Rel: October 25, 2024
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________
SC-2024-0412 _________________________
Steven Mark Hayden, Jr.
v.
Newsome Law, LLC, and William B. Cashion
Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court (CV-23-92)
STEWART, Justice.
Steven Mark Hayden, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Elmore
Circuit Court ("the trial court") dismissing his action against Newsome SC-2024-0412
Law, LLC, and William B. Cashion. For the following reasons, we affirm
the judgment in part and reverse the judgment in part and remand the
cause for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
The action underlying this appeal involves Hayden's attempted
redemption of two parcels of property ("the property") located in Elmore
County, which had previously belonged to Hayden's father, Steven Mark
Hayden, Sr. Cashion, in an effort to collect on an approximately $600,000
judgment he had obtained against Hayden's father, sought a writ of
execution on the property. Cashion ultimately purchased the parcels at a
sheriff's sale on September 26, 2022, paying $5,000 for one parcel and
$1,162.59 for the other.
On August 31, 2023, Hayden notified Cashion's counsel, Burt
Newsome, of his intent to redeem the property. Newsome responded with
a quoted redemption price of $663,817.56. Hayden disputed that price
and indicated that he would offer $8,000, which covered the purchase
prices, recording taxes, and interest for the two parcels and $420 to
compensate Cashion for his time. Newsome informed Hayden that
Cashion would not reduce the quoted redemption price, contending that
2 SC-2024-0412
Hayden was required to satisfy the entire judgment lien before he was
entitled to redeem the property.
On September 25, 2023, Hayden filed a complaint in the trial court
pursuant to § 6-5-255, Ala. Code 1975, which is one of Alabama's
redemption statutes, see § 6-5-247 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, seeking to
enforce his right to redeem the property.1 Hayden named Cashion and
Newsome's law firm, Newsome Law, as defendants. Cashion and
Newsome Law filed a motion to dismiss Hayden's redemption action,
asserting that, pursuant to § 6-5-248(d), Ala. Code 1975, all judgments
that had attached to the property at the time of the sheriff's sale were
revived against Hayden, as a son of the debtor. Thus, according to
Cashion, the judgment lien constituted a lawful charge that Hayden was
required to pay in full to redeem the property. Following a hearing on
January 30, 2024, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, stating
that Hayden "is free to redeem the property without the necessity of a
Court Order or other action in the above styled case." Hayden's
postjudgment motion was denied, and Hayden appeals.
1Hayden's complaint for redemption indicates that he had tendered
$1,217.97 and $5,393.27, representing the purchase price and interest for each parcel. 3 SC-2024-0412
Standard of Review
In reviewing a judgment of dismissal on appeal, this Court affords
no presumption of correctness to the trial court's decision. We consider
"whether, when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most strongly
in the pleader's favor, it appears that the pleader could prove any set of
circumstances" under which he or she may possibly prevail. Nance v.
Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993).
Analysis
Hayden argues that, because the property was owned by his father,
and was sold to satisfy a judgment, he is entitled to redeem the property
under § 6-5-248(a)(7), which authorizes redemption by "[c]hildren, heirs,
or devisees of any debtor." The amount a redeeming party must pay to
redeem property is generally governed by § 6-5-253, Ala. Code 1975.
Section 6-5-253(a) provides:
"Anyone entitled and desiring to redeem real estate under the provisions of [the redemption status] must also pay or tender to the purchaser or his or her transferee the purchase price paid at the sale, with interest at the rate allowed to be charged on money judgments as set forth in Section 8-8-10[, Ala. Code 1975,] … and all other lawful charges, also with interest aforesaid …."
Section 6-5-253(a) identifies as "lawful charges":
4 SC-2024-0412
"(1) Permanent improvements as prescribed herein.
"(2) Taxes paid or assessed.
"(3) All insurance premiums paid or owed by the purchaser.
"(4) Any other valid lien or encumbrance paid by such purchaser or his or her transferee or if the redeeming party is a judgment creditor or junior mortgagee or any transferee thereof, then all recorded judgments, recorded mortgages, and recorded liens having a higher priority in existence at the time of sale which are revived under Section 6-5-248(c)[,Ala. Code 1975].
"If the redemption is made from a person who at the time of redemption owned the debt for which the property was sold, the redemptioner must also pay any balance due on the debt, with interest as aforesaid thereon to date.
"(5) …[A] party redeeming must pay all mortgages made by the purchaser or his or her transferee on the land to the extent of the purchase price.
"…."
Cashion and Newsome Law argue that, because Hayden is the child
of the debtor, "the prior judgments and liens that existed before the sale
reattach to the property and must be paid off as part of the redemption
process." Cashion and Newsome Law's brief at 11. They rely on § 6-5-
248(d), which provides:
"When any debtor, mortgagor, their transferees, their respective spouses, children, heirs, or devisees redeem, all 5 SC-2024-0412
recorded judgments, recorded mortgages, and recorded liens in existence at the time of the sale are revived against the real estate redeemed and against the redeeming party and further redemption by some party other than the mortgagor or debtor under [the redemption statutes] is precluded."
