AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 66-24-101, relative to writings eligible for registration.
SB2353 amends Tennessee’s recording statute governing which writings may be registered with county registers. The bill adds specific requirements for bonds conveying real or personal property and for agreements, contracts, memoranda, abstracts, affidavits, or similar documents related to the sale or conveyance of real property. To be eligible for registration, these documents must include the required signatures of the relevant parties, have those signatures authenticated under existing law, and state an expiration date with the day, month, and year.
The bill also creates a new rule for affidavits presented for registration: unless an existing exception applies, an affidavit may not be registered unless it is sworn before a notary public and includes prescribed notarial acknowledgment language. In practical terms, the act tightens formal execution and notarization requirements for certain real estate and property-related documents before they can be recorded in Tennessee public records.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-24-101, expanding and clarifying the categories of writings eligible for registration and imposing additional content and authentication requirements. It affects property owners, buyers, attorneys-in-fact, court-appointed representatives, notaries public, and county register offices that accept documents for recording. By requiring authenticated signatures, expiration dates, and notarized affidavit language, the law is likely to reduce recording of incomplete or informally executed documents and may affect real estate transactions and title-related filings.
The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The Senate State & Local Government Committee recommended passage unanimously, and the bill passed the Senate floor 31-0 on third consideration. The House then passed it overwhelmingly 90-1. No committee transcript is available, but the recorded votes indicate the bill was generally viewed favorably and as a routine administrative or property-recording measure.
There is no recorded committee debate in the provided materials, and the votes show minimal visible controversy. Any potential concern would likely center on the added formalities for recording property-related documents, which could create compliance burdens for parties to real estate transactions, attorneys, and notaries. However, the near-unanimous votes suggest that, if such concerns existed, they did not generate significant opposition in the legislative process.