Tennessee Senate Bill SB1637

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Engrossed: 3/9/26
• Enrolled: 4/1/26
• Passed: 4/14/26
• Chaptered: 4/27/26

Caption

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

Summary

SB1637 amends Tennessee law governing fees for service of garnishments by sheriffs and other persons authorized to serve process. The bill provides that, for fee purposes, all garnishments are 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 authorized server to require payment of the service fee in advance of performing the service. In practical terms, the bill clarifies and standardizes how garnishment service fees are assessed and collected across Tennessee. It affects Title 8, Chapter 21, Part 9 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, which governs fees for services rendered by public officers and others authorized by law. The measure primarily impacts sheriffs, process servers, and parties who initiate garnishment proceedings, including creditors and employers or other garnishee recipients involved in wage or debt collection.

Impact

The bill changes Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-21-901(a)(2)(B)(ii) to ensure each garnishment served generates a separate service fee and to authorize advance payment of that fee. This likely increases fee collection consistency for sheriffs and other authorized servers and may increase upfront costs for parties seeking garnishment service. It does not create a new program or substantive debt-collection remedy, but it does alter the administrative and financial rules governing garnishment service in Tennessee.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support and no recorded opposition. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage unanimously, 9-0, and the floor motion to adopt passed 32-0. That voting pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a routine, noncontroversial clarification of fee procedures rather than a major policy change.

Contention

No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show no opposition, so there is no evident substantive controversy in the available materials. Any potential concern would likely come from parties who must pay garnishment service fees, since the bill confirms that each garnishment is separately feeable and may require advance payment. On the other side, sheriffs and authorized process servers benefit from clearer authority to collect fees for each service performed.