Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (2026)
License requirement - Recovery of expenses by unlicensed contractor
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) Any person, firm or corporation engaged in contracting in this state shall be required to submit evidence of qualification to engage in contracting, and shall be licensed as provided in this part. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to engage in or offer to engage in contracting for any project in this state, unless, at the time of such engagement or offer to engage, the person, firm, or corporation has been duly licensed with a monetary limitation sufficient to allow the person, firm, or corporation to engage in or offer to engage in such contracting project under this chapter. The board for licensing contractors shall have the authority to grant or allow an exception, in an amount not to exceed ten percent (10%), to the monetary limitation of such license provided in this subdivision (a)(1). Any person, firm, or corporation engaged in contracting, including a person, firm, or corporation that engages in the construction of residences or dwellings constructed on private property for the purpose of resale, lease, rent, or any other similar purpose, shall be required to submit evidence of qualification to engage in contracting and shall be licensed. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to engage in, or offer to engage in, contracting as described in this subdivision (a)(1) unless the person, firm, or corporation has been duly licensed under this part.
- (2)
- (A) Notwithstanding subdivision (a)(1), any person, firm or church that owns property and constructs on the property single residences, farm buildings or other buildings for individual use, and not for resale, lease, rent or other similar purpose, is exempt from the requirements of this part.
- (B) Except in counties with a population of not less than seven hundred seventy-seven thousand one hundred thirteen (777,113), according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census, a person or firm specified in subdivision (a)(2)(A) shall not make more than one (1) application for a permit to construct a single residence or shall not construct more than one (1) single residence within a period of two (2) years. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the person or firm intends to construct for the purpose of resale, lease, rent or any other similar purpose if more than one (1) application is made for a permit to construct a single residence or if more than one (1) single residence is constructed within a period of two (2) years. This subdivision (a)(2)(B) shall not be construed to alter the definition of "contractor" as defined in § 62-6-102.
- (3) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a)(1) and (2), the license requirements and restrictions contained in this subsection (a) shall not apply to single residences constructed by:
- (A) Nonprofit charitable or religious corporations, associations and organizations that are exempt from federal income taxation under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)); or
- (B) Students enrolled in educational institutions who construct the residences under the direct supervision of faculty as part of the curriculum of the institution.
- (4) The exemption provisions of subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) concerning licensure shall apply to limited licensed electricians.
- (5) Notwithstanding subdivision (a)(1), any single residence homeowner is exempt from the limited licensed electrician requirements of this part for purposes of performing electrical work on the homeowner's own residence.
- (b) Any contractor required to be licensed under this part who is in violation of this part or the rules and regulations promulgated by the board shall not be permitted to recover any damages in any court other than actual documented expenses that can be shown by clear and convincing proof.
- (c) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no lien otherwise authorized pursuant to title 66, chapter 11 shall be available to any person, firm, or corporation engaged in construction in violation of this chapter.
- (d) No contractor shall be authorized to perform roofing work on a construction project where the roofing portion of the construction project is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or more unless the contractor is licensed; provided:
- (1) Any person who holds a license issued by the department as either a manufactured home installer or a manufactured home retailer, pursuant to title 68, chapter 126, shall not be required to be a licensed contractor in order to perform roofing work on a manufactured home as defined in § 68-126-202; provided, that such work is related to the construction of a manufactured home or performed in connection with a manufacturer's warranty covering a manufactured home, or the repair of such home; and
- (2) Any person who holds a license issued by the department as to the manufacture or installation of modular building units, pursuant to title 68, chapter 126, shall not be required to be a licensed contractor in order to perform roofing work on a modular building unit as defined in § 68-126-303; provided, that such work is related to the construction or installation of a modular building unit, or performed in connection with a manufacturer's warranty covering a modular building unit, or the repair of such unit.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 355, s 4, eff. 1/1/2014.
Acts 1976, ch. 822, § 3; 1977, ch. 9, § 1; 1979, ch. 59, § 7; 1980, ch. 652, § 5; T.C.A., § 62-603; Acts 1986, ch. 913, § 1; 1989, ch. 487, § 1; 1990, ch. 763, §§ 1, 2; 1993, ch. 192, § 1; 1994, ch. 986, § 1; 1999, ch. 238, § 8; 2000, ch. 876, § 1; 2009 , ch. 482, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Winter v. Smith, 914 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
Winter v. Smith, 914 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Since he did not have the required license, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (c) limited his recovery from Ms.”
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC, 514 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (b). I & L concomitantly filed a counter-complaint, alleging that Beacon4 had violated, per se, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“TCPA”) by exceeding its monetary licensing limit.”
Kyle v. Williams, 98 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a). If a person engages in any of these activities without possessing a valid license, then simple logic dictates that the person is an unlicensed contractor for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-103(b) and is limited in recovery to…”
Brandon v. Wright, 838 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “T.C.A. § 62-6-103(c) The quoted statute creates a limited exception to the rule in the cited authority, *535 and precludes the dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit on grounds of “unclean hands” or illegal conduct.”
Wiltcher v. Bradley, 708 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “As pertinent here, T.C.A. § 62-6-103 provides as follows: “Any unlicensed general contractor covered by the provisions of this chapter shall be permitted in a court of equity to recover actual documented expenses only upon a showing of clear and convincing proof.”
Varnadoe v. McGhee, 149 S.W.3d 644 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Did the Trial Court commit error by holding that Appellee Guy Varnadoe (hereinafter "Varnadoe") proved his "actual documented expense" by "clear and convincing proof" as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(b) and this Court's decision filed on December 21, 2001? 2.”
