Tennessee House Bill HB2282

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/24
• Refer: 2/1/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 28, relative to limitations of actions.

Impact

The introduction of HB2282 will have significant implications for legal actions involving incapacitated individuals in Tennessee. Specifically, it addresses the intersection of fiduciary duties and the law concerning limitations on filing suits. By requiring action to be taken within the statutory time frame, it seeks to prevent indefinite delays that can result from incapacity claims. This change aims to balance the rights of incapacitated individuals to seek redress while also protecting against unfounded claims that could emerge after lengthy periods of time.

Summary

House Bill 2282 aims to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, particularly focusing on the limitations of actions regarding how suits can be filed on behalf of individuals who lack capacity. The primary provision includes a stipulation that those with a court-ordered fiduciary responsibility or valid power of attorney must commence legal actions within the relevant statute of limitations. This new subsection underlines the importance of timely legal actions and the need for clear evidentiary standards if the individual was unaware of the cause for action due to the person's incapacity.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB2282 appears to be generally positive among its sponsors and proponents, who argue that it enhances accountability for fiduciaries and ensures that valid claims are brought forward in a timely manner. Conversely, there may be concerns among advocacy groups representing the interests of incapacitated individuals, who could view some requirements as potentially burdensome or difficult to navigate. Overall, the support for the bill suggests an intent to foster responsible advocacy on behalf of those unable to represent themselves.

Contention

While HB2282 is intended to streamline the process of filing actions on behalf of incapacitated individuals, it raises several points of contention. Critics may argue that the necessity for clear and convincing evidence of an individual’s knowledge of a cause of action may create barriers for valid claims. This requirement could inadvertently disadvantage vulnerable populations who already face challenges in legal contexts. The balance between protecting the rights of incapacitated individuals and ensuring efficient legal processes will likely be a central theme during discussions around this bill.