AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 66, relative to real property.
SB2273 amends Tennessee’s real property law to prohibit certain deed, covenant, or other property-related documents from requiring a buyer, seller, or other transferor/transferee to pay money to purchase, issue, reissue, maintain, or transfer a club membership tied to the property or the surrounding community. The bill targets fees, charges, assessments, dues, contributions, deposits, or similar amounts that are connected to a club membership associated with the real estate.
In practical terms, the measure limits the enforceability of provisions that tie property transfers to mandatory club membership costs, which can arise in planned communities, resort developments, or other properties with associated amenities or membership structures. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 66, Section 66-37-102 by adding a new category of prohibited provisions related to real property documents. It expands the state’s restrictions on certain real estate-related obligations by making unenforceable document terms that require payment for club memberships connected to the property or community. The affected parties are property owners, buyers, sellers, developers, homeowners’ associations, and clubs or amenity providers that rely on transfer-related membership fees.
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee unanimously, then cleared the Senate floor 32-0 and the House 93-0. The unanimous votes suggest the legislation was viewed as a straightforward consumer-protection or property-rights measure rather than a controversial policy change.
No major contention is evident in the available record. The main policy issue is whether property documents should be allowed to impose mandatory club membership costs on transferors or transferees. Supporters likely viewed the bill as preventing hidden or burdensome real estate charges, while any potential opponents would be entities that benefit from those fees, such as developers, clubs, or community associations. However, the recorded votes show no organized resistance.