(a) Any person offering to redeem must pay to the then holder of the legal title the value of all permanent improvements made on the land since the sale, and if the holder of the legal title cannot be ascertained, payment may be made to the circuit court of the county having jurisdiction of the subject matter when the complaint is filed to redeem. In response to written demand made under Section 6-5-252, the then holder of the legal title shall, within 10 days from the receipt of such demand, furnish the proposed redemptioner with the amount claimed as the value of such permanent improvements; and within 10 days after receipt of such response, the proposed redemptioner either shall accept the value so stated by the then holder of the legal title or, disagreeing therewith, shall appoint a referee to ascertain the value of such permanent improvements and in writing notify the then holder of the legal title of his or her disagreement and of the fact and name of the referee appointed by him or her. Within 10 days after the receipt of such notice, the then holder of the legal title shall appoint a referee to ascertain the value of the permanent improvements and advise the proposed redemptioner of the name of the appointee. The two referees shall, within 10 days after the then holder of the legal title has appointed his or her referee, 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.
(b) If a person offering to redeem fails or refuses to nominate a referee as provided in subsection (a) of this section, he or she must pay the value put upon the improvements by the then holder of the legal title. If the then holder of the legal title fails or refuses to appoint a referee, as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the then holder of the legal title 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 to forfeit the right of either the proposed redemptioner or of the then holder of the legal title in the premises; and, in the event of failure without fault of the parties to effect an award, the appropriate court shall proceed to ascertain the true value of such permanent improvements and enforce the redemption accordingly.
(Acts 1988, No. 88-441, p. 647, §8.)
Notes of Decisions
Pavilion Dev. v. Jbj P'ship, 979 So. 2d 24 (Ala. 2007).
· cites it 3× “JBJ argues, second, that Pavilion did not follow the procedures for appointing a referee to arbitrate the value of permanent improvements as is required by § 6-5-254. There is, however, substantial evidence indicating that Pavilion expressed its disagreement with Atlantis's…”
Nichols v. Colvin, 674 So. 2d 576 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “The Comment to § 6-5-254 states, in pertinent part: "The words `value, of the permanent improvements' [have] been held to mean the market value of the improvements and not the costs thereof.”
DeJonker v. McCaig, 628 So. 2d 575 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Thereafter, under the express terms of § 6-5-254, DeJonker had 10 days to “either .”
Se. Enter., Inc. v. Byrd, 720 So. 2d 873 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 2× “The ore tenus standard of review is not applicable where a trial court has misapplied the law to the facts. Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Mobile, 636 So.”
Ross v. Rogers, 25 So. 3d 1160 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “In a letter dated June 10, 2005, Ross responded that he wished to verify the statement of charges the Rog-erses had submitted, requested that they provide receipts verifying the charges, and appointed a referee to determine the proper value of the charges pursuant to § 6-5-254,…”
Hanback v. Moseley, 648 So. 2d 600 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “) The Comment to § 6-5-254 states, in pertinent part: “[t]he words ‘value of the permanent improvements’ has been held to mean the market value of the improvements and not the costs thereof” (Emphasis added.”
Dailey v. Howard, 659 So. 2d 629 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-254, provides, in pertinent part: “In response to a written demand made under Section 6-5-252, the then holder of the legal title shall, within 10 days from the receipt of such demand, furnish the proposed redemptioner with the amount claimed as the value of…”
Peinhardt v. Megginson, 681 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. 1996).
· cites it 2× “16; reserve all rights to recover the same; expressly do not waive any contention or assertion that those sums are not due; and further specifically assert that those charges enumerated in your letter of October 12, 1993 are not lawful charges as that [term is] used in §…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-254(a) — 5 cases
Se. Enter., Inc. v. Byrd, 720 So. 2d 873 (Ala. 1998).
“The ore tenus standard of review is not applicable where a trial court has misapplied the law to the facts. Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Mobile, 636 So.”
Nichols v. Colvin, 674 So. 2d 576 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
“The Comment to § 6-5-254 states, in pertinent part: "The words `value, of the permanent improvements' [have] been held to mean the market value of the improvements and not the costs thereof.”
DeJonker v. McCaig, 628 So. 2d 575 (Ala. 1993).
“Thereafter, under the express terms of § 6-5-254, DeJonker had 10 days to “either .”
Hanback v. Moseley, 648 So. 2d 600 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
“) The Comment to § 6-5-254 states, in pertinent part: “[t]he words ‘value of the permanent improvements’ has been held to mean the market value of the improvements and not the costs thereof” (Emphasis added.”
Peinhardt v. Megginson, 681 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. 1996).
“16; reserve all rights to recover the same; expressly do not waive any contention or assertion that those sums are not due; and further specifically assert that those charges enumerated in your letter of October 12, 1993 are not lawful charges as that [term is] used in §…”
— Ala. Code § 6-5-254(b) — 2 cases
DeJonker v. McCaig, 628 So. 2d 575 (Ala. 1993).
“Thereafter, under the express terms of § 6-5-254, DeJonker had 10 days to “either .”
Peinhardt v. Megginson, 681 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. 1996).
“16; reserve all rights to recover the same; expressly do not waive any contention or assertion that those sums are not due; and further specifically assert that those charges enumerated in your letter of October 12, 1993 are not lawful charges as that [term is] used in §…”
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.