(Emphasis added.)
However, although judgments and liens are revived against the
property pursuant to § 6-5-248(d), such judgments and liens are
expressly excluded as lawful charges by § 6-5-253(b) when the redeeming
party is the child of the debtor. Section 6-5-253(b) provides that, "[i]f the
redeeming party is the debtor, mortgagor, their respective spouses,
children, heirs, or devisees then, unless otherwise provided herein, the
judgments, mortgages, and liens revived pursuant to 6-5-248(d)[, Ala.
Code 1975,] are not lawful charges as defined in subsection (a)."
(Emphasis added.) Moreover, Cashion and Newsome Law's citation to
Southeast Enterprises, Inc. v. Byrd, 720 So. 2d 873, 874 (Ala. 1998), is
inapposite because that case concerned redemption by a junior
mortgagee, see § 6-5-253(a)(4), and it did not involve redemption by the
child of a debtor.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rel: October 25, 2024
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________
SC-2024-0412 _________________________
Steven Mark Hayden, Jr.
v.
Newsome Law, LLC, and William B. Cashion
Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court (CV-23-92)
STEWART, Justice.
Steven Mark Hayden, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Elmore
Circuit Court ("the trial court") dismissing his action against Newsome SC-2024-0412
Law, LLC, and William B. Cashion. For the following reasons, we affirm
the judgment in part and reverse the judgment in part and remand the
cause for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
The action underlying this appeal involves Hayden's attempted
redemption of two parcels of property ("the property") located in Elmore
County, which had previously belonged to Hayden's father, Steven Mark
Hayden, Sr. Cashion, in an effort to collect on an approximately $600,000
judgment he had obtained against Hayden's father, sought a writ of
execution on the property. Cashion ultimately purchased the parcels at a
sheriff's sale on September 26, 2022, paying $5,000 for one parcel and
$1,162.59 for the other.
On August 31, 2023, Hayden notified Cashion's counsel, Burt
Newsome, of his intent to redeem the property. Newsome responded with
a quoted redemption price of $663,817.56. Hayden disputed that price
and indicated that he would offer $8,000, which covered the purchase
prices, recording taxes, and interest for the two parcels and $420 to
compensate Cashion for his time. Newsome informed Hayden that
Cashion would not reduce the quoted redemption price, contending that
2 SC-2024-0412
Hayden was required to satisfy the entire judgment lien before he was
entitled to redeem the property.
On September 25, 2023, Hayden filed a complaint in the trial court
pursuant to § 6-5-255, Ala. Code 1975, which is one of Alabama's
redemption statutes, see § 6-5-247 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, seeking to
enforce his right to redeem the property.1 Hayden named Cashion and
Newsome's law firm, Newsome Law, as defendants. Cashion and
Newsome Law filed a motion to dismiss Hayden's redemption action,
asserting that, pursuant to § 6-5-248(d), Ala. Code 1975, all judgments
that had attached to the property at the time of the sheriff's sale were
revived against Hayden, as a son of the debtor. Thus, according to
Cashion, the judgment lien constituted a lawful charge that Hayden was
required to pay in full to redeem the property. Following a hearing on
January 30, 2024, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, stating
that Hayden "is free to redeem the property without the necessity of a
Court Order or other action in the above styled case." Hayden's
postjudgment motion was denied, and Hayden appeals.
1Hayden's complaint for redemption indicates that he had tendered
$1,217.97 and $5,393.27, representing the purchase price and interest for each parcel. 3 SC-2024-0412
Standard of Review
In reviewing a judgment of dismissal on appeal, this Court affords
no presumption of correctness to the trial court's decision. We consider
"whether, when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most strongly
in the pleader's favor, it appears that the pleader could prove any set of
circumstances" under which he or she may possibly prevail. Nance v.
Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993).
Analysis
Hayden argues that, because the property was owned by his father,
and was sold to satisfy a judgment, he is entitled to redeem the property
under § 6-5-248(a)(7), which authorizes redemption by "[c]hildren, heirs,
or devisees of any debtor." The amount a redeeming party must pay to
redeem property is generally governed by § 6-5-253, Ala. Code 1975.
Section 6-5-253(a) provides:
"Anyone entitled and desiring to redeem real estate under the provisions of [the redemption status] must also pay or tender to the purchaser or his or her transferee the purchase price paid at the sale, with interest at the rate allowed to be charged on money judgments as set forth in Section 8-8-10[, Ala. Code 1975,] … and all other lawful charges, also with interest aforesaid …."
