Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-102 (2026)
Action barred after seven years
✓ current as of May 2026
Any person, and those claiming under such person neglecting for the term of seven (7) years to avail themselves of the benefit of any title, legal or equitable, by action at law or in equity, effectually prosecuted against the person in possession, under recorded assurance of title, as in § 28-2-101, are forever barred.
Code 1858, § 2764 (deriv. Acts 1819, ch. 28, § 1); Acts 1895, ch. 38, §2; Shan., § 4457; Code 1932, § 8583; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 28-202.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: In Re: Est. of Martha M. Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009).
In Re: Est. of Martha M. Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009). “2008); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 28-2-102 , 28-2-110(a), 28-3-102(a), 28-3-114(a) (2000 & Supp.”
Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007). “On the following day, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend to add two alternative theories of relief: (1) defensive adverse possession under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-2-102 and 103; and (2) an easement by prescription in the service road area.”
Owen v. Summers, 97 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “3 In this case, the trial court found that T.C.A. § 28-2-102 did not apply because, “from June 1989, until at least the middle of 1994, the plaintiff, Joseph B.”
Shearer v. Vandergriff, 661 S.W.2d 680 (Tenn. 1983). “Vandergriff consulted an attorney, had a survey made of his property and ultimately erected a fence down the middle of the right-of-way. Nothing was done to force removal of the fence until August 12, 1981, when this suit was filed.”
Hightower v. Pendergrass, 662 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. 1983). “§ 28-2-101, § 28-2-102 and § 28-2-103 derive and the Court said: "We think the manifest design of the act of 1819 was to exclude the remedy by entry as it existed at the common law.”
Jansen v. Clayton, 816 S.W.2d 49 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “We think the proof fails to show the type of possession that would give the defendants title to the property under Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-101, or would bar the plaintiff’s claim under Tenn.”
Cross v. McCurry, 859 S.W.2d 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 28-2-101 and T.C.A. § 28-2-102 protects [sic] persons who are holding adversely under a color of title from suits to oust them from the entire boundary of lands on which they are adversely holding a portion, and T.”
Bynum v. Hollowell, 656 S.W.2d 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “In this connection, the defendants allege that *403 the trial court failed to find that T.C.A. 28-2-102 was applicable as a matter of law.”
Tanner v. Tanner, 698 S.W.2d 342 (Tenn. 1985). “sections 28-2-102 and 28-2-103, the two seven year statutes of limitation.”
Twinton Props. P'ship v. Nidiffer (In Re Twinton Props. P'ship), 44 B.R. 426 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984). “§ 28-2-102 provides: On the other hand, any person, and those claiming under him neglecting for the said term of seven (7) years to avail themselves of the benefit of any title, legal or equitable, by action at law or in equity, effectually prosecuted against the person in…”
Josephine Phelps v. Vern Benke, Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “§ 28-2-101 and T.C.A. § 28-2-102? 6. Whether the Chancery Court erred in finding Mr.”
Donna Babb Frinks v. Patricia Eileen Horvath (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “2007 WL 1946632 , at *7-9 (reversing the trial court’s grant of the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part because the trial court had failed to address the defendant’s “affirmative defense” of adverse possession pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-102 ).…”
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.