Rule 69.Execution on Judgments
Last amended July 1, 2004 · Last verified July 2, 2026
Full Text of Rule 69
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments [2006].
The only change in Rule 69.07(2) is to drop the final word in the original paragraph, "lien." The court's order granted pursuant to Rule 69.04 extends the judgment, not the judgment lien. The lien is extended by registering that order.
Advisory Commission Comments [2016].
Rule 69.04 is revised to clarify that a judgment creditor must file a motion to extend a judgment, and that it is the motion which provides the judgment debtor notice and an opportunity to object. This revision eliminates the prior procedure of issuance of a show cause order by the court. The requirement that notice is to the judgment debtor's last known address remains unchanged as the revision provides that the motion shall be mailed to the judgment debtor's last known address. The revision replaces past practice of a show cause hearing. The revised procedure, subsequent to the filing of a motion by the judgment creditor, is the alternative of: (1) no hearing if the judgment debtor files no response to the motion in 30 days and the extension shall be automatically granted; or (2) if the judgment debtor files a response to the motion in 30 days, the extension is not automatically granted which provides each party an opportunity to set a hearing. If a hearing is convened, it is at that point that the revision maintains prior practice of placing the burden on the judgment debtor to show why the judgment should not be extended for an additional ten years. The Commission notes that, in most judicial districts, counsel for the judgment creditor will submit a proposed order to the trial court, unless otherwise directed by the court or by local rule.
The extension procedure set out in Rule 69.04 allows the judgment creditor to avoid having the judgment become unenforceable by operation of Section 28-3-110(a)(2), Tennessee Code Annotated. That section provides that an action on a judgment "shall be commenced within ten (10) years after the cause of action accrued." The Commission notes, however, that Section 28-3-110 was amended effective July 1,2014 to essentially exempt a narrow class of cases from the ten-year statute of limitation imposed by subsection (a)(2). See 2014 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 596. The 2014 amendment added new subsections (b) and (c) to the statute. Subsection (b)(1) provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), there is no time within which a judgment or decree of a court of record entered on or after July 1, 2014, must be acted upon in the following circumstances:
(A) The judgment is for the injury or death of a person that resulted from the judgment debtor's criminal conduct; and
(B) The judgment debtor is convicted of a criminal offense for the conduct that resulted in the injury or death; or
(C) The civil judgment is originally an order of restitution converted to a civil judgment pursuant to § 40-35-304. And subsection (c) of the amended statute goes on to provide that, for any still-valid judgment awarded prior to July 1, 2014 and meeting the criteria set out in subsection (b)(1), the ten-year statute of limitation imposed by subsection (a) is tolled if the judgment creditor complies with various procedural requirements. The Commission merely points out these changes to section 28-3-110 for the benefit of any litigant or attorney involved in a case falling within subsection (b) or (c).
Amendment History
- As amended by order entered January 29, 1987, effective August 1, 1987.
- and by order entered December 10, 2003 effective July 1, 2004.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 69.01 sets the rule’s reach: it governs execution and garnishment against both personal and real property, tangible and intangible, to satisfy a judgment from any Tennessee court, and it lets a circuit court judgment reach equitable interests without a separate chancery court proceeding to enforce it. Rule 69.02 removes any required sequence — a judgment creditor does not have to exhaust personal property before moving against real property. Rule 69.03 allows discovery in aid of execution using the ordinary discovery rules, except for a physical or mental examination under Rule 35, which does not fit the post-judgment context.
Rule 69.04 addresses a judgment’s limited shelf life: a judgment ordinarily becomes unenforceable ten years after entry, but a creditor whose judgment remains unsatisfied can file a motion to extend it for another ten years. The creditor mails the motion to the debtor’s last known address, and if the debtor does not respond within 30 days, the extension is granted automatically, without a hearing. A response shifts the burden to the debtor to show why the judgment should not be extended, and the same extension procedure can repeat for additional ten-year periods as long as the judgment stays unsatisfied.
Rule 69.05 sets out garnishment procedure in detail: a garnishee holding the debtor’s property has to answer the writ and account to the court, and by the next business day after service has to determine whether it holds anything belonging to the debtor and mail notice if so. A garnishee has ten days to file a written answer and 30 days to pay over money or wages, net of statutory exemptions; for a financial institution, the amount subject to the writ is fixed by the account balance on the night of service. A garnishee who misses these deadlines faces a conditional judgment and a show-cause order, and failing to respond within ten days of that order turns the conditional judgment final, exposing the garnishee to a writ of execution for the entire debt.
Rule 69.06 governs execution on personal property: a levy takes effect once the sheriff exercises control over the debtor’s property, and priority among competing judgment creditors runs to whichever creditor first delivered a writ of execution to the sheriff, as shown in the clerk’s records. Sale happens by auction, advertised at least ten days ahead unless the property is perishable, with proceeds applied first to the sheriff’s fees and expenses, then court costs, then the judgment, with any remainder returned to the debtor. Rule 69.07 governs execution on real property through a parallel but more elaborate structure: a lien lis pendens tied to the pending lawsuit itself, a judgment lien created by recording a certified copy of the judgment in the county where the property sits, and a sale process requiring three published notices over at least three weeks and direct mailed notice to the debtor and every other interested party at least 20 days out. A bona fide purchaser at the sale takes free of notice defects, and the sale wipes out junior liens. Once a judgment is satisfied, the debtor can demand a termination statement clearing the lien from the record, and a creditor who ignores that demand for ten days owes the debtor a $100 penalty plus any resulting loss.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does a Tennessee judgment remain enforceable?
Ordinarily ten years from entry. Rule 69.04 lets a creditor extend an unsatisfied judgment for another ten years by motion, with the extension granted automatically if the debtor does not respond within 30 days, and the process can repeat for further ten-year periods.
What happens if a garnishee ignores a writ of garnishment?
Rule 69.05 lets a conditional judgment be entered against a non-responsive garnishee, along with an order to show cause. If the garnishee still does not respond within ten days, the conditional judgment becomes final and a writ of execution can issue against the garnishee for the entire debt.
Does a judgment creditor have to go after personal property before real property?
No. Rule 69.02 removes any required order, letting a creditor pursue execution against real property without first exhausting personal property.
How is priority decided when multiple creditors try to collect from the same property?
Rules 69.06 and 69.07 give priority to whichever judgment creditor first delivered a writ of execution to the sheriff, as reflected in the clerk’s records, for both personal and real property.
Advisory Commission Comments [2004].
Rule 69 is rewritten in its entirety. The intent is to consolidate procedures established by statute, court precedent, and custom into a single orderly rule. New Rule 69 does not radically change current law.