conduct involving markers that may be temporary, obscure, or difficult to identify, but no such objections are documented in the provided materials.