Steven Chess v. Wade Burt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/2/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100838 Steven Chess v. Wade Burt Appeal from C h i l t o n C i r c u i t (CV-10-900024) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Steven Chess appeals f r o m an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e summary- j u d g m e n t m o t i o n o f Wade B u r t . 1 We r e v e r s e a n d remand. C h e s s a l s o p u r p o r t s t o a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s summary-judgment m o t i o n . "However, s u b j e c t t o e x c e p t i o n s n o t h e r e a p p l i c a b l e , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s do n o t r e v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f 1 2100838 F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On M a r c h 17, 2008, R i c h a r d A. Grammer ("Richard") a n d S. D i a n e Grammer ( " D i a n e " ) m o r t g a g e d a p a r c e l o f r e a l p r o p e r t y i n Chilton County ("the p r o p e r t y " ) t o P e a c h t r e e Bank t o s e c u r e t h e payment o f a p r o m i s s o r y n o t e i n the p r i n c i p a l amount o f $ 2 1 4 , 3 8 7 . 6 3 . On J a n u a r y 28, F e b r u a r y 4, a n d F e b r u a r y 11, 2010, P e a c h t r e e Bank p u b l i s h e d a n o t i c e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y w o u l d be s o l d a t a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on F e b r u a r y 18, On F e b r u a r y "Assignment 16, 2010, D i a n e executed 2010. a document titled o f S t a t u t o r y R i g h t o f Redemption from F o r e c l o s u r e " ("the F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t " ) . I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t stated: "This Assignment of Statutory Right of R e d e m p t i o n f r o m F o r e c l o s u r e ... i s made a n d e n t e r e d i n t o b y a n d b e t w e e n [ D i a n e ] a n d [ C h e s s ] on t h i s t h e 1 6 t h d a y o f FEBRUARY, 2010. "RECITALS "WHEREAS, [ D i a n e ] owns [the p r o p e r t y ] ; and "WHEREAS, [ t h e p r o p e r t y ] i s e n c u m b e r e d b y a m o r t g a g e a n d i s now s u b j e c t t o f o r e c l o s u r e , a n d [Diane] d e s i r e s t o a s s i g n t h e i r [sic] statutory r i g h t o f redemption t o [Chess]. a summary-judgment m o t i o n . " Buco B l d g . C o n s t r u c t o r s , I n c . v . Mayer E l e c . S u p p l y Co., [Ms. 2090573, Dec. 10, 2010] So. 3d. , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . 2 2100838 "NOW, THEREFORE, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f Ten D o l l a r s ($10.00) and o t h e r good and v a l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n hand p a i d t o [Diane] by [Chess], [ D i a n e ] does h e r e b y g r a n t , b a r g a i n , s e l l , a s s i g n , t r a n s f e r and s e t o v e r u n t o [Chess] a l l o f [Diane's] r i g h t o f redemption from f o r e c l o s u r e o f t h a t c e r t a i n mortgage e x e c u t e d by RICHARD GRAMMER AND S. DIANE GRAMMER t o PEACHTREE BANK on t h e 17 day o f MARCH, 2008 ... t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l o t h e r r i g h t , t i t l e and i n t e r e s t o f [ D i a n e ] i n and t o t h e p r o p e r t y (Capitalization i n original; emphasis added.) On F e b r u a r y 18, 2010, P e a c h t r e e Bank h e l d sale. Burt, foreclosure who b i d $300,000, was the highest s a l e , and t h e a u c t i o n e e r deed c o n v e y i n g t h e p r o p e r t y February Diane's 2010, the property r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y 1975. 2 2 foreclosure seeking that, was t o redeem t h e by v i r t u e o f the a transferee and, t h e r e f o r e , of had a u n d e r § 6 - 5 - 2 4 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . Code C h e s s ' s c o m p l a i n t f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he h a d demanded Section is alleged a s s i g n m e n t , Chess r i g h t t o redeem a t the to Burt. Chess's complaint 16, foreclosure bidder executed a On M a r c h 17, 2010, C h e s s s u e d B u r t , property. a 6-5-248(a)(5) provides: "(a) Where r e a l e s t a t e , o r any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , s o l d t h e same may be redeemed b y : "(5) Any transferee of 3 the interests of the 2100838 t h a t B u r t p r o v i d e him w i t h a w r i t t e n statement of the charges t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t B u r t h a d f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d t o that demand w i t h i n alleged a that Burt's f a i l u r e written statement property within to 10 d a y s . tender property forfeiture Chess's complaint t o r e s p o n d t o C h e s s ' s demand f o r the lawful charges to redeem he of filed the amount required h i s complaint and to had redeem effected the a o f B u r t ' s r i g h t t o c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r any p e r m a n e n t i m p r o v e m e n t s made t o t h e p r o p e r t y s i n c e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e sale. debtor or mortgagor, e i t h e r before or a f t e r the s a l e . A t r a n s f e r o f any k i n d made b y t h e d e b t o r o r mortgagor will accomplish a transfer of the i n t e r e s t s of that party." 