Tenn. Code Ann. » Tenn. Code / Title 35 / Chapter 5
Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 (2026)

Sale without advertisement is not void

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

Should the officer, or other person making the sale, proceed to sell without pursuing the provisions of this chapter, the sale shall not, on that account, be either void or voidable.

Code 1858, § 2152 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 83, § 4); Shan., §3845; Code 1932, § 7800; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 35-507.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: In re Kitts, 274 B.R. 491 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Kitts, 274 B.R. 491 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002). · cites it 3× “The Williams and Doty decisions, however, like Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 , speak only to the failure to comply with statutory requirements for notice of sale, see Williams, 156 S.”
Brady L. Daniels v. Vince Trotter (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 44× “Trotter, determining that Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 prevented the foreclosure sale from being considered void or voidable due to lack of notice and that the mortgagors had a constitutionally adequate remedy of monetary damages.”
Brady Daniels v. Vince Trotter (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 21× “The Trial Court subsequently granted the motion to amend upon agreement of the parties, and the Daniels filed their amended petition alleging the unconstitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 . Mr. Trotter filed a motion for summary judgment, requesting that all claims…”
Glenver Ian Smith v. Stephen L. Hughes (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “In an earlier case, we had found it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether a second mortgage holder must be included as an “interested party” in the advertisement of the foreclosure sale because the plaintiff in that case only sought to set aside the foreclosure sale, and…”
Everbank v. Tommy J. Henson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, MERS is entitled to seek restitution from the trustee pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-107 , which provides that any person referenced in Tenn.”
Earl Thacker v. Shapiro & Kirsch, LLP., Paul Abraham & the Knoxville News Sentinel, 354 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 35-5-106 provides that "[s]hould the officer, or other person making the sale, proceed to sell without pursuing the provisions of this chapter, the sale shall not, on that account, be either void or voidable.”
Larry P. Conway & Marilyn J. Conway v. E. Sav. Bank, FSB (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “T.C.A. § 35-5-106 (2001); see Doty v. Fed.”
Andrea Scott v. Carlton J. Ditto (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ditto’s claim that the sale did not comply with the Tennessee statutes he cites[,] T.C.A. § 35-5-106 provides that: “Should the officer, or other person making the sale proceed to sell without pursuing the provisions of this chapter, the sale shall not, on that account, be…”
Terry Joe Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “LEXIS 124256 , at *15 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 35-5-106 ; EverBank, 2015 Tenn.”
John Skipper & Brenda Skipper v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Any officer, or other person, referenced in § 35-5-106 3 who fails to comply with this chapter commits a Class C misdemeanor and is, moreover, liable to the party injured by the noncompliance, for all damages resulting from the failure.”
Donna F. Smith Thompson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” The court accordingly held that “the transfer of the property [sic] Substitute Trustee’s Deed is valid, and, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 , any claim by Plaintiff for a improper foreclosure sale must be pursued against said Substitute Trustee.”
New South Fed. Sav. Bank v. Brenda Pugh (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “11, 2006); Tenn. Code Ann. § 35-5-106 . Thus, in Conway, this Court affirmed the chancery court’s decision upholding a foreclosure sale under nearly identical circumstances2 to those presented herein; the chancery court held that “the Bank's failure to re-advertise three times,…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.