Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (2026)
Attacks on sale of land - Rights of purchaser
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) Any person who buys real estate sold for delinquent taxes that were a lien thereon, and who shall for any cause fail to get a good title or to recover possession of the realty, shall be subrogated to all liens that secured the taxes, and all interest, costs, penalties and fees; and such person shall have the right to enforce the same in chancery for the reimbursement of the purchase money paid by such person and interest thereon.
- (2) The chancery court shall have jurisdiction, in such case, though the amount sued for be less than fifty dollars ($50.00).
- (b) A tax deed of conveyance or an order confirming the sale shall be an assurance of perfect title to the purchaser of such land, and no such conveyance shall be invalidated in any court, except by proof that the land was not liable to sale for taxes, or that the taxes for which the land was sold have been paid before the sale or that there was substantial noncompliance with mandatory statutory provisions relating to the proceedings in which the parcel was sold; and if any part of the taxes for which the land was sold is illegal or not chargeable against it, but a part is chargeable, that shall not affect the sale, nor invalidate the conveyance thereunder, unless it appears that before the sale the amount legally chargeable against the land was paid or tendered to the county trustee, and no other objection either in form or substance to the sale or the title thereunder shall avail in any controversy involving them. An action seeking to invalidate any tax title to a parcel shall allege specific facts establishing the grounds set out herein and proof of compliance with subsection (c) prior to the filing of the complaint.
- (c) No suit shall be commenced in any court of the state to invalidate or declare void any tax title to land until the party suing shall have paid or tendered to the clerk of the court where the suit is brought the amount of the bid and all taxes subsequently accrued, with interest and charges as provided in this part.
- (d)
- (1) A suit to invalidate any tax title to land shall be commenced within one (1) year from the date the cause of action accrued, which is the date of the entry of the order confirming the tax sale.
- (2) The statute of limitations to invalidate the sale of any tax title shall be one (1) year as set forth in subdivision (d)(1), except that it may be extended to one (1) year after the plaintiff discovered or with the exercise of reasonable due diligence should have discovered the existence of such cause of action.
- (3) In no event shall any action to invalidate any tax sale title be brought more than three (3) years after the entry of the order confirming the tax sale.
- (4) This subsection (d) shall not be construed to prevent or delay issuance of an order quieting title to a tax sale parcel in favor of the purchaser. After entry of an order confirming the sale of a parcel, the purchaser may file suit to quiet title, notwithstanding the deadline for tax sale challenges provided in this subsection (d), or the redemption period provided in part 27 of this chapter. Any order quieting title to a tax sale parcel entered before the expiration of the redemption period shall specify that the purchaser's title to the parcel remains subject to any such remaining redemption period.
- (5) Nothing in this subsection (d) shall limit the time in which a motion for excess proceeds may be filed pursuant to § 67-5-2702.
- (e) In all cases where the state is not the holder of the legal title to the property bought by it at a tax sale for delinquent state and county taxes, any person desiring to attack the validity of such tax sale may do so by making only the holder of the legal or equitable title thereto and those persons claiming through such holder who are parties to such suit, and it shall not be necessary to make the state a party thereto.
- (f) Any person successfully challenging the validity of a tax sale of the person's interest in a parcel shall also be responsible to the person purchasing the property at the tax sale and the purchaser's successors in interest, for any increase in the value of the parcel, including any improvements thereto, from the date of the entry of the order confirming the sale until the entry of a court order declaring the tax sale invalid as to the challenger. In the alternative, the challenger shall be responsible to the person purchasing the property at the tax sale and the purchaser's successors in interest, for all amounts expended by the purchaser or the purchaser's successors as set out in § 67-5-2701(b) and (e), if such amount is in excess of the increased value of the parcel. The purchaser and successors shall have a lien upon the parcel to secure the payment of the amount determined by the court to be due.
- (g) An order confirming the sale of a parcel is voidable and may be voided by the court after a determination of the merits of the grounds for the action as set out in this chapter and any defenses raised.
