Light v. Mullins

Supreme Court of Alabama

Light v. Mullins

454 So. 2d 981, 1984 Ala. LEXIS 4328

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided July 13, 1984·No. 83-383·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Light brought suit against Randall Mullins for a determination of the proper sum of money necessary to redeem certain real estate from a mortgage foreclosure sale to Randall Mullins. The trial judge found that $38,862.63 was the proper sum. In this amount was an item for removal of an outbuilding by Mullins. Light objects to his having to pay for the removal.

After reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the trial judge committed error. Consequently, under the ore tenus rule, the judgment is affirmed. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Robert Light brought suit against Randall Mullins for a determination of the proper sum of money necessary to redeem certain real estate from a mortgage foreclosure sale to Randall Mullins. The trial judge found that $38,862.63 was the proper sum. In this amount was an item for removal of an outbuilding by Mullins. Light objects to his having to pay for the removal.

After reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the trial judge committed error. Consequently, under the ore tenus rule, the judgment is affirmed. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

Light v. Mullins, 454 So. 2d 981, 1984 Ala. LEXIS 4328 (Ala. 1984).

Pincite

454 So. 2d 981 (Light v. Mullins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related