Penalties for Violations of Municipal Ordinance

Penalties- Generally

The Tennessee Constitution limits fines to $50 in cases where there is no opportunity for a jury trial. "No fine shall be laid on any citizen of this State that shall exceed fifty dollars, unless it shall be assessed by a jury of his peers, who shall assess the fine at the time they find the fact, if they think the fine should be more than fifty dollars." Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 14. For our traditional city courts, there are no opportunities for a jury trial. Even if the case is appealed to the circuit court as permitted by T.C.A. § 16-18-307, the circuit judge will hear the matter, not a jury.

For municipal courts with concurrent general sessions jurisdiction, if those offenses are being heard as state criminal offenses, those fines can exceed $50 because the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. Even though general sessions courts do not have trials and cannot impanel a jury, T.C.A. § 40-35-301(b) provides that for a criminal fine exceeding $50, a jury can assess the fine, or the defendant can waive certain rights including a jury trial.

The defendant may waive the right to have a jury fix the fine and agree that the court fix it, in which case the court may lawfully fix the fine at any amount that the jury could have. If a plea agreement imposing a fine in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00) and the defendant's written waiver of the constitutional right to have a jury fix the fine are accepted by the court, the court may pronounce sentence, including the fine, without a jury.
T.C.A. § 40-35-301(b).

Additionally, if a criminal defendant has a bench trial at the general sessions court, but does not like the result, the defendant has the right to appeal to a circuit court and can demand a jury trial under T.C.A. § 27-3-131.

A fine for a municipal ordinance violation may not exceed $50 unless the fine is "remedial." See City of Chattanooga v. Davis and Barrett v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 54 S.W. 3rd. 248 (Tenn. 2001). Examples of fines that are remedial include those that recover administrative expenses, disgorge ill-gotten gains, provide restitution, or are prospectively coercive. Home rule municipalities may recover actual administrative expenses incurred to enforce ordinances that prohibit false threats or hoaxes involving biological weapons, destructive devices, or weapons of mass destruction. T.C.A. § 6-54-306.

It is questionable whether any municipal court in Tennessee may impose jail sentences for municipal ordinance violations. The only exception may be the willful non-payment of a fine for an ordinance violation. An indigent person may not be jailed simply for non-payment of penalties. See, Tenn.Op.Atty.Gen 06-135 (8/21/06), 2006 WL 2929088; T.C.A. § 40-24-104; Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 28 L.Ed. 2d 130 (1971)(equal protection discussion relative to nonpayment of a fine).

T.C.A. § 29-9-108 makes failure to appear without just cause a contempt of court offense punishable by a $10 fine and up to five days imprisonment. However, this statute applies only to municipal courts with a metropolitan form of government, general sessions courts that also hear violations of municipal ordinances, and city courts that exercise jurisdiction over certain environmental cases in cities in Shelby County. In the latter instance, the defendant also may be punished for contempt of court for failure to correct a violation of the municipal code relating to health, housing, fire, or building and zoning codes.

$50 per day fines for property maintenance code violations and other continuing violations

For violations of a city's property maintenance codes (Title 13 in the MTAS Sample Code) a judge can impose a fine of $50 per day for each day the violation continues. There are two cases that support this, Town of Nolensville v. King, 151 S.W.3d 427 (2004) and City of Johnson City v. Paduch, 224 S.W.3d 686, 687 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

However, please ensure that your city's code includes the "Violations and Penalties" provision that grants the authority for the per day fine. This provision is found in Title 13, Chapter 1, Section 13-107 of the MTAS Sample Code. It reads, "13-107. Violations and penalty. Violations of this chapter shall subject the offender to a penalty under the general penalty provision of this code. Each day a violation is allowed to continue shall constitute a separate offense."

In many of these property maintenance cases, the primary goal is the clean up and compliance. Many judges have success by assessing the per day fine but allow the property owner to correct the violation before the next follow up court date, and if the violation is resolved, the judge will dismiss the fines.

Additionally, the $50 per day fine can apply to other types of continuing violations like sign ordinances or similar per day violations. Be sure to check your city's code first to ensure authority to implement a per day fine structure.

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.