3 the 10 d a y s h a d r e l i e v e d C h e s s o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n payment when of In a d d i t i o n , Section 6-5-252, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "Anyone d e s i r i n g and e n t i t l e d t o redeem may make w r i t t e n demand o f t h e p u r c h a s e r o r h i s o r h e r t r a n s f e r e e s f o r a statement i n w r i t i n g of the debt and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s c l a i m e d b y h i m o r h e r , and s u c h p u r c h a s e r o r t h e i r t r a n s f e r e e s s h a l l , w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r s u c h w r i t t e n demand, f u r n i s h s u c h pe r s o n m a k i n g t h e demand w i t h a w r i t t e n , i t e m i z e d s t a t e m e n t o f a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s c l a i m e d b y h i m o r h e r . The r e d e e m i n g p a r t y must t h e n t e n d e r a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s to the purchaser or h i s or her t r a n s f e r e e . I f the purchaser or h i s or her transferee f a i l s to f u r n i s h a w r i t t e n , i t e m i z e d statement of a l l l a w f u l charges w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r demand, he o r she s h a l l f o r f e i t all claims or right to compensation for ^ , , ^ 1 - , T,,,-;-!--!-^^ - p , , , , ^ - ; ^ ! - , 4 ^ , , ^ 1 - , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3 2100838 Answering, the Burt denied property, with denied that Burt a w r i t t e n statement after Burt provided t h a t C h e s s had of r e c e i v e d Chess's charges demand, w i t h i n 10 averred l a w f u l charges On responded to w i t h i n the time S e p t e m b e r 8, 2010, a l l e g e t h a t B u r t was of that days Burt had averred not w r i t t e n statement Chess w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r B u r t r e c e i v e d C h e s s ' s demand, and had a lawful to provide charges Chess with failed lawful that Chess had a r i g h t t o redeem t h a t w r i t t e n statement a l l o w e d by A l a b a m a law. C h e s s amended h i s c o m p l a i n t (1) t o c l a i m i n g t h a t c e r t a i n charges c o n s t i t u t e d improvements to the compensation as a c o n d i t i o n of t h a t B u r t was not e n t i t l e d t o compensation f o r those On of property December 13, 2010, d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t he was f o r which he redemption was and entitled (2) to to claim charges. C h e s s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t e n t i t l e d t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y f o r a t o t a l o f $300,783.76, w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f t h e $300,000 B u r t had paid and to recording purchase fees the and property property at the taxes foreclosure sale Burt had paid. Chess i m p r o v e m e n t s , and t h e p a r t y so e n t i t l e d t o redeem may, on t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e 10 d a y s , f i l e h i s o r her complaint without a tender to enforce h i s or her r i g h t s u n d e r t h i s a r t i c l e and f i l e a l i s p e n d e n s w i t h the probate c o u r t . " 5 2100838 a s s e r t e d t h a t Burt had f o r f e i t e d h i s r i g h t t o compensation f o r any permanent foreclosure statement improvements s a l e by f a i l i n g of lawful charges made t o t h e p r o p e r t y since the t o p r o v i d e Chess w i t h a w r i t t e n w i t h i n 10 d a y s after Burt had r e c e i v e d C h e s s ' s demand f o r s u c h a s t a t e m e n t . Chess supported h i s summary-judgment m o t i o n w i t h h i s a f f i d a v i t a n d an e x c e r p t from B u r t ' s d e p o s i t i o n . Chess's a f f i d a v i t s t a t e d : " I am t h e P l a i n t i f f , S t e v e n C h e s s , i n t h e above s t y l e d case. T h i s matter i s a redemption o f r e a l e s t a t e . I have p u r c h a s e d a n d o b t a i n e d t h e r i g h t o f redemption from former owner D i a n e Grammer. I e m a i l e d t o Wade B u r t on M a r c h 2 a n d h a n d - d e l i v e r e d t o h i s home ( a c c e p t e d b y a l a d y t h a t a n s w e r e d t h e d o o r ) t h e demand f o r l a w f u l c h a r g e s . F u r t h e r , I s e n t by c e r t i f i e d mailed [ s i c ] a demand f o r l a w f u l c h a r g e s t o Wade B u r t w h i c h was s i g n e d f o r on M a r c h 3, 2 0 1 0 . 4 " I d i d n o t r e c e i v e a r e s p o n s e u n t i l M a r c h 18 w h i c h i s more t h a n 10 d a y s a f t e r my d e l i v e r y . " I n d e p o s i t i o n Mr. B u r t s t a t e s t h a t he went t o a t t o r n e y B i l l Latham t o prepare a response, and then was s e n t t o a t t o r n e y J a c k s o n a n d he s i g n e d a l e t t e r and l e f t . He d i d n o t know when t h e l e t t e r was mailed. Attached hereto as E x h i b i t ' A ' t o my a f f i d a v i t i s t h e e n v e l o p e w h i c h was r e c e i v e d b y me on M a r c h 18. "The purpose o f t h i s a f f i d a v i t The certified-mail receipt s e c r e t a r y s i g n e d f o r Chess's l e t t e r t h a n M a r c h 3, 2010. 