Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-504 (2026)

Disabilities of coverture removed from married women - Statute of limitations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Married women are fully emancipated from all disability on account of coverture, and the common law as to the disability of married women and its effects on the rights of property of the wife, is totally abrogated, except as set out in § 36-3-505, and marriage shall not impose any disability or incapacity on a woman as to the ownership, acquisition or disposition of property of any sort, or as to the wife's capacity to make contracts and to do all acts in reference to property that the wife could lawfully do, if the wife were not married, but every woman now married, or hereafter to be married, shall have the same capacity to acquire, hold, manage, control, use, enjoy and dispose of, all property, real and personal, in possession, and to make any contract in reference to it, and to bind herself personally, and to sue and be sued with all the rights and incidents thereof, as if the wife were not married.

(b) All of the statutes of limitation that apply in favor of or against a feme sole, and the feme sole's property, shall apply and operate in favor of or against married women and their property.

Acts 1913, ch. 26, § 1; 1919, ch. 126, §§ 1, 3; Shan. Supp., §§ 4249a4, 4249a41/2, 4249a6; mod. Code 1932, §§ 8460, 8462; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 36-601, 36-603.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012). · cites it 2× “Acts 59 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-504(2010)). 19 . Act of Apr.”

Roberts v. Bailey, 338 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-505 (2005). In 1924, our Supreme Court again discussed the statute emancipating married women and stated: Extended discussion of the doctrine of estates by entirety will serve no purpose.”

Still Ex Rel. Erlandson v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 807 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “The passage of married women’s property acts which purported to emancipate married women “from all disability on account of coverture,” and abrogate “the common law as to the disabilities of married women” (see 1913 Tenn.”

Arthur B. Roberts v. Robert Bailey, 470 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. 2015). “§ 36-3-504(a) (2014)). The Bejach Law, which went into effect on January 1, 1914, “fully emancipated [married women] from all disability on account of coverture” and “totally abrogated” the common law insofar as it affected “the rights of property of the wife.”

In Re Young, 42 B.R. 892 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1984). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-504 (1984); Robinson v.”

Christa A. Avenell v. James Allen Gibson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “When the statute emancipating married women was enacted in 1913, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-504 (2001), the Supreme Court initially held that the statute had abolished the concept of tenancy by the entirety.”

Brenda Sandusky v. Danny Sandusky (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The common-law disability of coverture, abolished in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-504 (a) (1996), has absolutely nothing to do with the question of Mr.”

Est. of Edward P. Russell (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “(Emphasis supplied) Although common-law tenancy by the entireties was abolished by the Married Women’s Emancipation act (Chapter 26, Public Acts of 1913, T.C.A. § 36-3-504, common-law estates by the entireties were re-established by Chapter 126, Public Acts of 1919 (T.”

Lazarov v. Lazarov, 731 S.W.2d 928 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s sixth assertion is that the doctrine of interspousal immunity was abolished by virtue of the Married Women’s Emancipation Act, T.C.A. § 36-3-504 which was adopted in 1913.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-504(2010) — 1 case

Tina Marie Hodge v. Chadwick Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012). “Acts 59 (codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-504(2010)). 19 . Act of Apr.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-504(a) — 2 cases

Roberts v. Bailey, 338 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-3-505 (2005). In 1924, our Supreme Court again discussed the statute emancipating married women and stated: Extended discussion of the doctrine of estates by entirety will serve no purpose.”

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.