Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-11-114 (2026)
Venue of suits
✓ current as of May 2026
The local jurisdiction of the chancery court is subject to the following rules:
- (1) All bills filed in any court seeking to divest or clear the title to land, or to enforce the specific execution of contracts relating to realty, or to foreclose a mortgage or deed of trust by a sale of personal property or realty, shall be filed in the county in which the land, or a material part of it, lies, or in which the deed or mortgage is registered;
- (2) Bills seeking to enjoin proceedings at law may be filed in the county in which the suit is pending, or to which execution has issued;
- (3) Bills against nonresidents, or persons whose names or residences are unknown, may be filed in the county in which the cause of action arose, or the act on which the suit is predicated was to be performed, or in which is the subject of the suit, or any material part thereof; and
- (4) When attachment of property is allowed in lieu of personal service of process, the bill may be filed in the county in which the property, or any material part of the property sought to be attached, is found at the commencement of the suit.
Code 1858, § 4311 (deriv. Acts 1787, ch. 22, § 1; 1801, ch. 6, § 2; 1825, ch. 22, §§ 1, 2; 1827, ch. 42, § 1; 1833, ch. 52); Acts 1877, ch. 107, § 1; Shan., § 6121; Code 1932, § 10388; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 16-617; Acts 1994, ch. 560, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “In Phillips , the Board of Regents relied on Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-11-114(1), not § 4-4-104, and the court placed importance on the de novo judicial review applicable to such tenure-related cases, noting that such procedure allows supplementation of evidence in the administrative…”
Valley Fid. Bank & Trust Co. v. Ayers, 861 S.W.2d 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “Venue in Chancery Court is controlled by T.C.A. § 16-11-114, entitled “Venue of Suits” and reads in pertinent part as follows: The local jurisdiction of the Courts of Chancery is also subject to the following rules: (1) The bill may be filed in the county in which the defendant…”
Martin v. Martin, 755 S.W.2d 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “They argue venue in real property matters is determined by statute, is jurisdictional and cite T.C.A. § 16-11-114(2) in support thereof.”
Woods v. Fields, 798 S.W.2d 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “claim that venue under T.C.A. § 16-11-114 was not proper because they did not reside in Shelby County.”
Knobler v. Knobler, 697 S.W.2d 583 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “36-4-121 the Court trying the divorce case is empowered to “equitably divide, distribute or assign the marital property” and “to effectuate its decree by divesting and re-investing title to such and, where deemed necessary, to order a sale of such property and to order the…”
Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 771 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. 1989). “” Defendants contend that the Shelby County defendants, Shelby Community College and its president, are nominal defendants; that the action appealed from is a final determination of the Board of Regents whose situs is in Nashville, Davidson County, and therefore under T.”
Tammy L. Haggard v. Santos Aguilar (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 36-4-121 . Id. at 585-86. This court further noted, in dictum, as follows: We do not mean to say that Mrs.”
Farinash v. Henry, Jr. (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2024). “The state court complaint alleged that venue was proper in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee based on T.C.A. § 16-11-114. Notably, that statute relates to bills seeking to divest or clear the title to land, or to enforce the specific execution of contracts…”
Lucite Int'l, Inc. v. Peter Runciman, PH.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “On November 17, 2003, an Amended Motion to Dismiss was filed, raising the issues of personal jurisdiction, improper venue pursuant to T.C.A. § 16-11-114(3), and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
James E. Whalen v. Quint Bourgeois (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-11-114 (1) (2009) (“All bills filed in any court seeking to divest or clear the title to land, or to enforce the specific execution of contracts relating to realty .”
Little Hurricane Props., LLC v. Ralph Cafaro (2018). “Regarding the local jurisdiction of Chancery Court, Tennessee law provides as relevant: The local jurisdiction of the chancery court is subject to the following rules: (1) All bills filed in any court seeking to divest or clear the title to land, or to enforce the specific…”
Barton Hawkins v. Dept of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 16-11-114(1), not § 4-4-104, and the court placed importance on the de novo judicial review applicable to such tenure-related cases, noting that such procedure allows supplementation of evidence in the administrative record.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-11-114(1): 3 cases
Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “In Phillips , the Board of Regents relied on Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-11-114(1), not § 4-4-104, and the court placed importance on the de novo judicial review applicable to such tenure-related cases, noting that such procedure allows supplementation of evidence in the administrative…”
Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 771 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. 1989). “” Defendants contend that the Shelby County defendants, Shelby Community College and its president, are nominal defendants; that the action appealed from is a final determination of the Board of Regents whose situs is in Nashville, Davidson County, and therefore under T.”
Barton Hawkins v. Dept of Corr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 16-11-114(1), not § 4-4-104, and the court placed importance on the de novo judicial review applicable to such tenure-related cases, noting that such procedure allows supplementation of evidence in the administrative record.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-11-114(2): 1 case
Martin v. Martin, 755 S.W.2d 793 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “They argue venue in real property matters is determined by statute, is jurisdictional and cite T.C.A. § 16-11-114(2) in support thereof.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-11-114(3): 1 case
Lucite Int'l, Inc. v. Peter Runciman, PH.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “On November 17, 2003, an Amended Motion to Dismiss was filed, raising the issues of personal jurisdiction, improper venue pursuant to T.C.A. § 16-11-114(3), and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.