Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-26-105 (2026)
Priority of registered instruments
✓ current as of May 2026
Any instruments first registered or noted for registration shall have preference over one of earlier date, but noted for registration afterwards; unless it is proved in a court of equity, according to the rules of the court, that the party claiming under the subsequent instrument had full notice of the previous instrument.
Code 1858, § 2074 (deriv. Acts 1831, ch. 90, § 6; 1841-1842, ch. 12, §2); Shan., § 3751; Code 1932, § 7667; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 64-2605.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: ABN AMRO Mortg. Grp., Inc. v. S. Sec. Fed. Credit Union, 372 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
ABN AMRO Mortg. Grp., Inc. v. S. Sec. Fed. Credit Union, 372 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “2008) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-26-105 ). In this case, the notice exception is not applicable; consequently, the First Deed of Trust, in favor of ABN, has priority over the Second Deed of Trust in favor of Southern Security because the First Deed of Trust was recorded first.”
Milledgeville United Methodist Church v. Jimmy G. Melton, 388 S.W.3d 280 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-26-105. Therefore, under Tennessee’s race notice statute, a first-filed instrument has preference over a later-filed document, even one that was executed first.”
Watson v. Watson, 658 S.W.2d 132 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “The sole issue involves the applicability and operation of T.C.A. § 66-26-105 which governs priority among registered instruments.”
Ats, Inc. v. Kent, 27 S.W.3d 923 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “…the court, that the party claiming under the subsequent instrument had full notice of the previous, instrument. *925 Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-26-105 (1993).”
Wilhite Pure Oil Truck Stop, Inc. v. McCutchen (In Re McCutchen), 115 B.R. 126 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1990). “[See, T.C.A. §§ 66-26-105] (b) The lessee is authorized to pay the assignor until the lessee receives notification that rents due or to become due have been assigned and that payment is to be made to the assignee.”
Durham v. Montgomery (In Re Durham), 33 B.R. 23 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1983). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-26-105 (1980) (Priority of registered instruments).”
Guffey v. Creutzinger, 984 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). “Guffey asserts that by virtue of T.C.A. § 66-26-105 (1993) (first registered instrument has preference over later registered instrument) and the above statute, his judgment lien has priority over the bank’s deed of trust.”
Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. ORNL Fed. Credit Union, 300 S.W.3d 665 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-26-105 . In this case, the notice exception is not applicable.”
Bank of Am. v. Greene, 465 B.R. 789 (E.D. Tenn. 2012). “Thus, § 66-26-105 sets forth the priority of instruments as follows: Any instruments first registered or noted for registration shall have preference over one of earlier date, but noted for registration afterwards; unless it is proved in a court of equity, according to the rules…”
Gregg v. Link, 774 S.W.2d 174 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “She therefore contends that T.C.A. § 66-26-105 is controlling and her deed, as first recorded, should be given preference.”
In re Total Care, Inc., 102 B.R. 646 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1989). “15 Discussion In Tennessee, the law governing priority of registered instruments is outlined in T.C.A. § 66-26-105, which states in pertinent part: 66-26-105.”
The Est. of Clint Wallace v. NewRez, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022). “Through this interpretation, the race-notice recording system instituted in Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-26-105 and general principles controlling conveyances of real property are upheld concurrently with the statutory distribution of insolvent estate assets found in 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.