AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29 and Title 42, relative to the exercise of eminent domain by airport authorities.
HB2037, titled the “Tennessee Just Compensation for Property Owners Act,” would change Tennessee’s eminent domain rules for airport authorities. The bill applies only to condemnations brought by airport authorities under specified provisions of Title 42 and would make its damages-and-costs rules control over conflicting provisions in Titles 29 and 17. It establishes a new compensation framework for affected property owners, including owner-selected appraisals, possible court-appointed second appraisals, relocation-cost damages, potential lost wages and business profits, and certain increased borrowing costs tied to relocation.
The bill also requires airport authorities to pay for appraisal and estimate costs, and it allows courts to award attorneys’ fees if the authority cannot acquire the property or withdraws its petition. Before an airport authority can finalize taking possession, it must pay all damages and costs required under the bill. The act would take effect July 1, 2026, and it amends the airport-authority eminent domain statutes in Title 42 to incorporate the new compensation rules.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant but targeted: it would not broadly rewrite Tennessee eminent domain law, but it would create a special compensation regime for airport-authority takings and override existing damage rules in those cases. It would likely increase the financial burden on airport authorities and municipalities using airport-related condemnation powers, while giving property owners more leverage and broader categories of recoverable losses.
The available vote history suggests the bill faced opposition in committee, as it failed 2-5 in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the failure indicates the proposal did not have enough support at that stage. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a property-rights and fairness measure, with its supporters emphasizing enhanced compensation for owners affected by airport takings.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s expansion of compensation beyond traditional fair-market-value damages, especially the 150% valuation formula, relocation expenses, lost profits, increased interest-rate damages, and attorneys’ fees. Opponents may view these provisions as costly, potentially duplicative, or too favorable to property owners, while supporters would argue they better account for the real losses caused by airport-related condemnations and address concerns about takings for private or quasi-private use.
The bill would amend Tennessee’s eminent domain and airport-authority statutes to create a special damages and costs scheme for airport authority condemnations. It would require owner-selected appraisals, allow additional court-appointed appraisal review, mandate payment of appraisal and estimate costs by the condemning authority, and authorize damages for relocation costs, business losses, increased borrowing costs, attorneys’ fees, and other amounts needed to make the owner financially whole. It also would prevent final possession orders until all required damages and costs are paid, thereby increasing procedural and financial protections for property owners and increasing the cost of airport-authority takings.
The bill appears to have been supported by a property-rights framing, emphasizing just compensation and criticism of airport-authority takings, but it did not advance out of the House Civil Justice Subcommittee, where it failed 2-5. With no transcript available, the precise arguments are not recorded, but the vote outcome suggests the measure did not generate sufficient committee support and likely faced concern over its breadth and cost.
The central controversy is whether airport authorities should be subject to enhanced compensation rules beyond standard eminent-domain damages. Supporters likely argue that airport-related condemnations can depress nearby property values and impose relocation, business, and financing losses that ordinary compensation does not cover. Opponents likely object to the 150% appraisal multiplier, the inclusion of lost profits and interest-rate damages, mandatory payment of appraisal and estimate costs, and the attorneys’ fees provisions, viewing them as overly expansive and financially burdensome for airport authorities and municipalities.