Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102 (2026)
Condemnation to secure way of ingress and egress and extending utility lines - Jurisdiction - Joinder of parties in action
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) A person owning any land, where ingress or egress to and from which is cut off or obstructed entirely from a public road or highway by the intervening land of another, or who has no outlet from the land to a public road in the state, by reason of the intervening land of another, is given the right to have a private easement or right-of-way not exceeding twenty-five feet (25') condemned and set aside for the benefit of the land over and across the intervening land for the purpose of ingress and egress and extending utility lines, including, but not limited to, electric, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, or cable television to the enclosed land. Maintenance of the easement or right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the person granted the easement or right-of-way. Gates or fencing that restricts access to the subservient land may not be erected. In counties with a metropolitan form of government, the maximum permissible width for an easement or right-of-way is fifteen feet (15').
- (2) If a person who already possesses a private easement or right-of-way of less than twenty-five feet (25') granted pursuant to this chapter determines that additional land is needed for the purpose of extending utility lines, including, but not limited to, electric, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, or cable television, to the enclosed land, then the person must file a new petition requesting additional land. Upon receipt of a petition requesting additional land for the extension of utility lines, the court may, upon a showing of good cause, grant the petitioner's request and direct a jury of view to lay off and mark an additional area for utility lines; provided, that the total private easement or right-of-way does not exceed fifteen feet (15') in counties with a metropolitan form of government or twenty-five feet (25') in all other areas.
- (b) The chancery and circuit courts and county courts, the latter acting by and through the county mayor, are given concurrent jurisdiction in such matters.
- (c) As many different owners of lands as may be cut off or obstructed or deprived of adequate and convenient outlets may join together against any number of different owners of intervening lands as wish to have the easement or right-of-way so condemned and set aside to them over the intervening property, and the joining shall not make the proceedings multifarious.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 808, s 1, eff. 4/8/2022.
Amended by 2020 Tenn. Acts, ch. 703, s 2, eff. 6/22/2020.
Acts 1921, ch. 75, § 1; Shan. Supp., § 1634a1; Code 1932, § 2746; impl. am. Acts 1978, ch. 934, §§ 7, 16, 36; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §54-1902; Acts 2003 , ch. 90, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Mills v. Solomon, 43 S.W.3d 503 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Specifically, title 54, chapter 14 provides that [a]ny person owning any lands, in-' gress or egress to and from which is cut off or obstructed entirely from a public road or highway by the intervening lands of another, or who has no adequate and convenient outlet from such…”
Outdoor Mgmt., LLC v. Thomas, 249 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Harris filed their “Amended Complaint for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Statutory Access Pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 54-14-102, Declaratory Judgment, Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction.”
John A. W. Bratcher, Clerk & Master/Special Comm'r v. Beverly M. Hubler, 508 S.W.3d 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “However, the court granted permission for the Town and the State to seek an interlocutory appeal on the following issue: “Whether either the State of Tennessee or a local governmental entity like the Town of Smyrna are subject to being sued under the provisions of T.”
Design Concept Corp. v. Ralph Phelps, et ux, No. E1999-00259-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2000). “In addition, the petitioner in Huddleston brought suit “pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-101 et seq., and specifically Tenn.”
Ben Smith v. William A. White, No. M2023-00030-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2024). “The appellants maintained that Tenn. Code Ann § 54-14-102 and its associated statutes prohibited such an easement.”
Robert Walker & Susan Elder v. Charles Smith v. Clifford Byrne & Wife, Carol Byrne, No. M2013-01816-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102 (a) (2008). The counterclaim sought to condemn property for the easement that included the Byrnes’ property.”
Stacy D. Vise v. Pearcy Tennessee River Resort Inc., No. W2014-00640-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 15, 2015). “Statutory Provisions The resolution of this case requires us to determine whether the trial court properly concluded that the Appellants were not entitled to an easement under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 54-14-101 or Section 54-14-102. Both Sections 101 and 102 of Chapter…”
Billy Eugene Atkins v. Rick Allen Saunders, No. E2017-01077-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5, 2019). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102 (a). They fault the trial court for not giving them a hearing to challenge the adequacy or convenience of the easement.”
Jahn v. Candler (In re Eicher), 574 B.R. 659 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2017). “Count II seeks to reform the “relevant deeds and Deeds of Trust” to reflect an easement in favor of 110 Dogwood Court for the driveway over 250 Dogwood Court and for utility lines under the driveway or, alternatively, an order declaring an implied easement, common-law easement…”
Harpeth Crest HOA v. Cypressbrook Coley Davis, Gen. P'ship, No. M2024-00732-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2025). “The Fussell Estate also alleged counterclaims, including: (1) slander of title; (2) declaratory judgment for a prescriptive easement; (3) declaratory judgment for an easement by implication; and (4) declaratory judgment for a private easement or right of way under Tennessee Code…”
Barge v. Sadler, No. M1999-01923-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2000). “THE STATUTORY RIGHT We must next determine whether the appellant is entitled to an easement over the appellee’s tract of land by way of Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102 . The statute provides: (a) Any person owning any lands, ingress or egress to and from which is cut off or…”
Clyde Bingham v. James Knipp, No. 02A01-9803-CH-00083, 1999 WL 86985 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 1999). “30, 1990); T.C.A. § 54-14-102 (1998). This statutory right exists even if the parties cannot trace their respective titles to a common grantor because the statute relaxes the common-law requirement of unity of title.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102(a): 4 cases
John A. W. Bratcher, Clerk & Master/Special Comm'r v. Beverly M. Hubler, 508 S.W.3d 206 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “However, the court granted permission for the Town and the State to seek an interlocutory appeal on the following issue: “Whether either the State of Tennessee or a local governmental entity like the Town of Smyrna are subject to being sued under the provisions of T.”
Robert Walker & Susan Elder v. Charles Smith v. Clifford Byrne & Wife, Carol Byrne, No. M2013-01816-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 11, 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102 (a) (2008). The counterclaim sought to condemn property for the easement that included the Byrnes’ property.”
Billy Eugene Atkins v. Rick Allen Saunders, No. E2017-01077-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 5, 2019). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102 (a). They fault the trial court for not giving them a hearing to challenge the adequacy or convenience of the easement.”
Design Concept Corp. v. Ralph Phelps, et ux, No. E1999-00259-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2000). “In addition, the petitioner in Huddleston brought suit “pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-101 et seq., and specifically Tenn.”
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.