4 6 i s to establish indicates that Burt's on M a r c h 2, 2010, r a t h e r 2100838 t h a t I d i d n o t r e c e i v e a r e s p o n s e t o my demand f o r l a w f u l c h a r g e s i n t e n ( 1 0 ) d a y s as p r o v i d e d b y l a w . " In the support excerpt of Chess's receive a l e t t e r lived alone, from Burt's motion, Burt deposition testified submitted that in he d i d n o t f r o m C h e s s a t h i s h o u s e a n d t h a t , b e c a u s e he there was no one a t h i s h o u s e who could have accepted Chess's l e t t e r i n h i s absence. Burt f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s s e c r e t a r y had s i g n e d f o r a l e t t e r f r o m C h e s s t h a t was d e l i v e r e d t o B u r t ' s b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s , t h a t he t o o k t h e l e t t e r t o an a t t o r n e y , and t h a t letter responding t o Chess testified that the attorney t o Chess's sometime a f t e r saw C h e s s a t a r e s t a u r a n t p r e p a r e d and m a i l e d letter. he r e c e i v e d Burt a further Chess's l e t t e r he a n d a s k e d h i m i f he w o u l d s e l l h i s r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y t o B u r t . The e x c e r p t from Burt's d e p o s i t i o n does n o t c o n t a i n any t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g t h e d a t e when B u r t r e c e i v e d Chess's l e t t e r from h i s s e c r e t a r y . On J a n u a r y 10, 2 0 1 1 , B u r t amended h i s answer t o a s s e r t as a d e f e n s e t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t was because Diane's s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of redemption d i d not e x i s t until t h e m o r t g a g e was f o r e c l o s e d on F e b r u a r y days after the Diane had executed assignment. 7 invalid 18, 2010, two February 16, 2010, 2100838 On to January 14, 2011, Burt f i l e d a pleading i n opposition C h e s s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n i n w h i c h he he h a d asserted that r e s p o n d e d t o C h e s s ' s demand f o r a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s on M a r c h 10, 2010, and t h a t a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t e d r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r C h e s s had redeem t h e On a right property. January 18, 2011, the trial court held a hearing r e g a r d i n g C h e s s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n ; h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t d i d not On r u l e on t h e m o t i o n a t t h a t February 7, 2011, Burt filed trial time. a counterclaim against Chess. I n h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m , B u r t ( 1 ) a l l e g e d t h a t R i c h a r d a s s i g n e d h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y t o B u r t A p r i l 22, 2010 for Burt's with ("the paying determining Along to that his A p r i l 22, him Burt 2010, $50,000 was entitled counterclaim, Burt amount o f $376,679.02 made p a y a b l e On A p r i l 5, 2011, and had on a s s i g n m e n t " ) i n exchange (2) to sought a redeem t h e tendered a judgment property. check in the to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s c l e r k . B u r t moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o b o t h C h e s s ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t h i m and h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t C h e s s . F i r s t , B u r t a s s e r t e d t h a t he was summary judgment with respect 8 to Chess's e n t i t l e d to a claim seeking 2100838 redemption of the p r o p e r t y because, B u r t s a i d , Chess d i d not have a r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y . T h i s was Burt, because the February effectively convey Diane's property Chess to because 16, 2010, so, a c c o r d i n g t o assignment she had not redeem the i t before statutory right did the to executed f o r e c l o s u r e had a c t u a t e d h e r s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n February 18, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t was not asserted he that and because supported was by entitled Burt statement of said, the he had lawful February 16, Burt to with a summary redemption provided charges within judgment of the Chess r e c e i v e d C h e s s ' s demand f o r s u c h a s t a t e m e n t with 10 property a written days after redeem t h e redemption entitled property filed necessary h i s complaint seeking o f t h e p r o p e r t y . T h i r d , B u r t a s s e r t e d t h a t he to a summary seeking redemption did when he judgment with he and C h e s s d i d n o t have a v a l i d e x c u s e f o r f a i l i n g t o t e n d e r t h e amount to 2010, c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Second, respect to Chess's c l a i m seeking because, the on respect to his was claim o f t h e p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e , he s a i d , ( 1 ) C h e s s n o t have a r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y and ( 2 ) B u r t d i d have a r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y by v i r t u e o f t h e A p r i l 2010, assignment and had tendered 9 the amount necessary 22, to 2100838 redeem t h e p r o p e r t y when he f i l e d h i s counterclaim seeking redemption of the p r o p e r t y . On April 28, 2011, Chess moved f o r leave to f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t a c c o m p a n i e d b y a p r o p o s e d amended c o m p l a i n t . In h i s proposed amended c o m p l a i n t , Chess ( 1 ) alleged that D i a n e h a d e x e c u t e d a s e c o n d a s s i g n m e n t o f