First United Security Bank and Paty Holdings, LLC v. W. Hardy McCollum, Judge of Probate of Tuscaloosa County, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/30/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2012-2013 2110828 F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and Paty Holdings, LLC v. W. Hardy McCollum, Judge o f Probate o f Tuscaloosa County, e t a l . Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-901031) MOORE, J u d g e . F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank a n d P a t y H o l d i n g s , L L C , a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e T u s c a l o o s a Circuit court") Allen determining that Wayne Court Russell, ("the trial J r . , was 2110828 entitled from to the the sale excess of funds certain r e c e i v e d by property Tuscaloosa owned b y County Russell ("the property") f o r unpaid taxes. Procedural On December 30, 2010, History F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank f i l e d v e r i f i e d c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t W. a Hardy McCollum, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Judge o f P r o b a t e , and P e y t o n C o c h r a n e , i n his Collector, seeking, among o t h e r t h i n g s , a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t i t was entitled to c a p a c i t y as Tuscaloosa County Tax the excess funds Tuscaloosa County r e c e i v e d a t the s a l e of the property for unpaid taxes. The amended t o add R u s s e l l as a d e f e n d a n t as a complaint and P a t y H o l d i n g s , later LLC, plaintiff. The c a s e was submitted to the t r i a l court for a decision upon t h e p a r t i e s ' b r i e f s and t h e f o l l o w i n g j o i n t of was stipulation facts: "1. ... F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank i s a b a n k i n g c o r p o r a t i o n doing b u s i n e s s i n Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. "2. ... Paty Holdings, liability company f o r m e d i n A l a b a m a and i s a w h o l l y owned U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank. 2 LLC Tus sub 2110828 "3. The D e f e n d a n t s , W. H a r d y M c C o l l u m i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Judge o f P r o b a t e a n d Peyton Cochrane i n h i s c a p a c i t y as T u s c a l o o s a County Tax C o l l e c t o r , a r e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , A l a b a m a a n d a r e o v e r t h e age o f n i n e t e e n y e a r s . The D e f e n d a n t Wayne A l l e n R u s s e l l , J r . i s an i n d i v i d u a l o v e r t h e age o f n i n e t e e n y e a r s a n d i s a r e s i d e n t o f T u s c a l o o s a County, Alabama. "4. On o r a b o u t F e b r u a r y 15, 2002, Wayne A l l e n R u s s e l l , J r . ... e x e c u t e d a n o t e a n d m o r t g a g e i n favor of F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank Said m o r t g a g e was r e c o r d e d i n t h e P r o b a t e R e c o r d s o f T u s c a l o o s a County "5. On May 25, 2 0 1 0 , ... c e r t a i n property s u b j e c t t o t h e b a n k ' s m o r t g a g e ( P a r c e l #63-25-09-30¬ 0-001-008.020 a n d P a r c e l #63-25-09-30-0-001-008.014) were s o l d a t a t a x s a l e due t o u n p a i d 2009 p r o p e r t y taxes. "6. ... P a r c e l #63-25-09-30-0-001-008.020 s o l d to a t h i r d p a r t y , Alabama Widespread I n v e s t m e n t s , LLC, f o r t h e amount o f $26,000.00 w h i c h i n c l u d e d an e x c e s s b i d i n t h e amount o f $ 17,833.45. "7. ... P a r c e l #63-25-09-30-0-001-008.014 s o l d to a t h i r d p a r t y , Alabama Widespread I n v e s t m e n t s , LLC, f o r t h e amount o f $ 16,000,00 w h i c h i n c l u d e d an e x c e s s b i d i n t h e amount o f $ 14,471.67. "8. ... F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank a s s i g n e d i t s f o r e c l o s u r e b i d r i g h t s t o ... P a t y H o l d i n g s , L L C . ... P a t y H o l d i n g s , LLC was t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r a t [ a ] f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e [ o n J u l y 8, 2 0 1 0 , ] w i t h a b i d i n the amount o f $2,381,790.00 and recorded a foreclosure deed i n the Office of Probate, T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , A l a b a m a i n Deed Book 2010, Page 11231. The b i d amount equaled t h e amount o f [ R u s s e l l ' s ] i n d e b t e d n e s s t o t h e bank. 3 2110828 "9. ... F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank o b t a i n e d t h e amounts t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y t a x e s on b o t h p a r c e l s good t h r o u g h