Anyone desiring and entitled to redeem may make written demand of the purchaser or his or her transferees for a statement in writing of the debt and all lawful charges claimed by him or her, and the purchaser or their transferees shall, within 10 days after the written demand, furnish the person making the demand with a written, itemized statement of all lawful charges claimed by him or her. The redeeming party must then tender all lawful charges to the purchaser or his or her transferee. If the purchaser or his or her transferee fails to furnish a written, itemized statement of all lawful charges within 10 days after demand, he or she shall forfeit all claims or right to compensation for improvements, and the party so entitled to redeem may, on the expiration of the 10 days, file his or her complaint without a tender to enforce his or her rights under this article and file a lis pendens with the probate court.
Tender or suit shall be made or filed within 180 days from foreclosure for residential property on which a homestead exemption was claimed in the tax year during which the foreclosure occurred, or within one year from foreclosure for all other property.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-441, p. 647, §6; Act 2015-79, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Pavilion Dev. v. Jbj P'ship, 979 So. 2d 24 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 4× “JBJ argues that Pavilion did not make a timely demand for a statement of lawful charges as is required by § 6-5-252. Although Pavilion did not make a demand for lawful charges before the assignmentand therefore in time to allow the purchaser of the foreclosed property 10 days…”
E.B. Investments, L.L.C. v. Pavilion Dev., L.L.C., 212 So. 3d 149 (Ala. 2016).
· cites it 6× “First, it contends that the trial court’s order permitting Pavilion to redeem the property was in error because, EB Investments alleges, Pavilion did not comply with the procedures provided in the redemption statute, § 6-5-252, Ala. Code 1975. Second, EB Investments argues that…”
Est. of Mollett v. M & B BUILDERS, LLC, 749 So. 2d 466 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
· cites it 5× “The trial court found that M & B's response "was not a written, itemized statement of all lawful charges M & B claimed against the property as prescribed in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-252." I agree with the estate that M & B forfeited the right to compensation for improvements because…”
Nichols v. Colvin, 674 So. 2d 576 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “On August 31, 1994, pursuant to § 6-5-252, Ala.Code 1975, Nichols made a written demand on Colvin for a statement in writing, within 10 days, of all lawful charges claimed by him for the redemption of lots 72 and 73.”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Citibank, N.A., 806 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (M.D. Ala. 2011).
· cites it 5× “Code § 6-5-252. Deutsche Bank argues that its claim was timely filed within the one-year redemptive period because its original Complaint was filed within the year, and it expressly asserted a redemption claim in the Amended Complaint which relates back to the filing of the…”
Steven Chess v. Wade Burt., 87 So. 3d 1201 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “) However, “[u]nder the plain language of § 6-5-252 and § 6-5-256, [Ala.Code 1975,] it is clear that a redemptioner is excused from tender at the time he files the complaint to redeem where he has timely furnished the purchaser with a demand for a statement of lawful charges and…”
Dixon v. Windsor, 596 So. 2d 898 (Ala. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The trial court found that Windsor had properly foreclosed on the property and that Dixon had not tendered the redemption payment within the one-year period specified by Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-252. The trial court further found that Dixon had no valid excuse for failing to timely…”
Cameron Givianpour v. Thomas J. Curtain, Sr., 166 So. 3d 662 (Ala. 2014).
· cites it 6× “On February 8, 2012, pursuant to § 6-5-252, Ala.Code 1975, 2 Cameron Givianpour presented Curtain with a demand for lawful charges for the purpose of redeeming the property.”
Se. Enter., Inc. v. Byrd, 720 So. 2d 873 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-252. The Byrds provided SEI with the written statement, listing numerous lawful charges.”
Hawkins v. LaSalle Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 24 So. 3d 1143 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
“LaSalle next argues that the trial court’s judgment is due to be affirmed because, it says, Hawkins failed to file a counterclaim or to attempt to redeem the subject property within the one-year redemption period set forth in § 6-5-252, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court rejected…”
Ross v. Rogers, 25 So. 3d 1160 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “2 Pursuant to § 6-5-252, Ala.Code 1975, he requested a statement from the Rogerses listing the amount they had paid for the property and any lawful charges they claimed regarding the property.”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-252(a) — 1 case
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.