h e r r i g h t t o redeem the p r o p e r t y t o h i m on May assignment"), the 14, 2010 ("the May 14, 2010, a n d ( 2 ) c l a i m e d t h a t he h a d a r i g h t t o redeem p r o p e r t y b a s e d on t h e May 14, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t . The r e c o r d does not i n d i c a t e whether the t r i a l court ruled on that motion. Also on counterclaim April with a 28, general summary-judgment m o t i o n . judgment m o t i o n , Chess of redemption 2011, Chess denial and I n t h e supplement conceded d i d not e x i s t answered Burt's supplemented his t o h i s summary- that Diane's s t a t u t o r y right on F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, when she e x e c u t e d t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t ; h o w e v e r , he a r g u e d that, because t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t Diane a s s i g n e d t o Chess her statutory "together with a l l other r i g h t , t i t l e right of stated that redemption and i n t e r e s t o f [ D i a n e ] i n a n d t o t h e p r o p e r t y , " t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t h a d 10 2100838 conveyed Diane's February 16, foreclosure equity 2010, of redemption, t o Chess. on F e b r u a r y He 18, 2010, which further did exist argued that on the (1) had e x t i n g u i s h e d the e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n he h a d a c q u i r e d f r o m D i a n e b y v i r t u e o f the F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t and (2) had a c t u a t e d the s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n t o w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d as t h e t r a n s f e r e e of Diane's e q u i t y of redemption. On May Burt's 6, 2 0 1 1 , C h e s s f i l e d summary-judgment m o t i o n a pleading i n opposition to i n w h i c h he i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e a r g u m e n t s he h a d made i n s u p p o r t o f h i s own summary-judgment motion. On May Chess's that 11, 2 0 1 1 , B u r t motion Chess f o r leave had f a i l e d amendment. Also opposition to motion on i n which Burt a pleading i n opposition to t o amend h i s c o m p l a i n t , t o show May Chess's filed 11, good cause 2011, supplement argued that Burt to asserting f o r a l l o w i n g the filed his a brief in summary-judgment the February 16, 2010, assignment had not conveyed e i t h e r Diane's s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f redemption or her e q u i t y of redemption t o Chess. On May 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g B u r t ' s judgment m o t i o n . 11 12, summary- 2100838 On May 17, 2011, Chess filed a pleading i n which r e i t e r a t e d h i s argument t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, he assignment h a d c o n v e y e d D i a n e ' s e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n t o C h e s s . On May 18, 2011, Chess moved t o s t r i k e B u r t ' s amended a n s w e r , w h i c h B u r t had f i l e d on J a n u a r y 10, 2 0 1 1 . The i n d i c a t e t h a t the t r i a l r e c o r d on a p p e a l does not c o u r t r u l e d on t h a t m o t i o n . On M a r c h 20, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d o r d e r s d e n y i n g C h e s s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n and g r a n t i n g B u r t ' s judgment motion without s t a t i n g summary- i t s r a t i o n a l e . Chess timely a p p e a l e d t o t h e supreme c o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o this c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. S t a n d a r d of Review "We r e v i e w a summary judgment de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary judgment establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " 12 2100838 I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 2000)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t R e a l E s t a t e Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). Analysis The first issue we must resolve e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment i s whether Burt w i t h r e s p e c t t o Chess's was claim s e e k i n g t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y b a s e d on h i s argument t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t d i d n o t c o n v e y a r i g h t t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y t o C h e s s . B u r t a r g u e d t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, assignment d i d not convey Chess a right f o r two r e a s o n s . F i r s t , 2010, t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y to he a r g u e d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t p u r p o r t e d t o a s s i g n t o Chess only Diane's statutory right of redemption, which d i d not e x i s t b e f o r e t h e f o r e c l o s u r e and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t conveyed n o t h i n g t o Chess. Second, Burt a r g u e d t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t was n o t a v a l i d conveyance because, he said, 13 i t was not supported by 2100838 consideration. B u r t was Thus, i n order to resolve issue whether e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d on h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, to the redeem the property assignment d i d not convey a r i g