Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Rhodes, 144 So. 3d 316

The Rhodeses received foreclosure notices in March–April 2012 identifying Bank of America, N.A. as the mortgagee and stating foreclosure would proceed on May 1, 2012; a foreclosure sale occurred on June 4, 2012.
The auctioneer’s deed recited that Bank of America conducted the sale and conveyed the property to Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which received the deed and demanded possession.
Fannie Mae filed an ejectment action on June 25, 2012 based on the auctioneer’s deed and demand for possession; the Rhodeses moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss after oral argument; the Rhodeses sought a writ of mandamus from the Alabama Supreme Court to direct dismissal and stay of the ejectment proceeding.
The Rhodeses argued the foreclosure deed was void because Bank of America lacked the right to foreclose, so Fannie Mae lacked standing and the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court treated the alleged infirmity in the foreclosure sale as a merits issue (ability to prove title in ejectment), not a standing or subject-matter-jurisdiction defect, and denied the mandamus petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fannie Mae lacked standing and thus the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the foreclosure deed was void	The foreclosure deed from Bank of America to Fannie Mae was void because Bank of America lacked the right to foreclose, so Fannie Mae cannot bring ejectment	The alleged defect in the foreclosure deed goes to the merits (the plaintiff’s ability to prove title in an ejectment action), not to standing or subject-matter jurisdiction	The alleged defect is a merits issue, not a standing/jurisdictional defect; mandamus denied

Byrd v. MorEquity, Inc., 94 So.3d 378 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (state-court decision relied on by petitioners arguing foreclosure defects defeat standing)
Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 950 So.2d 277 (Ala. 2006) (addressed claims about foreclosure validity and evidentiary proof of title)
Ex parte MERSCORP, 141 So.3d 984 (Ala. 2013) (explains limits on mandamus review of denials of motions to dismiss when subject-matter-jurisdiction exception does not apply)
Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., 78 So.3d 959 (Ala. 2011) (mandamus standards and limits when appeal is adequate remedy)
Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288 (Ala. 2007) (mandamus available when challenging subject-matter jurisdiction based on lack of standing)
Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So.2d 318 (Ala. 2001) (states the mandamus standard)