- (h) For the purposes of this chapter, a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other or successor rule of similar effect, challenging the validity of a tax sale and any independent action for a similar purpose, shall be considered an action to invalidate the sale of a tax title.
- (i)
- (1) An interested person may file an action to challenge a tax title or the instrument conveying such title if the delinquent tax attorney fails to make a diligent effort to give actual notice of the proceeding to the interested person in accordance with § 67-5-2502(c)(3).
- (2) Any challenge to a tax title based on lack of notice to an interested party, including any action seeking to declare a title or the instrument conveying such title void ab initio, shall be considered an action to invalidate the sale of a tax title and such action is subject to the provisions of parts 18-28 of this chapter applying to actions to invalidate the sale of a tax title, including the required tender of payment before commencement of a suit in accordance with subsection (c).
- (3) This subsection (i) is intended to be procedural and remedial in application and is made applicable retroactively to the extent allowed by law.
- (j) This section does not presuppose a valid vestiture of title in the purchaser at the tax sale.
Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 967,s 7, eff. 5/21/2024.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 299, Secs.s 11, s 12 eff. 7/1/2017.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 299, s 10, eff. 7/1/2017.
Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 414, s 13, Sec.s 14, s 15 eff. 5/8/2015.
Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 883, s 11, eff. 7/1/2014.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 353, s 20, eff. 5/13/2013.
Acts 1907, ch. 602, §§ 64, 75; Shan., §§ 913a45-913a47, 913a61; mod. Code 1932, §§ 1609-1611, 1613; Acts 1949, ch. 56, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 1608.1 (Williams, § 1610.1); modified; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 67-2022 -- 67-2026; Acts 2008 , ch. 606, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Carlton J. Ditto, 488 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2015).
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Carlton J. Ditto, 488 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c) (2011) (emphasis added).”
Bullington v. Greene Cnty., 88 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “The court below dismissed the plaintiffs suit, finding that he was not entitled to actual notice and that the deposit made by the plaintiff into the registry of the court did not satisfy the requirements of T.C.A. § 67-5-2504(c). Plaintiff appeals.”
Morrow v. Bobbitt, 943 S.W.2d 384 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “Hill argues generally that T.C.A. § 67-5-2504 limits attacks on tax deeds to instances where (1) the land was not hable to sale for taxes, or (2) the taxes for which the land was sold had been paid prior to sale.”
Pinnacle Towers Acquisition, LLC v. Boris Penchion, 523 S.W.3d 673 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017). “Pinnacle contends, however, that the Property was separately assessed as two distinct tax parcels following the grant of a perpetual easement to Pinnacle in 2006, pursuant to the terms of the Easement Agreement.”
Sunburst Bank v. Patterson, 971 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “They argue, that several statutes, when read together, make it clear that they should have been awarded attorney’s fees after invalidation of the tax sale, citing Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 67-5-2504(a)(1), 67-5-2501(a)(3), and 67-5-2506(a)(3).”
Watson v. Waters, 694 S.W.2d 524 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “The Appellee contends that, since the Plaintiff admits taxes were due for the year 1977 and had not been paid, under the provisions of T.C.A. § 67-5-2504 he is prohibited from attacking the validity of the sale.”
Crockett Cnty. v. Farhad Motamedi v. Michael Moore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “Motamedi] did not use reasonable diligence to determine whether a lawsuit had been filed against him to collect delinquent taxes on the [Property], and thus declines to extend the statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (d)(2). For the same reasons, the…”
State of Tennessee v. 1998 Deliquent Taxpayers (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “In that order, the trial court agreed with the state that this was not a redemption case, but it nonetheless found that under another provision of the code – Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (a)(1) (2003) – the purchasers were entitled to relief.”
