AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 13; Title 16; Title 29; Title 39; Title 67 and Title 68, relative to nuisances.
SB1135 amends Tennessee’s nuisance law to create a new category of “prima facie evidence of a nuisance per se” based on repeated criminal activity on the same parcel of property. After written notice to the property owner, three or more unrelated incidents within a specified period involving sexually related, drug-related, assaultive, firearm-related, or certain property- or juvenile-related charges can establish a nuisance if another similar incident occurs within the applicable time window. The bill also defines each of those charge categories by reference to specific criminal statutes.
The bill further provides that, if a nuisance is found and an abatement order is violated by another qualifying incident, the continued activity is again prima facie evidence of a nuisance. In that circumstance, the court may also award statutory damages of $1,000 to $50,000 to nearby property owners in the same zip code who claim their property value was harmed by the continued nuisance. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill expands Tennessee Code Annotated Title 29 nuisance remedies by adding new evidentiary triggers, new definitions of qualifying criminal activity, and a damages remedy tied to repeated nuisance activity after abatement. It gives state officers and other authorized persons a clearer statutory basis to seek nuisance abatement actions against properties associated with repeated specified offenses, while also creating a potential compensation mechanism for neighboring property owners. The bill expressly excludes several types of facilities and programs, including licensed healthcare providers, substance use treatment and recovery residences, DUI schools, mental health and substance abuse facilities, certain education-approved facilities, and correctional treatment programs.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, at least in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was recommended for passage with amendments by an 8-1 vote. The text and vote pattern indicate a broadly favorable view of using nuisance law to address repeated criminal activity on properties, with only limited recorded opposition in committee. No committee transcript is available here to show detailed debate, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the strong committee vote and the bill’s eventual enactment.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth of the nuisance trigger and the potential impact on property owners, landlords, and neighborhoods. Critics may object that repeated arrests, citations, or indictments tied to a parcel could lead to nuisance findings even before final criminal convictions, and that the statute could impose liability on owners for activity by tenants or others on the property. The bill also creates a new damages remedy for neighboring property owners, which may raise questions about proof of property-value harm and the scope of exposure for the person or entity maintaining the nuisance. At the same time, the explicit exemptions for healthcare, treatment, recovery, education, and correctional programs suggest lawmakers were attentive to concerns that the law should not sweep in legitimate service providers.