h t to Chess, we must resolve subissues: (1) w h e t h e r t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e F e b r u a r y 16, assignment was property 2010, sufficient t o Chess and a s s i g n m e n t was With respect Diane's assignment; February a right s u p p o r t e d by of to 2010, redeem the the February ( 2 ) , i f so, whether right 2010, 16, consideration. subissue, Chess redemption did concedes not that exist when she e x e c u t e d t h e F e b r u a r y 16, however, 16, convey to the f i r s t statutory F e b r u a r y 16, to 2010, he argues assignment two that was the broad language enough to on 2010, of the convey D i a n e ' s e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n , w h i c h d i d e x i s t on F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, t o him. Specifically, he argues t h a t the language of t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t n o t o n l y p u r p o r t e d t o a s s i g n him Diane's s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of redemption but a l s o " a l l o t h e r right, t i t l e and i n t e r e s t o f [ D i a n e ] i n and t o t h e property," w h i c h he s a y s was b r o a d enough t o encompass D i a n e ' s e q u i t y o f redemption. February 18, He 2010, further argues extinguished 14 that the the e q u i t y foreclosure on of redemption he 2100838 had acquired assignment which from Diane but actuated he was e n t i t l e d redemption under b y means o f t h e F e b r u a r y 16, 2010, the s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of redemption t o as a t r a n s f e r e e 6-5-248(a). We of Diane's equity of agree. "Alabama c l a s s i f i e s i t s e l f as a ' t i t l e ' s t a t e w i t h r e g a r d t o mortgages. E x e c u t i o n o f a mortgage p a s s e s l e g a l t i t l e t o t h e m o r t g a g e e . The m o r t g a g o r i s l e f t w i t h an e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n , b u t upon payment o f t h e d e b t , l e g a l t i t l e r e v e s t s i n t h e m o r t g a g o r . The e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n may be c o n v e y e d by t h e m o r t g a g o r , a n d h i s g r a n t e e s e c u r e s o n l y an e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n . The payment o f a m o r t g a g e d e b t by t h e p u r c h a s e r o f t h e e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n i n v e s t s s u c h p u r c h a s e r w i t h t h e l e g a l t i t l e . The e q u i t y o f redemption i n e i t h e r case, however, i s e x t i n g u i s h e d by a v a l i d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e , a n d t h e m o r t g a g o r o r h i s vendee i s l e f t o n l y w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f redemption." T r a u n e r v. L o w r e y , 369 So. 2d 5 3 1 , 534 ( A l a . 1979) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ; emphasis added). Upon R i c h a r d a n d D i a n e ' s e x e c u t i o n conveyed legal title to the property o f t h e mortgage, they t o P e a c h t r e e Bank and r e t a i n e d an e q u i t y o f r e d e m p t i o n . See T r a u n e r v. L o w r e y . "The e q u i t y of redemption and may be sold i s a valuable or transferred interest, a legal to another." estate McGowan v. W i l l i a m s , 241 A l a . 588, 590, 4 So. 2d 164, 166 ( 1 9 4 1 ) . S e c t i o n 6-5-248(a)(5) the debtor provides t h a t " [ a ] t r a n s f e r o f any k i n d made b y or mortgagor will accomplish a t r a n s f e r of the 15 2100838 i n t e r e s t s of t h a t p a r t y . " Given interest (1) i n the that Diane's property foreclosure and (2) transfer any kind" of (Emphasis added.) equity that that § by of could was an conveyed before be redemption the 6-5-248(a) the provides mortgagor "will t r a n s f e r o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h a t p a r t y , " we l a n g u a g e i n t h e F e b r u a r y 16, assigned to Chess redemption but [Diane] in also and to not 2010, only the "[a] accomplish conclude that a the assignment s t a t i n g t h a t i t Diane's " a l l other that right, property" was statutory title and right of i n t e r e s t of sufficient to convey Diane's e q u i t y of redemption to Chess. S e c t i o n 6-5-248(a)(5) p r o v i d e s t o redeem p r o p e r t y include "[a]ny t h a t has transferee t h a t the persons entitled been s o l d a t a f o r e c l o s u r e of the i n t e r e s t s of the sale debtor or m o r t g a g o r , e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e s a l e . " (Emphasis added.) M o r e o v e r , § 6-5-248(b) p r o v i d e s enumerated i n s u b d i v i s i o n s the right year that, from of redemption the i f the date of consideration, C h e s s was (a)(1) through granted the F e b r u a r y 16, that " [ a ] l l by this p e r s o n s named o r ( a ) ( 7 ) may article sale." Accordingly, 2010, a s s i g n m e n t was a transferee 16 of exercise within we conclude supported Diane's one equity by of 2100838 r e d e m p t i o n u n d e r § 6 - 5 - 2 4 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) by v i r t u e o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2010, of a s s i g n m e n t and redemption exercise t h a t , as a t r a n s f e r e e before the foreclosure, a statutory right r e d e m p t i o n was he was equity entitled to r e d e m p t i o n when h i s e q u i t y of extinguished of Diane's 16, of upon f o r e c l o s u r e on February 18, i . e . , whether the 2010. With respect F e b r u a r y 16, to 2010, the a s s i g n m e n t was C h e s s a r g u e s t h a t i t was recited "Ten that the Dollars second subissue, f o r Diane's e x e c u t i n g and other c o n s i d e r a t i o n . " Under Alabama law, is sufficient consideration Diane's e q u i t y of 357, t h a t r e c i t a t i o n o f one as consideration support the we conclude s u p p o r t e d by to 232 support So. the See, 2d 601, 605 sufficient February 16, the was valuable conveyance e.g., (1970) Taylor of v. (holding consideration consideration deeds). 