Fines and other remedies
Fines - Punitive
The Tennessee Constitution provides that no fine shall exceed $50 unless it is assessed by a jury. See, Article VI, Section 14, Constitution of the State of Tennessee. Municipal courts do not have statutory authority to hold jury trials. The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional limitation on fines applies to penalties for municipal ordinance violations, which are punitive in nature rather than remedial. City of Chattanooga v. Davis and Barrett v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001). It has been recommended that all penalties for municipal ordinance violations be limited to $50 pending further direction from the courts. See generally, T.C.A. § 16-18-302(a)(2).
The schedule of fines can be established by the governing body, but most cities leave the amount of the fine, within the limits described above, to the discretion of the city judge.
For certain municipal code violations including property maintenance violations, sign violations, or other violations that recur every day, the city judge does have the authority to levy a $50 per day fine for every day that the violation continues. For example, if a property owner is cited for property maintenance issues such as unkept property, dirty lots, trash, debris, etc., the judge can rule that each day the property is not cleaned up is a separate violation with a separate $50 fine. This is permissible under two cases, Town of Nolensville v. King, 151 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. 2004) and City of Johnson City v. Paduch, 224 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). In these cases, the appellate courts ruled that the daily fine could not exceed $50 but the per day fine was permissible.
Fines - Remedial Expenses
In the City of Chattanooga v. Davis case discussed above, the Supreme Court did allow for remedial fines or remedial expenses to exceed $50 as long as it is not punitive in nature. These remedial expenses are intended to reimburse the city for any expenses incurred for the enforcement of a case.
One example from a few years ago involved a littering case where the police cited a defendant for dumping a refrigerator on the side of the road. He was cited into city court, the judge found the defendant guilty, and was assessed the $50 fine, the court costs, litigation taxes, and the remedial expense of the landfill tipping fee that the city had to pay when it properly disposed of the refrigerator.
Another example involved a city who would use the police department to serve the citations for property maintenance violations. In those cases, most defendants opened the door when the police knocked and received the citation and summons to court. However, a small number of individuals simply would refuse to answer the door, or would run the other way. The police department's policy was not to pursue these individuals because these were not criminal offenses and it would be unwise to escalate a situation like that. What this city did instead would hire a private process server to serve the summons. This would cost the city $150 each time. The city would seek to recover this additional $150 as a remedial expense in addition to any other fines, costs, and litigation taxes.
Remedies for Property Maintenance Violations
New for 2026 - Property maintenance cases in city court and the city's authority to clean up the violation and bill the property owner.
Public Chapter 821 became effective on April 27, 2026, and can be a real tool in the city court's toolbox to address property blight. For the longest time, the city court judge only had the authority to levy fines against a property owner for code violation cases. The city could use other administrative actions to enter and remediate someone else's property like the Slum Clearance Act, but those were never considered judicial actions and were not done through city courts.
Public Chapter 821 added a new section to the Municipal Court Reform Act and became T.C.A. § 16-18-313. To paraphrase, this new statute allows the city court to hear a property maintenance violation like normal, the judge can find the property owner in violation like normal. The new law though allows for the property owner 30 days to remedy the property maintenance violation, but if the property is not cleaned up at the end of the 30 days, the city "may remedy the ordinance violation at a cost in conformity with reasonable standards. The municipality shall not remediate such violations if the cost may negatively impact the municipality's financial position, or if the cost is budgetarily prohibitive." T.C.A. § 16-18-313(a).
In other words, the judge will hear the case, find the property owner in violation, and can still assess the normal fines, costs and taxes. Then, the judge's involvement is essentially over unless there is a new citation.
The new law subsequently allows the city the choice to take action and clean up the property maintenance violation using the city judge's finding that a violation exists. The judge cannot order the city to take action, but rather the city can make a decision whether or not to use the city's resources to clean up the violation based on its budget capabilities.
This is important because it prevents a city judge from ordering the clean up of a dozen properties, but the city has resources to clean up only one or two, and possibly running the risk of the city not complying with a city judge's ruling. With the new statute allowing the city to decide whether to expend its resources to clean up the property, the city can use a city court judgment to determine the costs associated with clean ups.
Lastly, T.C.A. § 16-18-313(b) discusses how the city may seek the recovery of the money spent to do the property clean up. It reads, "(b) The cost of remediation may be assessed against the owner of the property in the form of a lien upon the property in favor of the municipality; however, the municipality is not precluded from seeking recovery of remediation cost through other allowable means under state or local law." T.C.A. § 16-18-313(b).
In other words, the city can place a regular lien on the property, or sue the property owner in a collections lawsuit like any other creditor and take that judgment and garnish any wages or levy any bank accounts to recover the money.
It is important to note though that there is one big difference between this type of lien and the liens in the other property maintenance laws of T.C.A. § 6-54-113 and the Slum Clearance Act, T.C.A. § 13-21-101 et seq. In the property maintenance statutes and the Slum Clearance Act, the costs incurred by the city to remediate the property can be placed as a lien on the property owners city / county property taxes and have a priority second only to any liens of the state and shall be collected in the same manner as property taxes are collected.
In other words, under the property maintenance laws and the Slum Clearance Act, this lien jumps ahead of any other liens from banks, past court judgments, materialmen's liens, etc. Plus, since these liens are on the property tax bill, the property owner must pay these liens in addition to the property taxes at the same time. Otherwise the property will be sold at a tax sale.
Unfortunately for cities, the new T.C.A. § 16-18-313(b) does not allow these liens to be placed on any property tax bills or jump ahead in priority of any other lien. So a city will need to decide which route to take when it comes to cleaning up blighted property.
If a property has no liens on it, it may be wise to use the new T.C.A. § 16-18-313 to allow the case to be heard in city court and the city can take action afterward. City courts are often easier and quicker to hear cases than other administrative actions. The city will need to document all the expenditures incurred to remediate the property, and place the lien on the property.
If a property has numerous existing liens on it, it may be wise to the Slum Clearance Act or property maintenance laws to allow the lien to be placed on the property tax bill and have higher priority.
Regardless, the new T.C.A. § 16-18-313 is a great tool for cities to use to address property maintenance issues.