CMC Properties, LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC
2013 Ala. LEXIS 138
Ala.2013Background
- Emerald Falls, LLC failed to pay ad valorem taxes; property sold at 2010 tax sale to Rob Riddle, who later assigned his interest to CMC Properties, LLC (CMC).
- CMC (as purchaser/assignee) and the mortgagee (Working Capital, later Foundation Bank) became involved; CMC claimed reimbursement for improvements made to the property.
- Foundation Bank elected statutory redemption under Ala. Code § 40-10-120 et seq., asked the probate judge for the deposit amount, and attempted to deposit $32,249.96 to redeem.
- CMC moved in circuit court for a stay, asserting disputed improvement amounts and urging the circuit court to halt the probate redemption; the circuit court entered a stay of the “redemption issue.”
- Probate court denied the Bank’s redemption deposit because of the circuit-court stay; the Bank filed a mandamus petition arguing the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to stay a probate statutory redemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court could stay probate statutory redemption under § 40-10-122 | Bank: circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; probate court has exclusive authority over statutory redemption | CMC: disputed improvement amounts justify circuit-court intervention and stay | Court: probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over statutory redemption; circuit-court stay void; writ granted |
| Whether proposed redemptioner must pay disputed amounts under § 40-10-122(b)/(c) before depositing redemption amount under (a) | Bank: not required to pay or resolve disputes re(b)/(c) before depositing under (a) | CMC: redemptioner must satisfy statutory procedures for improvements/insurance prior to certificate issuance | Court: all applicable requirements of § 40-10-122 (including (b)/(c) when applicable) must be satisfied before issuance of redemption certificate; probate court resolves disputes |
| Proper forum to resolve disputes over improvement valuation under § 40-10-122(d)-(e) | Bank: (secondary) probate has exclusive role; mandamus sought to prevent circuit interference | CMC: sought circuit process to determine amounts, prompting stay | Court: probate court (as the appropriate court named in statute) must resolve referee/valuation failures; circuit court lacked authority to preempt probate |
| Remedy requested (writ of mandamus) — appropriateness and standard | Bank: clear legal right to relief; mandamus review of subject-matter jurisdiction is proper | CMC: opposing party seeking to protect asserted rights in circuit court | Court: mandamus appropriate because right was clear and subject-matter jurisdiction absent; writ issued to vacate stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 888 So.2d 478 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Vance, 900 So.2d 394 (Ala. 2004) (standard for issuance of mandamus; right must be clear and certain)
- Ex parte Tuscaloosa Cnty. Special Tax Bd., 963 So.2d 610 (Ala. 2007) (subject-matter jurisdiction review via mandamus)
- Franks v. Norfolk S. Ry., 679 So.2d 214 (Ala. 1996) (circuit court’s general superintendence over probate courts)
- Johnson v. Neal, 39 So.3d 1040 (Ala. 2009) (actions without subject-matter jurisdiction are void)
- Ex parte Jackson, 614 So.2d 405 (Ala. 1993) (statutory construction principles; read statute as whole)
- Wallace v. State, 507 So.2d 466 (Ala. 1987) (probate court jurisdiction limited to matters conferred by statute)
- First Props., L.L.C. v. Bennett, 959 So.2d 653 (Ala. Civ. App.) (distinguishing statutory versus judicial redemption procedures)