December 30, 2010. The amount t o redeem P a r c e l #63-25-09-30-0-001-008.020, i n c l u s i v e o f t h e 2010 p r o p e r t y t a x e s due, i s $27,820.50 w i t h i n t e r e s t a c c r u i n g a t t h e r a t e o f $260.00 p e r month, a n d t h e amount t o redeem P a r c e l #63-25-09-30-0-001-008.014, inclusive o f t h e 2010 p r o p e r t y taxes due, i s $17,120.50 w i t h i n t e r e s t a c c r u i n g a t t h e r a t e o f $160.00 p e r month. B o t h r e d e m p t i o n amounts i n c l u d e d the excess b i d s t o t a l i n g $32,305.12. "10. ... W. H a r d y M c C o l l u m as T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Judge o f P r o b a t e and P e y t o n C o c h r a n e as T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Tax C o l l e c t o r i n f o r m e d [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , L L C , ] t h a t [ t h e y ] must p a y t h e e x c e s s b i d s i n o r d e r t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y t a x e s b u t t h a t [ t h e y ] w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o a r e f u n d o f t h e e x c e s s b i d s . I n s t e a d , [ M c C o l l u m and C o c h r a n e ] a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e e x c e s s b i d s t o be p a i d by [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , L L C , ] w i l l be made p a y a b l e t o ... R u s s e l l . ... "11. [First U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and Paty Holdings, LLC,] contend t h a t the excess b i d s should be r e f u n d e d t o them. ... R u s s e l l ... c o n t e n [ d s ] t h a t t h e e x c e s s b i d s s h o u l d be r e f u n d e d t o h i m . ... W. Hardy McCollum and Peyton Cochrane i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e e x c e s s b i d s s h o u l d be r e f u n d e d t o ... R u s s e l l ... and a l s o a s s e r t t h a t Mr. Russell can q u i t claim his interest i n the p r o p e r t i e s a t any t i m e t o T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y and be refunded the excess b i d s . [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , L L C , ] d i s p u t e [ ] t h a t t h i s procedure i s i n accordance w i t h Alabama l a w . " The Holdings, parties LLC, subsequently "the stipulated current owner" of that the Black property, River had p r o p o s e d t o redeem t h e p r o p e r t y and h a d a s s i g n e d any r i g h t s i t 4 2110828 had to the excess funds to F i r s t United S e c u r i t y Bank. The p a r t i e s a l s o s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e e x c e s s t a x - s a l e p r o c e e d s were to be held pending the trial court's determination of the case. On May 25, 2012, the trial court entered a judgment, stating: " 1 . The p r i m a r y i s s u e i n t h i s case i s ... b e t w e e n ... F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and Paty H o l d i n g s , LLC, and ... Wayne A l l e n R u s s e l l , J r . who q u a l i f i e s as t h e 'owner' o r t h e 'person l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g s u c h owner' u n d e r A l a . Code [1975,] S e c t i o n 40-10-28. I n F i r s t U n i o n N a t i o n a l Bank o f F l o r i d a v. Lee C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n [ , 75 So. 3d 105] (Ala. ... 2 0 1 1 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h i s v e r y i s s u e when i t c o n c l u d e d ' t h a t when t h e L e g i s l a t u r e d i r e c t s i n S e c t i o n 40-10-28 t h a t the e x c e s s f u n d s f r o m a t a x s a l e s h a l l be p a i d o v e r t o t h e owner o r h i s a g e n t , t h e t e r m 'owner' means 'the person against whom t a x e s on the property are assessed.' Under the Stipulated Facts of the parties, t h a t p e r s o n w o u l d be ... Wayne A l l e n Russell, Jr. "2. [First United Security Bank and Paty H o l d i n g s , LLC,] a r g u e t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n t h i s c a s e should be d i f f e r e n t from that in First Union N a t i o n a l Bank, b e c a u s e u n l i k e t h e m o r t g a g e e i n F i r s t U n i o n N a t i o n a l Bank, t h e r e had b e e n a f o r e c l o s u r e by the mortgagee i n t h i s case. Thus, i n t h i s case [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , LLC,] c o n t e n d t h a t as t h e f o r e c l o s i n g m o r t g a g e e , ... F i r s t United S e c u r i t y Bank i s t h e full owner o f the s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . T h i s a r g u m e n t w o u l d be p e r s u a s i v e i f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e had o c c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e