Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-9-147 (2026)
Setting Aside of Sales by Courts.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Courts have full power over their officers making execution or judicial sales, and whenever satisfied that a sale made under any legal process is infected with fraud, oppression, irregularity, or error to the injury of either party, the sale will be set aside.
(Code 1907, §4134; Code 1923, §7849; Code 1940, T. 7, §561.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Browning v. Palmer, 4 So. 3d 524 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
Browning v. Palmer, 4 So. 3d 524 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “" The circuit court also noted that the right to redeem under § 6-5-248 had expired after one year, [6] and it stated: "It seems contrary to the intent of the statute to permit title to be voidable beyond the one-year redemption period based solely on the price that was paid at…”
Hogan v. Carter, 431 So. 2d 1160 (Ala. 1983). “" The priority of Anderson and C & R against the bank has not been decided and would only be considered on remand if the bank becomes a party or purchases the property.”
McFarlen v. Edwards, 456 So. 2d 818 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984). “” Ala.Code § 6-9-147 (1975). We note at the outset that the circuit court heard the evidence presented ore terms in determining that the sale was not fraudulent or irregular under the statute.”
Hicks v. Hicks, 362 So. 2d 861 (Ala. 1978). “In actions for judicial sale of real property for division of the proceeds among joint owners or tenants in common, confirmation of such sales rests in the wise discretion of the trial court to be exercised according to the rules established by statutes and case-law; further,…”
Palmer v. Browning, 33 So. 3d 1249 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “" After considering the appeal, this court reversed the judgment in favor of Palmer on Browning's claims, holding that although the one-year statute of limitations for setting aside a sale under the redemption statute codified at § 6-5-248, Ala. Code 1975, had expired before…”
Posey v. Loomis, 641 So. 2d 797 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “He contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change or to modify property settlements contained in a final decree of divorce if more than thirty days have elapsed since the trial court entered the final judgment.”
Eaton v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (S.D. Ala. 2020). “” Ala. Code § 6-9-147 . No limitations period is expressed in this provision.”
Sharp v. Horton, 236 So. 3d 854 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “" See § 6-9-147. Therefore, the circuit court erred in declining to grant Sharp the relief requested.”
Cent. Bank of St. Clair Cnty. v. Burton, 485 So. 2d 1081 (Ala. 1986). “The clerk of this court is hereby ordered to pay over to said Jamie Burton the money that said Jamie Burton paid into court as the purchase price of said property.”
Thompson v. Milam, 628 So. 2d 692 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “§ 6-9-147, Code 1975. After proper advertisement, a public sale to the highest bidder was held by the clerk at the door of the Jefferson County Courthouse.”
Robinson v. Vernon, 553 So. 2d 581 (Ala. 1989). “He cites Code 1975, § 6-9-147, which provides as follows: “§ 6-9-147.”
Keeton v. Keeton, 531 So. 2d 1230 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). “Section 6-9-147, Ala.Code (1975), provides that “[c]ourts have full power over their officers making execution or judicial sales, and whenever satisfied that a sale made under any legal process is infected with fraud, oppression, irregularity or error to the injury of either…”
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.