A judicial proceeding where the accuracy of the public offering statement or validity of any contract of purchase is in issue and a rescission of the contract or damages is sought must be commenced within four (4) years after the date of the contract of purchase, notwithstanding that the purchaser's terms of payments may extend beyond the period of limitation. However, with respect to the enforcement of provisions in the contract of purchase which require the continued furnishing of services and the reciprocal payments to be made by the purchaser, the period of bringing a judicial proceeding will continue for a period of four (4) years for each breach, but the parties may agree to reduce the period of limitation to not less than two (2) years.
Acts 1981, ch. 372, § 20; T.C.A., § 64-3220.
Notes of Decisions
Bauer v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2021).
· cites it 5× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-32-119 . The legislative choice to name this provision “Statute of Limitations” does not change the nature of the provision as a statute of repose, as Plaintiffs claim [Doc.”
Allen v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2021).
· cites it 5× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-32-119 . The legislative choice to name this provision “Statute of Limitations” does not change the nature of the provision as a statute of repose, as Plaintiffs claim [Doc.”
Barbu v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 2021).
· cites it 3× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-32-119 . No Tennessee state court has addressed the issue, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has construed § 66-32-119 as a statute of repose to which “tolling theories of equitable estoppel, fraudulent concealment,…”
Hamm v. Wyndham Resort Dev. Corp. (M.D. Tenn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “They acknowledge that the TTSA incorporates a four-year statute of limitations, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-32-119 , which would not bar claims arising from misrepresentations made in May 2015, but they claim that any TTSA claims arising from prior alleged misrepresentations would…”
Bauer v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (TV1) (M.D. Fla. 2021).
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-32-119 . The legislative choice to name this provision “Statute of Limitations” does not change the nature of the provision as a statute of repose, as Plaintiffs claim [Doc.”
Allen v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (TV1) (M.D. Fla. 2021).
“Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-32-119 . The legislative choice to name this provision “Statute of Limitations” does not change the nature of the provision as a statute of repose, as Plaintiffs claim [Doc.”
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.