Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110 (2026)

Action barred by nonpayment of taxes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1947, ch. 28, § 3; mod. C. Supp. 1950, § 8585.1 (Williams, § 9159.1); impl. am. Acts 1979, ch. 413, § 1; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §28-210; Acts 1987, ch. 282, §6; 2011 , ch. 47, § 18.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007).
Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007). · cites it 25× “1983): “T.C.A. § 28-2-110 acts as an absolute bar to any suit ‘where one claiming an interest in real property or his predecessor in title has failed to have assessed and to pay taxes on the claimed property for at least twenty continuous years.”
Jack v. Dillehay, 194 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 21× “Additionally, [under Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-110,] Jack and those through whom she claims have failed to have assessed or to pay applicable city or county real property taxes with respect to the disputed property for a period not less than twenty years next preceding the…”
Burress v. Woodward, 665 S.W.2d 707 (Tenn. 1984). · cites it 20× “The issue in this case is whether T.C.A. § 28-2-110 bars the Plaintiffs’ action for damages and an injunction against Defendants’ mining activities on a tract of land to which Plaintiffs claim the mineral rights, due to Plaintiffs’ failure to pay taxes on the mineral portion of…”
Bone v. Loggins, 652 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 14× “This is an action styled “Partition Suit and Suit Quia Timet” involving a question of adverse possession of real estate and the application of T.C.A. § 28-2-110 which, if applicable, would bar the action because of nonpayment of taxes.”
Cooke v. Smith, 721 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 11× “The chancellor’s decree applying T.C.A. § 28-2-110 to plaintiffs ignores the fact that plaintiffs’ predecessors in title and plaintiffs had no notice and were unaware of the defendant tax assessor’s predecessor in office’s surreptitious removal of “Island 30” from the tax rolls…”
Milledgeville United Methodist Church v. Jimmy G. Melton, 388 S.W.3d 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-110 (emphasis added).”
Tanner v. Tanner, 698 S.W.2d 342 (Tenn. 1985). · cites it 8× “section 28-2-110 and by T.C.A. sections 28-2-102 and 28-2-103, the two seven year statutes of limitation.”
Alexander v. Patrick, 656 S.W.2d 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “The real issue on appeal is the applicability of T.C.A. § 28-2-110 to the facts of the case.”
Catlett v. Whaley, 731 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Defendants assert, however, plaintiffs are barred from any recovery by T.C.A., § 28-2-110 5 and their action must be dismissed.”
Tidwell v. Van Deventer, 686 S.W.2d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “w claim; that they and their predecessors in title have had their assurancies of title recorded for more than 20 years; they and their predecessors in title have paid taxes on their land for more than 20 years prior to this lawsuit, and under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-2-109…”
Layne v. Baggenstoss, 640 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs also rely on T.C.A. § 28-2-110, which provides: Action barred by nonpayment of taxes.”
Corrado v. Hickman, 113 S.W.3d 319 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “” Defendants’ brief argues the Trial Court misapplied Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-110. However, the Trial Court never applied § 28-2-110.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110(2000) — 1 case
Shelby Cnty. v. Crews, 315 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110(a) — 19 cases
Cumulus Broad., Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007). “1983): “T.C.A. § 28-2-110 acts as an absolute bar to any suit ‘where one claiming an interest in real property or his predecessor in title has failed to have assessed and to pay taxes on the claimed property for at least twenty continuous years.”
Cooke v. Smith, 721 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “The chancellor’s decree applying T.C.A. § 28-2-110 to plaintiffs ignores the fact that plaintiffs’ predecessors in title and plaintiffs had no notice and were unaware of the defendant tax assessor’s predecessor in office’s surreptitious removal of “Island 30” from the tax rolls…”
Catlett v. Whaley, 731 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “Defendants assert, however, plaintiffs are barred from any recovery by T.C.A., § 28-2-110 5 and their action must be dismissed.”
Tidwell v. Van Deventer, 686 S.W.2d 899 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “w claim; that they and their predecessors in title have had their assurancies of title recorded for more than 20 years; they and their predecessors in title have paid taxes on their land for more than 20 years prior to this lawsuit, and under Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-2-109…”
Jack v. Dillehay, 194 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Additionally, [under Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-110,] Jack and those through whom she claims have failed to have assessed or to pay applicable city or county real property taxes with respect to the disputed property for a period not less than twenty years next preceding the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110(a)(2000) — 1 case
Jack v. Dillehay, 194 S.W.3d 441 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Additionally, [under Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-2-110,] Jack and those through whom she claims have failed to have assessed or to pay applicable city or county real property taxes with respect to the disputed property for a period not less than twenty years next preceding the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-2-110(b) — 1 case
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.