Section 6-5-253(a) identifies as "lawful charges":
4 SC-2024-0412
"(1) Permanent improvements as prescribed herein.
"(2) Taxes paid or assessed.
"(3) All insurance premiums paid or owed by the purchaser.
"(4) Any other valid lien or encumbrance paid by such purchaser or his or her transferee or if the redeeming party is a judgment creditor or junior mortgagee or any transferee thereof, then all recorded judgments, recorded mortgages, and recorded liens having a higher priority in existence at the time of sale which are revived under Section 6-5-248(c)[,Ala. Code 1975].
"If the redemption is made from a person who at the time of redemption owned the debt for which the property was sold, the redemptioner must also pay any balance due on the debt, with interest as aforesaid thereon to date.
"(5) …[A] party redeeming must pay all mortgages made by the purchaser or his or her transferee on the land to the extent of the purchase price.
"…."
Cashion and Newsome Law argue that, because Hayden is the child
of the debtor, "the prior judgments and liens that existed before the sale
reattach to the property and must be paid off as part of the redemption
process." Cashion and Newsome Law's brief at 11. They rely on § 6-5-
248(d), which provides:
"When any debtor, mortgagor, their transferees, their respective spouses, children, heirs, or devisees redeem, all 5 SC-2024-0412
recorded judgments, recorded mortgages, and recorded liens in existence at the time of the sale are revived against the real estate redeemed and against the redeeming party and further redemption by some party other than the mortgagor or debtor under [the redemption statutes] is precluded."
(Emphasis added.)
However, although judgments and liens are revived against the
property pursuant to § 6-5-248(d), such judgments and liens are
expressly excluded as lawful charges by § 6-5-253(b) when the redeeming
party is the child of the debtor. Section 6-5-253(b) provides that, "[i]f the
redeeming party is the debtor, mortgagor, their respective spouses,
children, heirs, or devisees then, unless otherwise provided herein, the
judgments, mortgages, and liens revived pursuant to 6-5-248(d)[, Ala.
Code 1975,] are not lawful charges as defined in subsection (a)."
(Emphasis added.) Moreover, Cashion and Newsome Law's citation to
Southeast Enterprises, Inc. v. Byrd, 720 So. 2d 873, 874 (Ala. 1998), is
inapposite because that case concerned redemption by a junior
mortgagee, see § 6-5-253(a)(4), and it did not involve redemption by the
child of a debtor. Here, Hayden is seeking to redeem property previously
owned by his father. Although the redemption will revive the previous
judgments under § 6-5-248(d), those judgments are explicitly exempted
6 SC-2024-0412
by § 6-5-253(b) from the "lawful charges" that Hayden is required to
tender to redeem the property.
In dismissing the action, the trial court stated that there was no
"necessity of a Court Order or other action." However, Cashion has
demanded a redemption price that exceeds the amount authorized by the
redemption statutes and has rejected Hayden's tender of an amount
purportedly representing the purchase price and interest for each parcel.
Accordingly, pursuant to § 6-5-256, Ala. Code 1975, the trial court has a
statutory obligation to "settle and adjust all the rights and equities of the
parties." The trial court's judgment dismissing Hayden's redemption
action against Cashion is, therefore, reversed, and the cause is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Hayden also named Newsome Law as a defendant in his
redemption action. The record, however, indicates that Newsome Law
was not the purchaser of the property against whom a right of redemption
lies, and Hayden's arguments on appeal do not directly address the trial
court's dismissal of his claim as to Newsome Law. Accordingly, the
judgment is affirmed insofar is it dismisses Hayden's redemption action
against Newsome Law.
7 SC-2024-0412
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
Shaw, Acting C.J.,* and Mendheim, J., and Windom, Kellum, and
McCool, Special Justices,* concur.
Sellers, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., recuse
themselves.
____________________ *Because five members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, recused themselves, on October 10, 2024, Acting Chief Justice Shaw appointed Presiding Judge Mary B. Windom, Judge J. Elizabeth Kellum, and Judge Chris McCool, of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, to serve as Special Justices in this appeal.
8 SC-2024-0412
SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P., requires an appellant's brief to
contain a cogent argument supported by citations to the record and to
appropriate authority. In the present case, I do not believe that the brief
of appellant Steven Mark Hayden, Jr., justifies reversing the trial court's
judgment. Hayden provides a series of quotations from statutes and
caselaw without sufficiently expounding on that authority. The
majority's application of the relevant statutory provisions appears to
present the possibility of a continuous loop: redemption, followed by a
sheriff's sale, followed by another redemption and another sheriff's sale,
and so on. I am hesitant to acknowledge such a result without sufficient
briefing. In short, I would affirm the trial court's judgment in its entirety,
deferring to its ability to apply the law to the facts in order to render a
fair and just decision.