t a x s a l e , as i t i s c l e a r f r o m t h e o p i n i o n i n F i r s t U n i o n N a t i o n a l Bank t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t was r e f e r r i n g 5 2110828 to a f o r e c l o s u r e which occurred p r i o r to the t a x s a l e and n o t a f t e r t h e t a x s a l e as o c c u r r e d i n t h i s case. "3. [First United Security Bank and Paty H o l d i n g s , LLC,] f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t ... Russell's m o r t g a g e c o n t r a c t w i t h ... F i r s t U n i t e d Security Bank a l l o w s [ i t ] t o a c t as h i s a t t o r n e y i n f a c t when p e r f o r m i n g d u t i e s [ R u s s e l l ] has f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m ; t h e r e f o r e , [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank] was a c t i n g as [ R u s s e l l ' s ] l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e when p a y i n g h i s t a x e s and i s c o n s e q u e n t l y e n t i t l e d t o t h e e x c e s s under A l a . Code [1975,] Section 40-10-28. The Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h i s a r g u m e n t i n F i r s t U n i o n National Bank when i t a g r e e d w i t h the County C o m m i s s i o n ' s argument i n F i r s t U n i o n N a t i o n a l Bank that anything l e s s than a clear statement of a u t h o r i t y s u c h as a power o f a t t o r n e y f r o m t h e owner t o t h e m o r t g a g e e w o u l d be i n a d e q u a t e t o e s t a b l i s h an agency or t r u s t e e r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r a County t r y i n g t o d e t e r m i n e who s h o u l d r e c e i v e the excess funds f r o m a t a x s a l e . I n a g r e e i n g w i t h t h i s argument o f t h e C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n i n F i r s t U n i o n N a t i o n a l Bank t h e Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g : "'We agree w i t h the Commission t h a t , i n the absence of a w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t naming F i r s t U n i o n as Summers's legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , the t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y h e l d t h a t F i r s t Union cannot c l a i m the e x c e s s f u n d s on t h a t b a s i s . ' "Accordingly, the Court f i n d s i n favor of [ M c C o l l u m , C o c h r a n e , and R u s s e l l ] and a g a i n s t [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , L L C ] . I t i s t h e r e f o r e the Order of the Court t h a t the r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d by [ F i r s t U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , LLC,] i s h e r e b y D e n i e d . I t i s t h e f u r t h e r O r d e r o f t h e C o u r t t h a t ... R u s s e l l ... i s e n t i t l e d to the refund of the excess funds from the t a x s a l e at i s s u e i n t h i s case. Costs are taxed to [First U n i t e d S e c u r i t y Bank and P a t y H o l d i n g s , LLC]." 6 2110828 On May Holdings, 30, LLC 2012, First (hereinafter United Security referred Bank to collectively and Paty as " t h e bank"), f i l e d t h e i r n o t i c e of appeal. Discussion On a p p e a l , t h e bank a r g u e s t h a t i t i s t h e " o w n e r " o f t h e p r o p e r t y as c o n t e m p l a t e d by § 40-10-28, A l a . Code 1975, and, thus, sale. that i t i s entitled to the excess funds from the t a x S e c t i o n 40-10-28 p r o v i d e s : "The e x c e s s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e s a l e o f any r e a l e s t a t e r e m a i n i n g a f t e r p a y i n g t h e amount o f t h e d e c r e e o f s a l e , and c o s t s a n d e x p e n s e s s u b s e q u e n t l y a c c r u i n g , s h a l l be p a i d o v e r t o t h e owner, o r h i s agent, or t o the person l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g such owner, o r i n t o t h e c o u n t y t r e a s u r y , and i t may be paid therefrom to such owner, agent or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n t h e same manner as t o t h e e x c e s s a r i s i n g from the s a l e of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y s o l d f o r t a x e s i s p a i d . I f such excess i s not c a l l e d f o r w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r s u c h s a l e by t h e p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e t h e same, upon t h e o r d e r o f t h e county commission s t a t i n g the case or cases i n which s u c h e x c e s s was p a i d , t o g e t h e r w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l a n d s s o l d , when s o l d and t h e amount o f s u c h