(a)(1) In order to obtain the redemption of land from tax sales where the same has been sold to one other than the state, the party desiring to make such redemption shall deposit with the judge of probate of the county in which the land is situated the amount of money for which the lands were sold, with interest payable at the rate of eight percent per annum from date of sale, and, on the portion of any excess bid that is less than or equal to 15 percent of the market value as established by the assessing official, together with the amount of all taxes which have been paid by the purchaser, which fact shall be ascertained by consulting the records in the office of the tax collector, or other tax collecting official, with interest on the payment at eight percent per annum. If any taxes on the land have been assessed to the purchaser and have not been paid, and if the taxes are due which may be ascertained by consulting the tax collector or other tax collecting official of the county, the probate judge shall also require the party desiring to redeem the land to pay the tax collector or other tax collecting official the taxes due on the lands which have not been paid by the purchaser before he or she is entitled to redeem the same. In all redemptions of land from tax sales, the party securing the redemption shall pay all costs and fees as herein provided for due to officers and a fee of $.50 to the judge of probate for his or her services in the matter of redemption. This application and payment may be executed by an on-line transaction via the Internet or other on-line provision.
(2) The reimbursement to the purchaser from the proposed redemptioner for allowable improvements and insurance premiums as provided in subsections (b) through (e) is not required for the proposed redemptioner to take possession of the property; provided however, that the proposed redemptioner shall reimburse the purchaser for such costs prior to January 1 of the subsequent tax year in order to complete the redemption process as provided in this subsection. Failure of the proposed redemptioner to reimburse the purchaser for such costs prior to January 1 of the subsequent tax year shall forfeit the right of the proposed redemptioner in the property.
(b) With respect to property located within an urban renewal or urban redevelopment project area designated pursuant to Chapters 2 or 3 of Title 24, the proposed redemptioner must pay to the purchaser or his or her transferee, in addition to any other requirements set forth in this section, the amounts set forth below:
(1) All insurance premiums paid or owed by the purchaser for casualty loss coverage on insurable structures with interest on the payments at eight percent per annum.
(2) The value of all permanent improvements made on the property determined in accordance with this section with interest on the value at eight percent per annum.
(c) With respect to property which contains a residential structure at the time of the sale regardless of its location, the proposed redemptioner must pay to the purchaser or his or her transferee, in addition to any other requirements set forth in this section, the amounts set forth below:
(1) All insurance premiums paid or owed by the purchaser for casualty loss coverage on the residential structure with interest on the payments at eight percent per annum.
(2) The value of all preservation improvements made on the property determined in accordance with this section with interest on the value at eight percent per annum.
(d) As used herein, “permanent improvements” shall include, but not be limited to, all repairs, improvements, and equipment attached to the property as fixtures. As used herein, “preservation improvements” shall mean improvements made to preserve the property by properly keeping it in repair for its proper and reasonable use, having due regard for the kind and character of the property at the time of sale. The proposed redemptioner shall make written demand upon the purchaser of a statement of the value of all permanent or preservation improvements as applicable made on the property since the tax sale. In response to written demand made pursuant to this subsection, within 10 days from the receipt of such demand, the purchaser shall furnish the proposed redemptioner with the amount claimed as the value of such permanent or preservation improvements as applicable; and within 10 days after receipt of such response, the proposed redemptioner either shall accept the value so stated by the purchaser or, disagreeing therewith, shall appoint a referee to ascertain the value of such permanent or preservation improvements as applicable. The proposed redemptioner shall in writing (i) notify the purchaser of his or her disagreement as to the value; and (ii) inform the purchaser of the name of the referee appointed by him or her. Within 10 days after the receipt of such notice, the purchaser shall appoint a referee to ascertain the value of the permanent or preservation improvements as applicable and advise the proposed redemptioner of the name of the appointee. Within 10 days after the purchaser has appointed his or her referee, the two referees shall meet and confer upon the award to be made by them. If they cannot agree, the referees shall at once appoint an umpire, and the award by a majority of such body shall be made within 10 days after the appointment of the umpire and shall be final between the parties.
