Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 35-10-13 (2026)
Notice of Sale; Minimum Standards.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Notice of said sale shall be given in the county where said land is located.
Notice of all sales under this article shall be given by publication once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper published in the county or counties in which such land is located. If there is land under the mortgage in more than one county the publication is to be made in all counties where the land is located. The notice of sale must give the time, place and terms of said sale, together with a description of the property.
If no newspaper is published in the county where the lands are located, the notice shall be placed in a newspaper published in an adjoining county. The notice shall be published in said adjoining county for three successive weeks.
(Acts 1988, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88-906, p. 479, §3.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Sharpe v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. (In Re Sharpe), 391 B.R. 117 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2008).
Sharpe v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. (In Re Sharpe), 391 B.R. 117 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2008). “Code of Ala.1975, § 35-10-13. The “Mortgage Foreclosure Sale,” introduced as Defendant’s Exhibit 16, recites publication dates in the “Alabama Messenger” for July 24, 2004, July 27, 2004, and August 7, 2004.”
Perry v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 100 So. 3d 1090 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). “following reasons: (1) EverHome did not have the right to exercise the power of sale under the mortgage because, Perry said, it was not the assignee of the mortgage when it commenced the foreclosure proceedings; (2) EverHome had failed to comply with the notice requirements in…”
Redman v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 765 So. 2d 630 (Ala. 1999). “" SouthTrust complied with § 35-10-13 and with the notice provisions of paragraph 14 of the Mortgage.”
Patterson v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 176 So. 3d 845 (Ala. 2013). “Nothing in §§ 35-10-13 and 35-10-14 speak to who must perform those tasks, only what the tasks are.”
Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So. 3d 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). “(1) MidFirst did not have the right to exercise the power of sale under the mortgage because, Coleman said, MidFirst was not the assignee of the mortgage or the note when it commenced the foreclosure proceedings; (2) MidFirst had failed to comply with the notice requirements in…”
Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 15 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “Despite the fact that BAC did not own the mortgage, BAC held itself out to Stur-divant as the “holder of the mortgage” with the power to conduct nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.”
Sharpe v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg. (In Re Sharpe), 425 B.R. 620 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2010). “In that memorandum, the Court found that the plaintiffs: (1) had actual notice of the statutory requirements of section 35-10-13, Code of Ala.1975; (2) had actual notice of the requirements paragraph 14 of the parties’ mortgage contract; and (3) had constructive notice of their…”
In re Hubbard, 569 B.R. 188 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2017). “Ala. Code 1975 § 35-10-13. The Bank offered proof of publication, in accordance with Alabama law, of the notices of sale.”
Nelson v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 97 So. 3d 770 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). “tity “MERS, as nominee for Flagstar,” and offered the following arguments: (1) that the power-of-sale provision in the mortgage instrument was unenforceable because the note and mortgage had been separated; (2) that MERS and the loan servicer, Flagstar, had breached the notice…”
Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 218 So. 3d 816 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “Whether Williams Established a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding Whether Wells Fargo Failed to Give Williams Notice of Default, Notice of Acceleration, and Notice of the Foreclosure Sale In pertinent part, § 35-10-13, Ala. Code 1975, provides that “[njotice of all…”
Stanley v. Robinson, 822 So. 2d 406 (Ala. 2001). “Acts, codified at § 35-10-13, Ala.Code 1975, it is subject to § 35-10-13.”
Nell C. Dysart v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank (11th Cir. 2018). “See Ala. Code § 35-10-13 . The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals rejected the homeowner’s argument, holding that only errors in a required notice that prejudice the borrower will invalidate an otherwise valid foreclosure sale.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.