Danny L. Davis Contractors, Inc. v. Hobbs, 157 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(l) (Supp. 2003).”
Micah Seamus Reynolds v. Bethany Rich, 511 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Pursuant to T.C.A. § 62-6-103, an owner of property may construct a single residence once every two (2) years, for their own use, and not for resale, lease or rent.”
State of Tennessee, on Relation of v. Calvin Howell v. Jimmy Farris, 562 S.W.3d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Howell was indicted for “contracting” as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 62- 6-102(2), without a license as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 62-6-102(3), in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 62-6-103 and Section 62-6-120. 4 The Circuit Court…”
Christenberry Trucking & Farm, Inc. v. F & M Mktg. Servs., Inc., 329 S.W.3d 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). ““True enough, T.C.A. § 62-6-103(b) now allows unlicensed contractors an equitable remedy when they can prove their expenses by clear and convincing proof.”
Gary R. Prince Revocable Trust v. Blackwell, 735 F. Supp. 2d 804 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “However, in seeking the remedies of rescission, treble damages, attorney’s fees and pre-judgment interest, Plaintiffs rely on the TCPA which states that it is an unfair or deceptive practice to hold oneself out as a licensed contractor when such person has not been licensed as…”
McKinnie v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 298 F. Supp. 3d 1138 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). “]" Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (a)(1). A license is required for any person or entity who undertakes to, attempts to, or submits a price or bid or offers to construct, supervise, superintend, oversee, schedule, direct, or in any manner assume charge of the construction,…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(2)(A) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Virgil Calvin Howell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a) — 6 cases
Kyle v. Williams, 98 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a). If a person engages in any of these activities without possessing a valid license, then simple logic dictates that the person is an unlicensed contractor for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-103(b) and is limited in recovery to…”
Gary R. Prince Revocable Trust v. Blackwell, 735 F. Supp. 2d 804 (M.D. Tenn. 2010). “However, in seeking the remedies of rescission, treble damages, attorney’s fees and pre-judgment interest, Plaintiffs rely on the TCPA which states that it is an unfair or deceptive practice to hold oneself out as a licensed contractor when such person has not been licensed as…”
Gail Gottesman v. Todd Hecker (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
Cecil McNatt v. Jane Vestal (Kanizar) Henderson Villa Inc. v. Cecil McNatt (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
Guy Varnadoe v. Shelton McGhee Jr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(1) — 5 cases
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC, 514 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (b). I & L concomitantly filed a counter-complaint, alleging that Beacon4 had violated, per se, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“TCPA”) by exceeding its monetary licensing limit.”
Parkway Assocs., LLC v. Harleysville Mut. Ins., 129 F. App'x 955 (6th Cir. 2005).
State of Tennessee v. Virgil Calvin Howell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
Robert Ferguson v. M. Brown Constr., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024).
Lou Ann Zelenik v. Crowell Homebuilding, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(2) — 1 case
Jimmy Wayne Helton v. Earl Lawson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
Winter v. Smith, 914 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Since he did not have the required license, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (c) limited his recovery from Ms.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(l) — 2 cases
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC, 514 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (b). I & L concomitantly filed a counter-complaint, alleging that Beacon4 had violated, per se, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“TCPA”) by exceeding its monetary licensing limit.”
Danny L. Davis Contractors, Inc. v. Hobbs, 157 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a)(l) (Supp. 2003).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(b) — 19 cases
Kyle v. Williams, 98 S.W.3d 661 (Tenn. 2003). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(a). If a person engages in any of these activities without possessing a valid license, then simple logic dictates that the person is an unlicensed contractor for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-103(b) and is limited in recovery to…”
Varnadoe v. McGhee, 149 S.W.3d 644 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Did the Trial Court commit error by holding that Appellee Guy Varnadoe (hereinafter "Varnadoe") proved his "actual documented expense" by "clear and convincing proof" as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-103(b) and this Court's decision filed on December 21, 2001? 2.”
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC, 514 S.W.3d 153 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (b). I & L concomitantly filed a counter-complaint, alleging that Beacon4 had violated, per se, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 (“TCPA”) by exceeding its monetary licensing limit.”
Winter v. Smith, 914 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Since he did not have the required license, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (c) limited his recovery from Ms.”
Christenberry Trucking & Farm, Inc. v. F & M Mktg. Servs., Inc., 329 S.W.3d 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). ““True enough, T.C.A. § 62-6-103(b) now allows unlicensed contractors an equitable remedy when they can prove their expenses by clear and convincing proof.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(c) — 4 cases
Winter v. Smith, 914 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Since he did not have the required license, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (c) limited his recovery from Ms.”
Brandon v. Wright, 838 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “T.C.A. § 62-6-103(c) The quoted statute creates a limited exception to the rule in the cited authority, *535 and precludes the dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit on grounds of “unclean hands” or illegal conduct.”
Wiltcher v. Bradley, 708 S.W.2d 407 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). “As pertinent here, T.C.A. § 62-6-103 provides as follows: “Any unlicensed general contractor covered by the provisions of this chapter shall be permitted in a court of equity to recover actual documented expenses only upon a showing of clear and convincing proof.”
Dotson v. Gaidos, 736 S.W.2d 119 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103(e) — 1 case
Winter v. Smith, 914 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Since he did not have the required license, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-103 (c) limited his recovery from Ms.”
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.