AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 66, relative to real property.
Summary
HB2495 amends Tennessee’s real property statutes to address certain restrictions tied to club memberships associated with a property or the surrounding community. Specifically, it adds a new category to the definition in Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-37-102(4) covering any document provision that requires a transferor or transferee to pay a fee, charge, assessment, dues, contribution, deposit, or similar amount to purchase, issue, reissue, maintain, or transfer a club membership related to the real property or community.
In practical terms, the bill appears aimed at limiting or clarifying the enforceability of property-related membership obligations that can be attached to a sale or transfer of real estate, such as mandatory club or community association memberships and associated payments. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
Impact
The bill changes Tennessee law governing real property by expanding the statutory definition in Title 66, Chapter 37 to include certain club-membership payment requirements tied to property or a community. This may affect developers, homeowners, buyers, sellers, and entities that manage private clubs or community amenities by restricting document provisions that impose these membership-related financial obligations in connection with a property transfer.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill in committee, with unanimous favorable votes in both the House Cities & Counties Subcommittee and the House State & Local Government Committee. No committee transcripts are available, but the recorded votes suggest the measure was viewed positively and advanced without visible opposition at the committee stage.
Contention
The main policy issue appears to be whether property documents should be allowed to require buyers or sellers to pay ongoing or transfer-related club membership costs tied to the real estate or community. Supporters likely view the bill as protecting property owners and purchasers from burdensome or unexpected fees, while any potential opponents would be those who rely on such membership structures to fund private amenities or community facilities. No recorded debate is available, so specific arguments are not documented in the provided materials.