2010, i t consideration d o l l a r and o t h e r v a l u a b l e f o r d e e d s was the and that recited c o n v e y a n c e s e f f e c t e d by that good redemption to Chess. J o n e s , 285 A l a . 353, consideration, s u p p o r t e d by c o n s i d e r a t i o n b e c a u s e i t consideration ($10.00) s u p p o r t e d by to Accordingly, assignment was consideration. Having determined t h a t the 17 language of the February 16, 2100838 2010, a s s i g n m e n t was redemption February to 16, consideration, sufficient Chess 2010, we before the conveyance conclude to convey Diane's e q u i t y foreclosure was that and supported Burt was to the sufficient entitled summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d on h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e 2010, that by not of to February a s s i g n m e n t d i d n o t c o n v e y a r i g h t t o redeem t h e a 16, property Chess. The next issue we must resolve is whether e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h respect seeking b a s e d on redemption of the property Burt to Chess's Burt's was claim argument t h a t C h e s s f a i l e d t o t e n d e r t h e amount n e c e s s a r y t o redeem t h e property when he filed his complaint seeking t h i s c o u r t p o i n t e d o u t i n S k e l t o n v. J&G, 931 ( A l a . C i v . App. LLC, redemption. 922 So. 2d 2005): " S e c t i o n 6 - 5 - 2 5 3 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] p r o v i d e s , in pertinent part, that '[a]nyone e n t i t l e d and d e s i r i n g t o redeem r e a l e s t a t e u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s a r t i c l e must a l s o pay o r t e n d e r t o the p u r c h a s e r or h i s or her t r a n s f e r e e the purchase p r i c e p a i d a t t h e s a l e , ... and a l l o t h e r l a w f u l charges.' '[I]n order to redeem under the [ r e d e m p t i o n ] s t a t u t e [ s ] [ , § 6-5-247 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975] one must e i t h e r a v e r a payment o r t e n d e r o f a l l t h e amounts r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e , o r show a v a l i d e x c u s e f o r f a i l u r e t o do s o . ' Moore v. H o r t o n , 491 So. 2d 921, 923 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . "Section 6-5-256, A l a . Code 1975, 18 provides: As 926, 2100838 "'Upon t h e f i l i n g o f any c o m p l a i n t as p r o v i d e d i n t h e s e s e c t i o n s and p a y i n g i n t o c o u r t t h e amount o f p u r c h a s e money a n d t h e i n t e r e s t n e c e s s a r y f o r r e d e m p t i o n and a l l l a w f u l charges, i f the w r i t t e n statement thereof has been f u r n i s h e d or, i f not f u r n i s h e d , o f f e r i n g t o pay such debt o r p u r c h a s e p r i c e and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s , t h e circuit court shall take jurisdiction thereof and s e t t l e and a d j u s t a l l the r i g h t s a n d e q u i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s , as provided i n t h i s a r t i c l e . ' " ( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . ) However, " [ u ] n d e r t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 6-5-252 a n d § 6-5-256, [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] i t i s c l e a r t h a t a r e d e m p t i o n e r i s e x c u s e d f r o m t e n d e r a t t h e t i m e he f i l e s t h e c o m p l a i n t t o redeem where he h a s t i m e l y furnished the purchaser with a demand for a s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s a n d t h e 10-day s t a t u t o r y period f o r response has expired without the purchaser f u r n i s h i n g the redemptioner the statement o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s . Our supreme c o u r t h a s so h e l d i n S h e a l y v. G o l d e n , 897 So. 2d 268 ( A l a . 2004) (as m o d i f i e d on d e n i a l o f r e h e a r i n g ) , a n d P u r c e l l v. S m i t h , 388 So. 2d 525 ( A l a . 1980) ( b o t h r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t , upon t i m e l y demand made b y t h e r e d e m p t i o n e r , the purchaser's f a i l u r e to timely f u r n i s h the redemptioner w i t h the statement of l a w f u l charges e x c u s e s t e n d e r and f o r f e i t s t h e p u r c h a s e r ' s r i g h t t o payment f o r improvements); see a l s o Harris v. Bradford, 245 A l a . 434, 17 So. 2d 145 (1944) ( f a i l u r e of the purchaser t o f u r n i s h the statement o f d e b t a n d l a w f u l c h a r g e s upon demand made b y t h e redemptioner relieves the redemptioner of the n e c e s s i t y o f m a k i n g t e n d e r o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e and l a w f u l c h a r g e s as a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f an a c t i o n t o e x e r c i s e t h e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f r e d e m p t i o n ) ; Lee v. Macon C o u n t y Bank, 233 A l a . 