excess, the county t r e a s u r e r s h a l l p l a c e such excess o f money t o t h e c r e d i t o f t h e g e n e r a l f u n d o f t h e c o u n t y and make a r e c o r d on h i s b o o k s o f t h e same, and s u c h money s h a l l t h e r e a f t e r be t r e a t e d as p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l f u n d o f t h e c o u n t y . A t any t i m e w i t h i n 10 y e a r s a f t e r s u c h e x c e s s h a s b e e n p a s s e d t o the c r e d i t of the g e n e r a l fund of the county, the c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n may on p r o o f made by any p e r s o n t h a t he i s t h e r i g h t f u l owner o f s u c h e x c e s s o f money o r d e r t h e payment t h e r e o f t o s u c h owner, h i s h e i r o r l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , b u t i f n o t so o r d e r e d 7 2110828 and p a i d w i t h i n s u c h t i m e , t h e same s h a l l become t h e property of the county." In First Commission, considered Union 75 National So. whether 3d 105 Bank of F l o r i d a ( A l a . 2011), our v. Lee County supreme court a mortgagee of p r o p e r t y s o l d c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d t h e " o w n e r " u n d e r § 40-10-28. f o r taxes Our supreme c o u r t determined t h a t the term "owner" r e f e r r e d t o the person a g a i n s t whom t a x e s were a s s e s s e d a n d n o t t h e m o r t g a g e e o f t h e property. 75 So. 3d a t 114. In t h i s c a s e , t h e bank argues t h a t i t was no l o n g e r j u s t t h e m o r t g a g e e b u t t h a t , due t o i t s purchase of the p r o p e r t y at the f o r e c l o s u r e sale, new owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y . the statute [excess The bank a r g u e s t h a t i n c l u s i o n i n of the language "person e n t i t l e d funds]" implies i t was t h e that t h e owner to receive the o f t h e p r o p e r t y may change b e t w e e n t h e t i m e o f t h e t a x s a l e and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the excess funds. t h e supreme c o u r t However, i n F i r s t Union N a t i o n a l reasoned: " S e c t i o n 4 0 - 1 0 - 1 2 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, g o v e r n s when l a n d s o l d f o r u n p a i d t a x e s may be redeemed, and, more i m p o r t a n t l y , who may redeem i t . " ' R e a l e s t a t e w h i c h h e r e a f t e r may be s o l d f o r t a x e s and p u r c h a s e d by t h e s t a t e may be redeemed a t any t i m e b e f o r e t h e t i t l e p a s s e s o u t o f t h e s t a t e o r , i f p u r c h a s e d by any o t h e r p u r c h a s e r , may be redeemed a t any 8 Bank 2110828 time w i t h i n t h r e e years from the date of the s a l e by t h e owner, h i s o r h e r h e i r s , o r personal representatives, or by any mortgagee o r p u r c h a s e r of such l a n d s , o r any p a r t t h e r e o f , o r by any p e r s o n h a v i n g an interest therein, o r i n any part thereof, l e g a l or e q u i t a b l e , i n s e v e r a l t y or as t e n a n t i n common, i n c l u d i n g a judgment c r e d i t o r o r o t h e r c r e d i t o r h a v i n g a l i e n t h e r e o n , o r on any p a r t t h e r e o f ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) The l i s t o f t h o s e who c a n redeem p r o p e r t y s o l d f o r t a x e s i n § 40-10-120 i s b r o a d e r than the l i s t of those e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m excess p r o c e e d s u n d e r § 4 0 - 1 0 - 2 8 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . The more e x p a n s i v e l a n g u a g e i n § 40-10-120 i n c l u d e s b o t h 'the owner' and 'any m o r t g a g e e , ' b u t t h e n a r r o w e r l a n g u a g e i n § 40-10-28 i n c l u d e s o n l y ' t h e owner, o r his a g e n t , o r ... t h e p e r s o n l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g s u c h owner.' The C o m m i s s i o n a r g u e s t h a t i f t h e legislature separately named both owners and m o r t g a g e e s i n § 40-10-120, t h e n i t c o u l d n o t h a v e i n t e n d e d f o r t h e t e r m 'owner' i n § 40-10-28 t o i n c l u d e ' m o r t g a g e e . ' We a g r e e . " 75 So. case, 3d a t 112. we note that Similarly, "[t]he f o r purposes more expansive of the present language in § 40-10-120 i n c l u d e s b o t h ' t h e owner' and 'any [... p u r c h a s e r ] but the narrower language owner, o r h i s a g e n t , such owner.'" i n § 40-10-28 o r ... t h e p e r s o n I d . (emphasis added). includes legally " [ I ] f the o n l y 'the representing legislature s e p a r a t e l y named b o t h owners and [ p u r c h a s e r s ] i n § 40-10-120, then i t could n o t have 40-10-28 t o i n c l u d e i n t e n d e d f o r the term '[purchaser].'" 