Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-6-283 (2026)

Demanding Abstract of Title to Be Relied on for Recovery or Defense; Proceedings Upon Failure to Furnish Same.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all actions or proceedings involving the title or right of possession to land, either party may, by notice in writing to the opposing party or his attorney of record not less than 10 days before the trial, demand an abstract in writing of the title, or titles, on which he will rely for recovery or defense, and such party must be confined to the proof of such title or titles upon the trial. If either party, after such demand and notice, fails to furnish such abstract of title, the party so demanding may move the court to require the party in default to furnish the abstract of title, and the court may enter an order requiring the party so in default to furnish the abstract of title within the time to be fixed by the order of the court. Upon failure to comply with such order, the court must dismiss the action or proceeding if the plaintiff is in default or may enter judgment by default if the defendant is the party in default, or the court may, in its discretion, tax the party so in default with all or any part of the costs of the action or proceeding.

(Code 1867, §2612; Code 1876, §2961; Code 1886, §2697; Code 1896, §1531; Code 1907, §3841; Code 1923, §7455; Code 1940, T. 7, §940.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–2017 · leading case: Pogue v. White Stone Baptist Church, 554 So. 2d 981 (Ala. 1989).
Pogue v. White Stone Baptist Church, 554 So. 2d 981 (Ala. 1989). “The trial court granted defendants’ motion for abstract of title pursuant to Code 1975, § 6-6-283. The plaintiff did not provide an abstract as ordered, but he did file a letter from Title Insurance Company addressed to the plaintiff.”
Davis v. Davis, 240 So. 3d 621 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “, and a demand for an abstract of the claimed title to the property pursuant to § 6-6-283, Ala. Code 1975. In their Rule 12(c) motion, the Davises argued that the original ejectment action should be dismissed with prejudice because A.”
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.