(e) If the proposed redemptioner fails or refuses to nominate a referee as provided in subsection (d), he or she must pay the value put upon the improvements by the purchaser. If the purchaser refuses or fails to appoint a referee, as provided in subsection (d), the purchaser shall forfeit his or her claim to compensation for such improvements. The failure of the referees or either of them to act or to appoint an umpire shall not operate to impair or forfeit the right of either the proposed redemptioner or the purchaser in the premises and in the event of failure without fault of the parties to affect an award, the appropriate court shall proceed to ascertain the true value of such permanent or preservation improvements as applicable and enforce the redemption accordingly.
(Acts 1935, No. 194, p. 256; Code 1940, T. 51, §305; Acts 1988, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88-824, p. 265, §15; Act 2002-426, p. 1094, §1; Act 2009-508, p. 937, §1; Act 2018-494, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case:
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 7× “Validity of Redemption of Property Jabez argues that the redemption of Rudolph’s property was invalid because, according to Jabez, Rudolph did not redeem her property in strict conformance with § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975, which governs the manner of redemption when land is sold…”
Ross v. Rosen-Rager, 67 So. 3d 29 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 12× “As I’m sure you are aware, the court set this for a hearing February 2006, and, reviewing your itemization costs, in light of § 40-10-122, it would appear that the reasonable and necessary expenses would be limited to $1,195.”
CMC Props., LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC, 146 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013).
· cites it 27× “it from exercising its statutory right of redemption in the probate court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. As an additional ground for the issuance of the writ, the Bank argues that a party desiring to redeem property is neither required to pay a tax-sale purchaser…”
Wall to Wall Props. v. Cadence Bank, NA, 163 So. 3d 384 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
· cites it 17× “Within three years from the date of the tax sale, the owner may redeem land sold to a party other than the state by complying with the statutory-redemption scheme- *387 set out in § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975. 1 According to § 40-10-122(a), a party desiring to redeem property must…”
Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 56 So. 3d 679 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
· cites it 22× “The issue on appeal is whether the Bank properly redeemed the property from Ross after the tax sale, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. 1 *681 On September 24, 2007, the Bank filed a complaint requesting that the trial court (1) declare that the Bank owned the property, (2)…”
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Blake, 544 So. 2d 161 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 7× “After consolidation of the two cases, the trial court entered judgment for Jim Walter on both complaints, upon the condition that Jim Walter comply with Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122 (“[Bendor] is entitled to a lien against the property in the amount of $344.”
E.B. Investments, L.L.C. v. Pavilion Dev., L.L.C., 212 So. 3d 149 (Ala. 2016).
· cites it 2× “, the use of the term "improvement” in the sense of what is necessary to "preserve” and perhaps even enhance the property, but only in its character and use at the time of the foreclosure sale, is expressly reflected in Alabama's tax-foreclosure-redemption statute, Ala.Code…”
In re Ferrouillat, 558 B.R. 938 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2016).
· cites it 2× “omes’ Motion for Relief from Stay requests that if this Court finds that Debtor’s right of redemption exists and is property of the estate, that he be disallowed from exercising his right of redemption through the Chapter 13 plan payments, and instead that Debtor be required to…”
Patterson v. Porter, 555 So. 2d 750 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 5× “As a part of his affidavit statement, the tax clerk set out the § 40-10-122 computation of the taxes, costs, and interest on the Rainbow Park property through 1987 and further stated that this amount, a total of $269.”
Wall to Wall Props., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 206 So. 3d 658 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “2014) (“Wall”), 1 this court held that, before a probate court issues a certificate of redemption on property that was sold at a tax sale, the probate court must first “ascertain whether all amounts due under [Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122(c),] have been made.”
Daugherty v. Rester, 645 So. 2d 1361 (Ala. 1994).
“) Section 40-10-122, which sets out the manner of redemption under § 40-10-120 when the property has been sold to a party other than the state, provides, in pertinent part: "In order to obtain the redemption of land from tax sales where the same has been sold to one other than…”
— Ala. Code § 40-10-122(a) — 7 cases
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
“Validity of Redemption of Property Jabez argues that the redemption of Rudolph’s property was invalid because, according to Jabez, Rudolph did not redeem her property in strict conformance with § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975, which governs the manner of redemption when land is sold…”
Wall to Wall Props. v. Cadence Bank, NA, 163 So. 3d 384 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“Within three years from the date of the tax sale, the owner may redeem land sold to a party other than the state by complying with the statutory-redemption scheme- *387 set out in § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975. 1 According to § 40-10-122(a), a party desiring to redeem property must…”
CMC Props., LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC, 146 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013).