9 Id. 'owner' in § Thus, a p p l y i n g t h e 2110828 reasoning espoused by National Bank, we payable to person subsequent a our conclude or supreme that court i n First the excess entity who funds purchases Union are not property to a t a x sale but, instead, are payable only t o the p e r s o n i n whose name t h e t a x e s a r e a s s e s s e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e tax sale (or h i s agent o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ) . The bank a l s o p o i n t s out that t h e supreme c o u r t stated i n F i r s t U n i o n N a t i o n a l Bank t h a t , i f a m o r t g a g e e f o r e c l o s e d on p r o p e r t y and p u r c h a s e d i t a t a f o r e c l o s u r e become t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y excess funds. the and, thus, s a l e , i t would entitled t o the We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t o be c o n s i s t e n t above-quoted reasoning from First Union National with Bank, t h a t s t a t e m e n t must be t a k e n t o mean t h a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e must have occurred supreme c o u r t before the tax sale. s t a t e d i n F i r s t Union N a t i o n a l Furthermore, the Bank: "A m o r t g a g e e c o u l d a l s o r e q u i r e t h e m o r t g a g o r t o e x e c u t e a power o f a t t o r n e y a s p a r t o f an a g r e e m e n t not t o f o r e c l o s e , o r , i f t h e mortgagee l e a r n s a f t e r the f a c t t h a t p r o p e r t y has been s o l d f o r t a x e s , i t can r e q u i r e t h e owner t o e x e c u t e a power o f a t t o r n e y b e f o r e i t redeems t h e p r o p e r t y . The m o r t g a g e e c o u l d t h e n become e n t i t l e d t o t h e e x c e s s p r o c e e d s u n d e r § 40-10-28 a s t h e p e r s o n ' l e g a l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g such owner.'" 10 sale 2110828 75 So. 3d a t 116. Based on t h a t language, i t i s clear t h e supreme c o u r t d i d n o t i n t e n d t h a t a s u b s e q u e n t sale could The a l t e r t h e "owner" o f p r o p e r t y bank also cites that foreclosure under § 40-10-28. certain attorney general 1 opinions t h a t s u p p o r t i t s p o s i t i o n ; however, " [ u ] n l i k e court opinions, " ' w r i t t e n opinions of the A t t o r n e y General are not c o n t r o l l i n g . They are merely advisory and, under the s t a t u t e , such opinions operate only to protect the officer t o whom i t i s d i r e c t e d from liability b e c a u s e o f any official act p e r f o r m e d by s u c h o f f i c e r as d i r e c t e d o r a d v i s e d i n s u c h o p i n i o n s . [§ 36-15-19, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . ] ' " A l a b a m a Dep't o f Revenue v. N a t i o n a l P e a n u t F e s t i v a l A s s ' n , 11 So. 3d 821, 833-34 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g B r o a d f o o t v. State, So. 28 A l a . App. 260, 261, 182 411, 412 (1938)). The bank f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t i t s h o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o t h e excess funds because, person who i t says, owned t h e p r o p e r t y returning at the those funds t o the time would r e s u l t i n a w i n d f a l l to t h a t person. of the tax sale I t f u r t h e r argues I n any e v e n t , t h a t c a s e d i d n o t i n v o l v e a f o r e c l o s u r e s i t u a t i o n ; t h u s , any s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e was n o n b i n d i n g d i c t a . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e P a t t o n , 77 So. 3d 591, 596 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . 1 11 2110828 that, i f a mortgagee who had foreclosed u n a b l e t o a f f o r d t o redeem t h a t p r o p e r t y funds, the t h e m o r t g a g e e w o u l d be property. noted in First As noted Union on property without forced to f o r f e i t above, National however, Bank that our excess i t s r i g h t s to supreme there c o n t r a c t u a l means by w h i c h a m o r t g a g e e can the were are court several protect i t s e l f in s u c h s i t u a t i o n s , s u c h as r e q u i r i n g t h e m o r t g a g o r t o e x e c u t e a power of attorney excess funds. 75 in So. the mortgagee's 3d a t favor to collect the 116. Conclusion Based trial on the foregoing, we a f f i r m the judgment of the court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 12 Bryan, and Thomas, JJ.,

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.