Tennessee court vacates a records-inspection win against an HOA
Tennessee court vacates a records-inspection win against an HOA
2026-09-19 · Tennessee · Courts
Owners who won a records-inspection judgment against their Tennessee association had it vacated on appeal, not because they were wrong on the merits but because the trial court never addressed the association's defences. LaMothe v. Deer Hill Village Homeowners' Association, Inc., No. E2024-00465-COA-R3-CV, was filed on May 21, 2025 by an Eastern Section panel on appeal from the Chancery Court for Campbell County.1
Records disputes look like the simplest category of association litigation. This decision is a reminder that the statute they run under carries preconditions, and that those preconditions are litigable.
What happened
The owners applied to inspect corporate records under the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act at section 48-66-102 and following. The Chancery Court granted them summary judgment. The association appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.
The reasoning is about what the order did not say:
“The HOA made specific arguments regarding why it believed these requirements were not met, i.e., that the demand was not in good faith and that the records had already been provided. The Order also fails to address the HOA's argument that discovery is warranted prior to adjudication of the motion. The Order does not address these arguments, and this substantially hampers our ability to review the Chancery Court's decision on appeal. Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate the Chancery Court's Order and remand for the Chancery Court to make specific findings as to the contested issues.”
The preconditions that were in dispute
Section 48-66-102(c) does not give a member an unqualified right to inspect on demand. It attaches conditions: the demand must be made in good faith and for a proper purpose, the member must describe the purpose and the records sought with reasonable particularity, and the records must be directly connected to the stated purpose.
The association argued two of those were unmet and added a third point — that it should have had discovery before the motion was decided. None of the three was resolved in the order under review. A summary judgment order that does not state the grounds for its ruling leaves an appellate court without the record it needs, and that is what produced the vacatur.
Which statute applies depends on what the community is
Tennessee does not have one records regime, and the one that governs turns on the entity and the community type. That is the background against which LaMothe should be read.
The Nonprofit Corporation Act provisions at sections 48-66-101 to 48-66-103 give members of a nonprofit corporation inspection rights subject to the conditions described above. Most Tennessee homeowners' associations are nonprofit corporations, so those sections are the default route for a single-family subdivision.
Condominiums have their own provisions. Section 66-27-417 of the Condominium Act of 2008 governs an association's records, and section 66-27-113 of the older Horizontal Property Act addresses access to the administrator's books for pre-2009 buildings. Section 66-27-202 applies the 2008 Act's recordkeeping provision back onto pre-2009 condominiums for post-2009 events.
An association organised as a limited liability company rather than a nonprofit corporation falls under a third statute again. The practical consequence for an owner is that the first question in a Tennessee records dispute is not what the association is withholding but which act the community sits under.
Why the vacatur is not a defeat on the merits
Nothing in the opinion holds that the demand was made in bad faith, that the records had in fact already been supplied, or that discovery was required. The court held that the association was entitled to have those arguments decided and the grounds stated.
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04 requires a trial court granting summary judgment to state the legal grounds for its ruling before it enters the order. That requirement exists to make appellate review possible, and an order that omits it is vulnerable regardless of which party it favoured.
The effect on an owner's timeline is real even though the merits are untouched: a vacatur returns the matter to the trial court for findings, which is delay measured in months.
A metadata discrepancy in the record
The administrative index of Tennessee appellate opinions, and the third-party databases that mirror it, list the authoring judge in this case as Chief Judge D. Michael Swiney. Reporting that examined the opinion itself records that it was delivered and signed by Judge Kristi M. Davis, with Chief Judge Swiney and Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II on the panel.
We were not able to open the opinion document directly to resolve the conflict — the court's own site refuses automated requests — so we are recording the discrepancy rather than choosing between the two. The docket number, filing date, court and disposition are consistent across every source we checked.
What to watch next
The case returned to the Chancery Court for specific findings, so its outcome between these parties is not established by the appellate decision.
We were not able to confirm whether an application for permission to appeal was filed under Rule 11, and the decision should not be treated as final for that purpose without checking.
No bill amending owner records or inspection rights — under the Nonprofit Corporation Act, the Condominium Act, or otherwise — was introduced in the 114th General Assembly in either of its sessions. The assembly adjourned on April 23, 2026, and the 115th convenes in January 2027.
Related Tennessee HOA Topics
Stay on top of Tennessee HOA law
Every week: new Tennessee legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.