“it from exercising its statutory right of redemption in the probate court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. As an additional ground for the issuance of the writ, the Bank argues that a party desiring to redeem property is neither required to pay a tax-sale purchaser…”
Ross v. Rosen-Rager, 67 So. 3d 29 (Ala. 2010).
“As I’m sure you are aware, the court set this for a hearing February 2006, and, reviewing your itemization costs, in light of § 40-10-122, it would appear that the reasonable and necessary expenses would be limited to $1,195.”
— Ala. Code § 40-10-122(b) — 3 cases
CMC Props., LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC, 146 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013).
“it from exercising its statutory right of redemption in the probate court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. As an additional ground for the issuance of the writ, the Bank argues that a party desiring to redeem property is neither required to pay a tax-sale purchaser…”
Ross v. Rosen-Rager, 67 So. 3d 29 (Ala. 2010).
“As I’m sure you are aware, the court set this for a hearing February 2006, and, reviewing your itemization costs, in light of § 40-10-122, it would appear that the reasonable and necessary expenses would be limited to $1,195.”
— Ala. Code § 40-10-122(c) — 7 cases
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
“Validity of Redemption of Property Jabez argues that the redemption of Rudolph’s property was invalid because, according to Jabez, Rudolph did not redeem her property in strict conformance with § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975, which governs the manner of redemption when land is sold…”
Wall to Wall Props. v. Cadence Bank, NA, 163 So. 3d 384 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“Within three years from the date of the tax sale, the owner may redeem land sold to a party other than the state by complying with the statutory-redemption scheme- *387 set out in § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975. 1 According to § 40-10-122(a), a party desiring to redeem property must…”
Ross v. Rosen-Rager, 67 So. 3d 29 (Ala. 2010).
“As I’m sure you are aware, the court set this for a hearing February 2006, and, reviewing your itemization costs, in light of § 40-10-122, it would appear that the reasonable and necessary expenses would be limited to $1,195.”
Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 56 So. 3d 679 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“The issue on appeal is whether the Bank properly redeemed the property from Ross after the tax sale, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. 1 *681 On September 24, 2007, the Bank filed a complaint requesting that the trial court (1) declare that the Bank owned the property, (2)…”
Wall to Wall Props., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 206 So. 3d 658 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
“2014) (“Wall”), 1 this court held that, before a probate court issues a certificate of redemption on property that was sold at a tax sale, the probate court must first “ascertain whether all amounts due under [Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122(c),] have been made.”
— Ala. Code § 40-10-122(c)(2) — 1 case
Wall to Wall Props., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 206 So. 3d 658 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
“2014) (“Wall”), 1 this court held that, before a probate court issues a certificate of redemption on property that was sold at a tax sale, the probate court must first “ascertain whether all amounts due under [Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122(c),] have been made.”
— Ala. Code § 40-10-122(d) — 6 cases
Wall to Wall Props. v. Cadence Bank, NA, 163 So. 3d 384 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).
“Within three years from the date of the tax sale, the owner may redeem land sold to a party other than the state by complying with the statutory-redemption scheme- *387 set out in § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975. 1 According to § 40-10-122(a), a party desiring to redeem property must…”
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
“Validity of Redemption of Property Jabez argues that the redemption of Rudolph’s property was invalid because, according to Jabez, Rudolph did not redeem her property in strict conformance with § 40-10-122, Ala.Code 1975, which governs the manner of redemption when land is sold…”
CMC Props., LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC, 146 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013).
“it from exercising its statutory right of redemption in the probate court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. As an additional ground for the issuance of the writ, the Bank argues that a party desiring to redeem property is neither required to pay a tax-sale purchaser…”
Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 56 So. 3d 679 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“The issue on appeal is whether the Bank properly redeemed the property from Ross after the tax sale, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. 1 *681 On September 24, 2007, the Bank filed a complaint requesting that the trial court (1) declare that the Bank owned the property, (2)…”
— Ala. Code § 40-10-122(e) — 1 case
CMC Props., LLC v. Emerald Falls, LLC, 146 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013).
“it from exercising its statutory right of redemption in the probate court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 40-10-122. As an additional ground for the issuance of the writ, the Bank argues that a party desiring to redeem property is neither required to pay a tax-sale purchaser…”
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.