Andrea Scott v. Carlton J. Ditto (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “DINKINS, JUDGE 8 In the first appeal, this Court held: Ditto argues that Scott’s lawsuit is barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c), which provides that “[n]o suit shall be commenced in any court of the state to invalidate any tax title to land until the party suing shall have…”
State of Tennessee v. Deliquent Taxpayers, as shown on the 2003 real Prop. Deliquent tax records for Shelby Cnty. Tr. Home Funds Direct, A California Corp./Delinquent Taxpayers v. William Garrett (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “He relies upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-2504, which provides, in part: (b) A tax deed of conveyance shall be an assurance of perfect title to the purchaser of such land, and no such conveyance shall be invalidated in any court, except by proof that the land was not…”
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Carlton J. Ditto (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c). The parties agree that MERS did not tender the appropriate funds; however, MERS asserted at the hearing that it remained willing and able to tender the funds if directed to by the trial court.”
Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Phillip W. Vandergriff (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (b) (Supp. 2015) (“A tax deed of conveyance or an order confirming the sale shall be an assurance of perfect title to the purchaser of such land.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(a) — 1 case
Andrea Scott v. Carlton J. Ditto (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “DINKINS, JUDGE 8 In the first appeal, this Court held: Ditto argues that Scott’s lawsuit is barred by Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c), which provides that “[n]o suit shall be commenced in any court of the state to invalidate any tax title to land until the party suing shall have…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(a)(1) — 1 case
Sunburst Bank v. Patterson, 971 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “They argue, that several statutes, when read together, make it clear that they should have been awarded attorney’s fees after invalidation of the tax sale, citing Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 67-5-2504(a)(1), 67-5-2501(a)(3), and 67-5-2506(a)(3).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(b) — 3 cases
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Carlton J. Ditto, 488 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c) (2011) (emphasis added).”
Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Phillip W. Vandergriff (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (b) (Supp. 2015) (“A tax deed of conveyance or an order confirming the sale shall be an assurance of perfect title to the purchaser of such land.”
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Bradley Cnty. v. 's Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(c) — 7 cases
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Carlton J. Ditto, 488 S.W.3d 265 (Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c) (2011) (emphasis added).”
Bullington v. Greene Cnty., 88 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “The court below dismissed the plaintiffs suit, finding that he was not entitled to actual notice and that the deposit made by the plaintiff into the registry of the court did not satisfy the requirements of T.C.A. § 67-5-2504(c). Plaintiff appeals.”
Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc. v. Carlton J. Ditto (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (c). The parties agree that MERS did not tender the appropriate funds; however, MERS asserted at the hearing that it remained willing and able to tender the funds if directed to by the trial court.”
Sharon L. Allen v. Anderson Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
Andrea Scott v. Carlton J. Ditto (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(d) — 4 cases
Bullington v. Greene Cnty., 88 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “The court below dismissed the plaintiffs suit, finding that he was not entitled to actual notice and that the deposit made by the plaintiff into the registry of the court did not satisfy the requirements of T.C.A. § 67-5-2504(c). Plaintiff appeals.”
Crockett Cnty. v. Farhad Motamedi v. Michael Moore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “Motamedi] did not use reasonable diligence to determine whether a lawsuit had been filed against him to collect delinquent taxes on the [Property], and thus declines to extend the statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (d)(2). For the same reasons, the…”
John Kinder v. Wendell Bryant (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).
Sharon L. Allen v. Anderson Cnty., Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(d)(1) — 1 case
Crockett Cnty. v. Farhad Motamedi v. Michael Moore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “Motamedi] did not use reasonable diligence to determine whether a lawsuit had been filed against him to collect delinquent taxes on the [Property], and thus declines to extend the statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (d)(2). For the same reasons, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(d)(2) — 1 case
Crockett Cnty. v. Farhad Motamedi v. Michael Moore (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “Motamedi] did not use reasonable diligence to determine whether a lawsuit had been filed against him to collect delinquent taxes on the [Property], and thus declines to extend the statute of limitations contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504 (d)(2). For the same reasons, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-2504(e) — 1 case
Bullington v. Greene Cnty., 88 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “The court below dismissed the plaintiffs suit, finding that he was not entitled to actual notice and that the deposit made by the plaintiff into the registry of the court did not satisfy the requirements of T.C.A. § 67-5-2504(c). Plaintiff appeals.”
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.