Case Title: Garris v. a & M Forest Consultants, Inc.

Citation: 534 So. 2d 577

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1988-07-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
534 So. 2d 577 (1988)
Edward Daniel GARRIS, et al.
v.
A & M FOREST CONSULTANTS, INC., et al.
86-549.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 29, 1988.
Rehearing Denied November 18, 1988.
*578 John W. Parker, Mobile, for appellants.
Barry L. Thompson and Lawrence B. Voit of Silver, Voit & Inge, Mobile, and Joseph C. McCorquodale III of McCorquodale & McCorquodale, Jackson, for appellees.
ALMON, Justice.
Edward Daniel Garris, Sr., Joyce Garris, and Edward Daniel Garris, Jr., filed this action, seeking to redeem two parcels of real property. One parcel had been purchased at a foreclosure sale by the foreclosing mortgagee, defendant Federal Land Bank of Jackson; conveyed to defendant A & M Forest Consultants, Inc., which conveyed part of its interest to three individuals; redeemed by Samuel B. Garris, Jr., the son of the former owners; and then conveyed by the redemptioner back to A & M and its grantees. The latter are hereinafter referred to as "the A & M defendants." The other parcel was likewise purchased at the foreclosure sale by the mortgagee, and then conveyed to defendant J.P. McKee. The trial judge granted summary judgment, made final pursuant to Rule 54(b), A.R.Civ.P., in favor of the A & M defendants, holding that the redemption by Samuel B. Garris, Jr., was a valid final redemption of his parents' former property, and concluding that the plaintiffs have no enforceable right to redeem the property now owned by the A & M defendants.[1]
The judgment of the court below reads in pertinent part:
"[Description of Property.]
Plaintiffs[2] argue that the trial court erred in granting judgment for the A & M Defendants, making two principal arguments: 1) That because they were debtors on the note secured by the mortgage, they were entitled to redeem the entire property mortgaged, 2) That the partial redemption by Samuel B. Garris, Jr., was void because redemption cannot be effected piecemeal.
Regardless of the merits of these arguments, we find that the judgment is due to be affirmed, because the plaintiffs did not raise these objections prior to the redemption. Samuel B. Garris, Jr., gave notice of his intent to redeem pursuant to the following statutory provisions:
§ 6-5-230. Right of debtor, junior mortgagee, etc.
". . .
The notice of partial redemption by Samuel B. Garris, Jr., gave the plaintiffs 60 days either to exercise their prior right to redeem or at least to object to the proposed partial redemption.
The partial redemption may have been objectionable, but a partial redemption is certainly not void. For example, Hargett v. Franklin County, 212 Ala. 423, 103 So. 40 (1925), is one of the cases plaintiffs cite for the proposition that "redemption cannot be effected by `piecemeal,'" but the same sentence in that case continues:
212 Ala. at 425, 103 So.  at 41 (citations omitted). See also Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Vinson, 246 Ala. 95, 100, 18 So. 2d 865, 869 (1944): "[T]he statute makes an indivisible entity of the act of redemption where the purchaser at foreclosure sale purchases the entire property," but "[t]he respondent having become the holder of the entire title by its purchase at foreclosure sale clearly had a right to sell to Smith any part of the property."
Thus, while there may be a legitimate argument that partial redemption should not have been effected in this case, at least not without proper allocation of the mortgage balance between the two parcels, see, e.g., Pitts v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co., 123 Ala. 469, 26 So. 286 (1899), subsequent appeal, 157 Ala. 56, 47 So. 242 (1908), the time for such an argument was when Samuel B. Garris, Jr., sent notice that he intended to make such a redemption.
Similarly, there is at least superficial conflict in the cases regarding who can redeem. There is language in cases such as Kelley v. Hurt, 217 Ala. 694, 117 So. 411 (1928), that "redemption necessarily involves the correlative idea of an interest in the thing sought to be redeemed." There is also language, however, such as the following:
Francis v. White, 166 Ala. 409, 412, 52 So. 349, 350 (1910). It may be that the plaintiffs' liability on the note and their joinder in the mortgage of the two parcels in one instrument could have given them the right to redeem the entire property, as they argue. This argument, again, is one that should have been made in the proceeding instituted by the notice of intent to redeem given by Samuel B. Garris, Jr.[3]
Because they did not "redeem or commence an action to redeem" or make any *582 objection to the redemption by Samuel B. Garris, Jr., in the proceeding he instituted pursuant to § 6-5-231, "no further redemption by the parties so notified may be made." This holding, of course, does not affect plaintiffs' attempt to redeem the other parcel, as to which Samuel B. Garris, Jr., made no redemption and as to which plaintiffs' claim is apparently still pending below.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, BEATTY and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
[1]  No issue is presented as to the claims against J.P. McKee and the Federal Land Bank of Jackson.
[2]  For simplicity, we do not distinguish the status of Edward Garris, Sr., and Joyce Garris from that of Edward Garris, Jr.
[3]  This is not a case where one co-tenant seeks to contribute his pro rata share of the redemption price to a redeeming co-tenant and thereby regain his interest. See Dominex, Inc. v. Key, 456 So. 2d 1047 (Ala. 1984). To the extent that an analogy to such a theory could hold here, plaintiffs have no right to contribute to Samuel B. Garris, Jr., or his vendees, because the property he redeemed had been owned solely by his parents. Thus, although a suit to regain a share by contribution may lie after redemption, this suit may not.