Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 35-11-223 (2026)
Parties.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) In such actions, all persons interested in the matter in controversy, or in the property charged with the lien, may be made parties; but such as are not made parties shall not be bound by the judgment or proceedings therein.
(b) On the death of any party to such action, his personal representative shall be made a party thereto, plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, and it shall not be necessary to make his heirs or devisees parties; but if he has no personal representative, and it is not desired to have one appointed, his heirs or devisees may be made parties.
(Code 1876, §§3447, 3448; Code 1886, §§3030, 3031; Code 1896, §§2735, 2736; Code 1907, §§4766, 4767; Code 1923, §§8844, 8845; Code 1940, T. 33, §§50, 51.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1982–2006 · leading case: Bailey Mortg. Co. v. Gobble-Fite Lumber Co., 565 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 1990).
Bailey Mortg. Co. v. Gobble-Fite Lumber Co., 565 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 1990). “The issue was further complicated by the fact that the holder of the mechanic's lien did not name the original mortgagee as a defendant to the suit, as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 35-11-223(a). To support our holding, we relied on the somewhat confusing case of Hanchey v.”
Starek v. TKW, INC., 410 So. 2d 35 (Ala. 1982). “The question of whether Blackmon and United Federal should have been joined as parties under ARCP 19 is answered by statute.”
United States v. Carmichael, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (M.D. Ala. 2006). “The question of whether a lis pendens is an interest in property for the purposes of naming parties in an action to enforce a materialmen’s lien pursuant to 1975 Ala. Code § 35-11-223 , which appears to be a question of first impression in Alabama courts, is not properly before…”
Birmingham Lumber & Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Lovejoy, 705 So. 2d 440 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “The trial court held that by virtue of Ala.Code 1975, § 35-11-223, Lovejoy was a necessary and proper party to the action to perfect and enforce the hen.”
— Ala. Code § 35-11-223(a) — 2 cases
Bailey Mortg. Co. v. Gobble-Fite Lumber Co., 565 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 1990). “The issue was further complicated by the fact that the holder of the mechanic's lien did not name the original mortgagee as a defendant to the suit, as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 35-11-223(a). To support our holding, we relied on the somewhat confusing case of Hanchey v.”
Starek v. TKW, INC., 410 So. 2d 35 (Ala. 1982). “The question of whether Blackmon and United Federal should have been joined as parties under ARCP 19 is answered by statute.”
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.