522, 172 So. 662 (1937) ( t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e purchaser to timely f u r n i s h the redemptioner, w i t h i n 19 2100838 10 d a y s a f t e r s u c h w r i t t e n demand i s made on t h e purchaser, a w r i t t e n i t e m i z e d statement of the debt and l a w f u l c h a r g e s c l a i m e d b y t h e p u r c h a s e r a n d r e q u i r e d f o r redemption r e s u l t s i n the purchaser's f o r f e i t i n g a l l c l a i m s or r i g h t t o compensation f o r improvements; a l s o the redemptioner i s e n t i t l e d t o file a bill t o enforce the s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of redemption w i t h o u t a t e n d e r by s i m p l y o f f e r i n g t o pay p u r c h a s e r ' s debt and a l l l a w f u l c h a r g e s ) . " S k e l t o n v. J&G, L L C , 922 So. 2d a t 932 Thus, required filed i n order to resolve t o t e n d e r payment (footnote omitted). the issue whether for a l l lawful Chess charges when was he h i s c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g r e d e m p t i o n , we must r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e whether B u r t p r o v i d e d Chess w i t h a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l charges w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r demand. " [ I ] n P u r c e l l v. S m i t h , 388 So. 2d [525] a t 528 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ] , o u r supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t when a r e d e m p t i o n e r m a i l s t h e demand f o r l a w f u l c h a r g e s , ' [ t ] h e t e n - d a y p e r i o d [ u n d e r § 6-5-252] f o r r e s p o n s e by t h e p u r c h a s e r must b e g i n t o r u n f r o m a c t u a l r e c e i p t b y t h e p u r c h a s e r o f t h e demand. ' I n so h o l d i n g , o u r supreme c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t where e i t h e r t h e r e d e m p t i o n e r o r t h e p u r c h a s e r r e l i e s on t h e v a g a r i e s o f modern m a i l d e l i v e r y t o f u r n i s h t h e o t h e r p a r t y w i t h t h e demand o r t h e s t a t e m e n t o f lawful charges, that reliance cannot a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t i m p o r t a n t r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t y t o whom t h e demand o r t h e s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s i s s e n t . P u r c e l l v. S m i t h , 388 So. 2d a t 528. I f t h e v a g a r i e s o f t h e m a i l d e l i v e r y a f f e c t an i m p o r t a n t r i g h t o f e i t h e r p a r t y , i t must a f f e c t t h e r i g h t o f t h e p a r t y who i s r e l y i n g on t h e m a i l f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 6-5-252. P u r c e l l v. S m i t h , 388 So. 2d a t 528. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n P u r c e l l o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : 20 2100838 "'[A] demand f o r a s t a t e m e n t o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s , s e n t b y m a i l , i s deemed made when r e c e i v e d b y t h e p u r c h a s e r . The b u r d e n o f c o m p l i a n c e r e s t s upon t h e r e d e m p t i o n e r a n d any d e l a y i n t h e m a k i n g o f t h e demand must, s i m i l a r l y , a f f e c t h i s r i g h t r a t h e r than t h a t o f t h e p u r c h a s e r upon whom t h e demand i s made. S i n c e t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f i m p o r t a n t r i g h t s depends upon t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f a r e s p o n s e , t h e p u r c h a s e r c a n n o t be p e n a l i z e d by t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s o f t h e m a i l s a n d t h e b u r d e n r e s t s on t h e r e d e m p t i o n e r t o make a w r i t t e n demand, b y w h a t e v e r mode, w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y t i m e l i m i t . Of c o u r s e , t h e p u r c h a s e r may n o t i n t e n t i o n a l l y d e f e a t t h e p r i v i l e g e t o redeem. See Hudson v. M o r t o n , 231 A l a . 392, 165 So. 227 ( 1 9 3 6 ) . ' " P u r c e l l v. S m i t h , 388 So.2d a t 528-29." S k e l t o n v . J&G, L L C , 922 So. 2d a t 933 (emphasis added). T h u s , t h e 10-day p e r i o d f o r B u r t t o p r o v i d e C h e s s w i t h a w r i t t e n statement Burt actually statement o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s b e g a n r u n n i n g on t h e d a t e r e c e i v e d Chess's letter demanding a written o f l a w f u l c h a r g e s . C h e s s ' s a f f i d a v i t s t a t e d t h a t he hand d e l i v e r e d a copy o f h i s l e t t e r t o B u r t ' s house and l e f t it Burt with deposition a lady there; t h a t he l i v e d however, testified in his a l o n e a n d t h a t t h e r e was no one a t h i s h o u s e who c o u l d have a c c e p t e d t h e l e t t e r i n h i s absence. Moreover, Chess d i d n o t submit indicating Burt himself actually any e v i d e n c e received the l e t t e r 21 Chess that allegedly 2100838 delivered to a lady Chess's a f f i d a v i t letter that to Burt, Burt