Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (2026)

Statute of limitations

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

Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2; 2005, ch. 30, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2002).
Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2002). · cites it 8× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (emphasis added).”
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “None of the statutes of limitations cited by the trial court apply to C-Wood’s conversion claims in this case. 53 The appropriate statute of limitations is the three-year statute in Tenn.”
Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis v. Markowitz, 468 F. Supp. 529 (W.D. Tenn. 1979). · cites it 4× “Markowitz relies on T.C.A. § 47-3-118, which states in part: The following rules apply to every instrument: (f) Unless otherwise specified consent to extension authorizes a single extension for not longer than the original period.”
Richard O'Leary, et ux. v. Ann Johnson, 84 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Subsection (d) of T.C.A. 47-3-118 provides: An action to enforce the obligation of the acceptor of a certified check or the issuer of a teller’s check, cashier’s check, or traveler’s check must be commenced within three (3) years after demand for payment is made to the acceptor…”
Rebecca M. Pomeroy v. Michael L. McGinnis (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “McGinnis correctly notes that “[a] specific statute of limitations for the conversion of a negotiable instrument is established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (g).” Insofar as Ms.”
In re Est. of Dennie Lamar Trent (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “The statute of limitations for a note payable on demand is contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118 , which provides: Except as provided in subsection (d) or (e), if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a…”
James A. Long v. Charles D. Ledford (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Thus, Appellants argue that the six-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-109 applies to this case, 3 rather than the ten-year statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-3-118(b),4 applicable to notes payable on…”
Brown v. Brown (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 4× “2020) (“an attempt to commence an action, when doing so is barred by a statute, does not toll a statute of limitations”).”
Carolyn L. Denton-Preletz v. Susan L. Denton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “The note was executed on October 24, 1986, and Lender did not demand payment until 2007.”
Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Elizabeth Hinkle (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “The crux of my disagreement with the majority is this: assuming the trier of fact determines, under the discovery rule, that the subject causes of action accrued in 1995 or later, but prior to June 1, 1996, I do not believe – as the majority does – that T.C.A. § 47-3-118(g)…”
Laxmi Hosp. Grp., LLC v. Rajesh Narayan (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (a). The evidence showed that Mr.”
John R. Fuller v. Cmty. Nat'l Bank (2020). · cites it 2× “” The trial court further held that plaintiff’s UCC claims were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (g); that plaintiff “set forth no facts that demonstrate a genuine issue that [the bank] had knowledge of any breach of Brown’s…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118(b) — 2 cases
James A. Long v. Charles D. Ledford (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Thus, Appellants argue that the six-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-109 applies to this case, 3 rather than the ten-year statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-3-118(b),4 applicable to notes payable on…”
Carolyn L. Denton-Preletz v. Susan L. Denton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “The note was executed on October 24, 1986, and Lender did not demand payment until 2007.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118(f) — 1 case
Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis v. Markowitz, 468 F. Supp. 529 (W.D. Tenn. 1979). “Markowitz relies on T.C.A. § 47-3-118, which states in part: The following rules apply to every instrument: (f) Unless otherwise specified consent to extension authorizes a single extension for not longer than the original period.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118(g) — 4 cases
Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (emphasis added).”
C-Wood Lumber Co. v. Wayne Cnty. Bank, 233 S.W.3d 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “None of the statutes of limitations cited by the trial court apply to C-Wood’s conversion claims in this case. 53 The appropriate statute of limitations is the three-year statute in Tenn.”
Rebecca M. Pomeroy v. Michael L. McGinnis (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “McGinnis correctly notes that “[a] specific statute of limitations for the conversion of a negotiable instrument is established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118 (g).” Insofar as Ms.”
Pero's Steak & Spaghetti House v. Elizabeth Hinkle (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The crux of my disagreement with the majority is this: assuming the trier of fact determines, under the discovery rule, that the subject causes of action accrued in 1995 or later, but prior to June 1, 1996, I do not believe – as the majority does – that T.C.A. § 47-3-118(g)…”
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.