Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-302 (2026)
Formula not required
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) No formula need be observed in such solemnization, except that the parties shall respectively declare, in the presence of the minister or officer, that they accept each other as husband and/or wife.
- (b) For the purposes of satisfying the requirement in subsection (a) that each party must make a declaration in the presence of a minister or officer, a member of the armed forces of the United States may appear at the marriage ceremony via video conferencing if:
- (1) The member of the armed forces is stationed in another country in support of combat or another military operation;
- (2) A commissioned officer is present with, and confirms the identity of, the member of the armed forces;
- (3) A person authorized to solemnize marriages pursuant to § 36-3-301 is present with, and confirms the identity of, the person who is marrying the member of the armed forces; and
- (4) The person who is marrying the member of the armed forces is present in this state.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 397,s 2, eff. 5/18/2017.
Code 1858, § 2440; Shan., § 4190; Code 1932, § 8413; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 36-416.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: Marvin Seibers v. Carol Latimer (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
Marvin Seibers v. Carol Latimer (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “The court denied the motion and instead considered the best interests of the Children as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-3-302. While Respondent said she was not “indefinitely opposed” to the Children visiting Petitioners, she said she was in the best position to…”
William Alan Watermeier v. Sherry Dunaway Moss & Thomas R. Moss III (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-302 (3)(2005)). If a man, who had been shown to be a child’s biological father through 4 (.”
Martin Holmes v. David Karkau (2022). “Plaintiffs are “creditors” under the Act because they have a “claim” as defined by T.C.A. § 36-3-302(3). 66. Wendy Karkau and/or the Estate of Kenneth Karkau is/are a “debtor” who/which has a “debt” with Plaintiffs under the Act as defined by T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-302(3) — 1 case
Martin Holmes v. David Karkau (2022). “Plaintiffs are “creditors” under the Act because they have a “claim” as defined by T.C.A. § 36-3-302(3). 66. Wendy Karkau and/or the Estate of Kenneth Karkau is/are a “debtor” who/which has a “debt” with Plaintiffs under the Act as defined by T.”
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.