Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-310 (2026)

Extinguishment of cause of action

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

A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under this part is extinguished unless action is brought:

Acts 2003, ch. 42, § 1.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Givler v. Givler, 964 S.W.2d 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Givler v. Givler, 964 S.W.2d 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “The complaint seeks the appointment of a receiver and alleges that Wife is entitled to the remedies set forth in T.C.A. §§ 66-3-310 and 66-3-312. 5 Our review of the record does not persuade us that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that Wife failed to…”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen, 584 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. Tenn. 1984). · cites it 2× “The Court notes that the fraudulent scheme of which Roe and Allen were a part included obtaining extensions and renewals of credit by false pretenses and false representations other than respecting their financial condition. In addition, Allen and Roe made or contributed to the…”
Paris v. Walker (In re Walker), 566 B.R. 503 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2017). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-310 . If the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, then the limitations period is extended to one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.”
Brown v. Riley (In Re Omni Mech. Contractors, Inc.), 114 B.R. 518 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990). · cites it 3× “The trustee, pursuant to § 66-3-310, is entitled to have the stock repurchase set aside to the extent necessary to satisfy his claim against Riley.”
Finn v. All. Bank, 838 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “Codified Laws § 54 -8A-9 (2004); Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-3-310 (2004); Tex. Bus.”
Crocker v. Ryan, 914 S.W.2d 551 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-3-310 gives the court the power to set aside the conveyance.”
Lindsey v. Collier (M.D. Tenn. 2021). · cites it 7× “Lindsey’s Allegations Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 8 and 9(b) Defendants first argue that the Court should dismiss Lindsey’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Complaint’s allegations are conclusory and fail to state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 8.”
Lindsey v. Collier (M.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 5× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-310 (1). This is known as the “discovery rule.”
John Preston Thompson (6th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-310 . Where a party alleges that the transfer or obligation was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor, the action must be brought “within four (4) years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later,…”
Allied Bus. Brokers, Inc. v. Abed Amro - Memorandum Opinion (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The Amros moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated § 66-3-310. In October 2007, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Allied setting aside the conveyance as fraudulent.”
XL Sports, LTD. v. $1,060.000 Plus Interest Traceable to RES, & Jerry Lawler (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-310 (1). It appears that XL, as the debtor in possession, can only assert a § 544(b) Gindt claim insofar as it steps into the shoes of the “rightful owner.”
Guy G. Bigger, Jr. v. Anthony I. Fields, Guy M. Fields, Patrick E. Smith (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “These holdings were in accord with Tennessee Code Annotated section 66-3-310, as it existed at the time of the purported transfer in this case and provided: Remedies of creditor on matured debt.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-3-310(1): 2 cases
Brown v. Riley (In Re Omni Mech. Contractors, Inc.), 114 B.R. 518 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1990). “The trustee, pursuant to § 66-3-310, is entitled to have the stock repurchase set aside to the extent necessary to satisfy his claim against Riley.”
Lindsey v. Collier (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “Lindsey’s Allegations Satisfy the Requirements of Rule 8 and 9(b) Defendants first argue that the Court should dismiss Lindsey’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Complaint’s allegations are conclusory and fail to state a plausible claim for relief under Rule 8.”
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.