Tennessee House Bill HB1798

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 2/2/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Chaptered: 4/27/26
• Passed: 4/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 21, Part 9, relative to fees for services rendered.

Impact

The impact of HB1798 on state laws primarily revolves around the procedural aspects of how garnishments are handled within the state. By changing the classification of garnishments, the bill simplifies the fee collection process and reflects a more modern approach to administrative procedures. This amendment seeks to enhance the efficiency of the garnishment process, ensuring public officials can secure their fees upfront, which could potentially reduce administrative disputes related to fee payments and service completion.

Summary

House Bill 1798 amends the Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically Title 8, Chapter 21, Part 9, concerning fees for services rendered in relation to garnishments. The bill clarifies that all garnishments are to be treated as original garnishments, allowing the sheriff or any authorized person to collect a fee as stipulated in the law for each garnishment served. The legislation ensures that these fees may be demanded in advance prior to the performance of the service, which aims to streamline the process and clarify the financial obligations associated with service of garnishments.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB1798 appears to be neutral to positive, with an emphasis on clarity and efficiency in the enforcement of garnishments. Proponents of the bill view it as a necessary reform that provides clear guidance both for public officials and individuals dealing with garnishments. However, potential criticisms may arise from stakeholders concerned about the implications of advance payments and how this may affect individuals facing garnishment proceedings.

Contention

A notable point of contention may stem from the requirement for advance fee payments for garnishment services. Critics could argue that this stipulation places an additional burden on individuals who are already facing financial difficulties. While the bill aims to create a more streamlined process for service providers, it is essential that consideration is given to how these procedural changes impact those subjected to garnishments, ensuring that it does not create an undue hardship on vulnerable populations.