Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-101 (2026)
Judgments rendered in dollars and cents
✓ current as of May 2026
All verdicts and judgments shall be rendered in dollars and cents, or such parts thereof as the nature of the case may require. Executions thereon, and all bills of costs, shall be issued accordingly.
Code 1858, § 1942 (deriv. Acts 1798-1799, ch. 19, § 1); Shan., § 3491; mod. Code 1932, § 7299; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 47-1601; Acts 1976, ch. 737, § 1; 1979, ch. 203, § 25.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Hathaway v. First Fam. Fin. Servs., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 1999).
Hathaway v. First Fam. Fin. Servs., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 1999). “, are a borrower’s remedies under Tennessee law limited to those remedies prescribed by the general statute pertaining to interest and other charges by lenders, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 47-14-101 et seq.? We answer the foregoing questions in the affirmative.”
Robertson v. Lyons, 553 S.W.2d 754 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1977). “T.C.A. §§ 47-14-101, 47-14-110. All costs in the trial court and in this Court are adjudged against the defendants.”
Leffew v. Kugler, 220 B.R. 598 (E.D. Tenn. 1998). “; the Tennessee Usury Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-14-101 et seq., and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Article XI, Section 7; and the Industrial and Thrift Loan Companies Act, Tenn.”
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Few, 560 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. 1978). “T.C.A. § 47-14-101. *410 The judgment of the Court of Appeals, as modified, is affirmed.”
Vaughn v. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 573 S.W.2d 165 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978). “§§ 47-14-104, 47-14-107, and at 8% from the date of judgment until paid, T.C.A. § 47-14-101. It appears that demand was first made on August 31, 1976, and that payment was due within 60 days thereafter.”
Kelso Oil Co., Inc. v. East West Truck Stop, 102 S.W.3d 655 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “” The final issue on appeal is Defendants’ claim the Trial Court erred in dismissing their counterclaim wherein they asserted the interest charged by Kelso was usurious and in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-101, et seq. In its judgment, the Trial Court awarded “late…”
Capital Partners Network OT, Inc. v. TNG Contractors, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “See generally T.C.A. § 47-14-101, et seq. 4. The underlying judgment is void because it violates Tennessee public policy and due process.”
Sake, LLC v. Cain (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “Insofar as IRA Innovations insists that it did not fund the loans from its own assets and therefore cannot be a “lender” for purposes of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-101 , the question of where the funds came from is a factual question that the court must resolve in favor of the…”
Wellesley Builders, L.L.C. v. Vill. of Cherry Glen Ass'n, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “THE QUESTION OF LATE FEES The builder argues on appeal that the late fees the Association imposed on its unpaid assessments violate the Tennessee laws against usury, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-101 et seq. The Association argues to the contrary that it does not, because usury is…”
Kelso Oil v. East West Truck Stop (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “” The final issue on appeal is Defendants’ claim the Trial Court erred in dismissing their counterclaim wherein they asserted the interest charged by Kelso was usurious and in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-101 , et seq. In its judgment, the Trial Court awarded “late…”
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.