record March 2, receipt Burt's Likewise, although C h e s s d i d n o t s u b m i t any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g received that copy of the l e t t e r . The a c e r t i f i e d - m a i l r e c e i p t i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on 2010, B u r t ' s secretary signed f o r a copy o f Chess's l e t t e r business that address by c e r t i f i e d the c e r t i f i e d - m a i l Chess had s e n t t o The r e c o r d also evidence i n d i c a t i n g that Burt a c t u a l l y received contains that copy of the l e t t e r does not i n d i c a t e secretary. mail. from h i s s e c r e t a r y ; however, the date when B u r t received the record i t from h i s C o n s e q u e n t l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material fact e x i s t s regarding received Chess's lawful house. s t a t e d t h a t he h a d e - m a i l e d a c o p y o f h i s actually contains at Burt's letter t h e d a t e when B u r t demanding a written actually statement of charges. Thus, fact exists regarding t h e d a t e when B u r t a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d C h e s s ' s letter demanding a written issue because of material a genuine issue statement fact exists of material of lawful charges, regarding whether a genuine Chess was r e q u i r e d t o t e n d e r t h e amount n e c e s s a r y t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y when he f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g 22 redemption. Accordingly, 2100838 B u r t was not entitled t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t Chess's c l a i m s e e k i n g redemption C h e s s was b a s e d on B u r t ' s argument t h a t n o t e n t i t l e d t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e he f a i l e d to tender t h e amount n e c e s s a r y when he f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t to t o redeem t h e seeking redemption. had property Therefore, we r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B u r t w i t h r e s p e c t t o Chess's c l a i m s e e k i n g The next entitled to issue a redemption. we summary must resolve judgment c o u n t e r c l a i m seeking redemption t h a t B u r t was 5 is with If respect Burt was to his o f t h e p r o p e r t y . Chess argues n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to B u r t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m seeking redemption he was whether e n t i t l e d t o redeem t h e C h e s s , who b e c a u s e , Chess s a y s , property. sought redemption before Burt, i s e n t i t l e d to redeem t h e p r o p e r t y , B u r t w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o redeem it u n d e r § 6 - 5 - 2 4 8 ( d ) . S e c t i o n 6-5-248(d) p r o v i d e s : "(d) When any debtor, mortgagor, their transferees, their r e s p e c t i v e spouses, children, h e i r s , o r d e v i s e e s redeem, a l l r e c o r d e d j u d g m e n t s , We n o t e t h a t , b e c a u s e , as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r C h e s s was r e q u i r e d t o t e n d e r t h e amount n e c e s s a r y t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y when he f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g r e d e m p t i o n t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d C h e s s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n . 5 23 2100838 r e c o r d e d mortgages, and r e c o r d e d l i e n s i n e x i s t e n c e at the time of the s a l e , are r e v i v e d a g a i n s t the r e a l e s t a t e redeemed a n d a g a i n s t t h e r e d e e m i n g p a r t y and f u r t h e r r e d e m p t i o n b y some p a r t y o t h e r t h a n t h e mortgagor or debtor under this article is precluded." (Emphasis added.) The Chess, plain who language o f § 6-5-248(d) indicates i s a t r a n s f e r e e of a mortgagor, that, i f i s entitled to redeem t h e p r o p e r t y , B u r t w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y because B u r t i s a t r a n s f e r e e of a mortgagor than a mortgagor or debtor redeem after Accordingly, a transferee because o n l y a mortgagor o r debtor can of (1) B u r t rather a mortgagor i s not e n t i t l e d has redeemed. t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y i f Chess i s e n t i t l e d t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y a n d ( 2 ) , as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , r e g a r d i n g whether a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t Chess i s entitled t o redeem the property, B u r t was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment d e t e r m i n i n g he i s entitled Therefore, with t o redeem we r e v e r s e respect the property. See t h e summary judgment to h i s counterclaim seeking exists § that 6-5-248(d). i n favor of Burt redemption of the property. Conclusion In summary, we reverse the order 24 of the t r i a l court 2100838 granting cause Burt's summary-judgment f o r further proceedings Our r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s above pretermits motion, a n d we consistent with this a p p e a l b a s e d on t h e i s s u e s discussion of the other remand t h e issues opinion. discussed r a i s e d by Chess. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 25 Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.