Steele v. FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'N
69 So. 3d 89
Ala.2010Background
- Steeles mortgaged their Hueytown home with NetBank, later assigned to Everhome Mortgage; foreclosure failed, and Fannie Mae purchased the property at foreclosure on June 30, 2009.
- Fannie Mae filed an ejectment action on Sept. 28, 2009; the Steeles were served Sept. 30, 2009 but failed to answer within 30 days, yielding a default under Rule 55.
- An attorney sent a misdated possession-demand letter on Sept. 30, 2009, incorrectly stating Everhome, not Fannie Mae, collected the purchase; the letter invoked § 6-5-251 redemption procedures.
- Jeffery moved to set aside the default; after multiple filings, the trial court denied by operation of law under Rule 59.1 on Feb. 22, 2010, with a March 31, 2010 order purporting to deny the motion.
- Jeffery appeals, challenging the default judgment and asserting Fannie Mae failed to demand possession before ejectment, which would affect standing and the merits.
- The Supreme Court addresses whether § 6-6-280 requires a demand for possession before ejectment and whether the default judgment should be set aside under Kirtland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a possession demand is required before ejectment under §6-6-280. | Steele argues Jones v. Butler requires a demand. | Fannie Mae argues §6-6-280 does not require a demand. | No demand required; ejectment statute permits action on title and unlawful detainer without prior demand. |
| Whether the default judgment should be set aside under Kirtland. | Steele contends meritorious defense and lack of prejudice; default was unexplained. | Fannie Mae contends no meritorious defense and no prejudice to set aside. | Default judgment affirmed; no meritorious defense given §6-6-280 ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Butler, 286 Ala. 69, 237 So.2d 460 (Ala. 1970) (demand for possession component for ejectment historically required under prior statute)
- Muller v. Seeds, 919 So.2d 1174 (Ala. 2005) (post‑enactment view rejecting mandatory pre‑ejectment demand under §6‑6‑280)
- Taylor v. Bryars, 602 So.2d 378 (Ala. 1992) (recognizes issues with demand for possession pre‑ejectment in certain contexts)
- Thompson v. Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 39 So.3d 1153 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (failed reliance on Jones for demand requirement post‑enactment of §6‑6‑280)
- Thompson v. First State Bank of Alabama, 503 So.2d 858 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987) (early discussion of ejectment actions and possession requests)
- Kirtland v. Fort Morgan Auth. Sewer Serv., Inc., 524 So.2d 600 (Ala. 1988) (three-factor test for setting aside a default judgment)
- Sampson v. Cansler, 726 So.2d 632 (Ala. 1998) (background on reviewing motions denied by operation of law)