Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 159 So. 3d 31

Two consolidated appeals arising from ejectment actions after non-judicial foreclosure sales: Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans (Case No. 1110373) and Cox v. Robinson (Case No. 1110458).
In Sturdivant BAC purchased property at a December 1, 2009 foreclosure sale, recorded an assignment of the mortgage from MERS to BAC (recorded Dec. 28, 2009), and sought possession after the mortgagor refused to vacate; trial court granted BAC summary judgment, Court of Civil Appeals reversed.
In Cox the Coxes claimed title via a foreclosure deed dated March 1, 2011; Robinson challenged the sale as invalid because Bayview’s recorded assignment postdated the foreclosure and argued Bayview lacked authority to foreclose; trial court entered summary judgment for the Coxes.
The consolidated question presented whether an ejectment plaintiff’s failure to prove legal title or timely assignment implicates the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction (i.e., standing) or is instead a merits/cause-of-action issue for the trial court to decide.
Alabama Supreme Court revisited and overruled Cadle Co. v. Shabani to hold that inability to prove an element of an ejectment claim (legal title/right of possession) is a merits/cause-of-action issue, not a standing/subject-matter-jurisdiction defect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an ejectment plaintiff's failure to prove legal title/right of possession is a standing (subject-matter jurisdiction) defect	Plaintiff (ejectment purchaser) argued it had title via foreclosure deed and thus had standing to sue for possession	Defendant argued plaintiff lacked standing because assignment/authority to foreclose did not precede the foreclosure, rendering the sale/deed invalid	Court held this is not a standing/SMJ issue but a merits/cause-of-action (failure-to-prove) issue; Cadle overruled on this point
Whether summary judgment for the purchasers was proper given disputes about assignment/authority to foreclose	Purchasers argued they bought at auction, paid, and held foreclosure deeds establishing right to possession	Mortgagors argued foreclosing entity lacked authority (assignment postdated foreclosure) so sale invalid	In Sturdivant: Court of Civil Appeals' reversal was reversed and remanded to address merits under correct legal standard; in Cox/Robinson: trial court summary judgment for Coxes affirmed (no reversible error shown)

Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 950 So.2d 277 (Ala. 2006) (previously held lack of proof of title in ejectment implicated standing/subject-matter jurisdiction)
Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 42 So.3d 1216 (Ala. 2010) (distinguishes standing from cause-of-action failures; courts should not conflate standing with merits)
Steele v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 69 So.3d 89 (Ala. 2010) (applies Wyeth reasoning to ejectment-related proof requirements)
Ex parte McKinney, 87 So.3d 502 (Ala. 2011) (discussion and critiques of standing/real-party-in-interest distinctions in ejectment cases)
Byrd v. MorEquity, Inc., 94 So.3d 378 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (Court of Civil Appeals opinions addressing whether title proof is a merits issue rather than standing)