[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 79 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 03 24 -WH A-TFM

DEUTSCHE BANK NA TIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Pl ai nt iff - Co ns ol . Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, JOHNNY M. PORTIS, as Ass ig ne e an d/ or

Tran sf eree of t he Rig ht s o f Red em pt io n o f th e Sh erwi n Wil li am s C om pa ny an d a s As si gn ee an d/ orTran sf eree of t he Rig ht s of Red em pt io n o f Mark E. Marv in an d/ orTher es a F. Marvi n, wh ethe r joi nt ly or in di vi du al ly, in th e Rea l Pr op ert y , etc ., LISA H. PORTIS, as Ass ig ne e an d/ or

Tran sf eree of t he Rig ht s o f Red em pt io n o f th e Sh erwi n Wil li am s C om pa ny an d a s As si gn ee an d/ orTran sf eree of t he Rig ht s of Red em pt io n o f Mark E. Marv in an d/ orTher es a F. Marvi n, wh ethe r joi nt ly or in di vi du al ly, in th e Rea l Pr op ert y , etc ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Co ns ol . Pla in ti ffs - App el la nt s, ve rs us Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 17CITIBANK, N.A.,

as su cces so r in in te res t b y m erg er t o C it iB an k Fed eral Sav in gs Ban k, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 6, 2 01 2) Befo re MAR TIN, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Thi s ap pe al requi res us on ce ag ai n t o i nt erp retAlab am a’s red em pt io n st atut e, Ala. C od e § 6-5 -2 48 , inth e co nt ex t o f co m pe ti ng cla im s t o arig htof red em pt io n i n re al pro pe rty. T he di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t t he rig htof r ed em pt io n be lo ng edto Deut sc he Ban k Nat io na l Tru stCo m pa ny (Deut sc he Ban k) . Jo hn ny M. Po rti s an d Li saH. Port is , a hu sb an d a ndwife , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal th e di st ric t co urt’s h ol di ng , arg ui ng th atth ey are t he on ly part y

lawf ul ly allo wedto red eem th e p ro pe rty ins of

ar as th ey are the on ly part y

with ast atut ory

rig htof red em pt io n t ha t h as be enpro pe rly exer ci se d u nd er Al ab am a la w.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STO RY

“ Alab am a la w reco gn iz es a st atut ory rig htof r ed em

pt io n, wh ic h e nt it le s 2 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 2 of 17cert ai n p ers on s, i nc lu di ng [‘m ortg ag or s’ and ] ‘deb to rs ,’ to ob ta in ti tl e to

fo recl os edpro pe rty with in on e y ear o f th e fo recl os ur e sa le by ten de rin g t he pri ce pa idat t he sal e p lu s i nt eres t an d o th er l awfu l ch arg es .” Inre Po e, 47 7 F .3d13 17 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Ala. Co de §§ 6-5 -2 48 (a)( 1) & (b ), 6- 5- 25 3( a)).

“ Thi s s ta tu to ry

rig htof r ed em

pt io n m ay

be tra ns ferr edor a ss ig ne d, an d t he tra ns fere e o f th e ri gh t n eedno t h av e a p ro pe rty int eres t i n t he real pro pe rty so ldin
or de r to red eem .” Id . (ci ti ng Ala. Co de § 6 -5 -2 48 (a)( 5)
. A. The fact s o f th is cas e are no t d is pu te d. Th e co nf li ctcen te rs on real pro pe rty lo cat edat 4 13 Park s R oa d, Pi ke Ro ad , Alab am a (the Pro pe rty). As of Oc to be r 20 06 , MarkE. Marv in an d Th eres a F. Marvi n o wne d t he Pro pe rty, sub ject t o a m ortg ag e an d aho m e equi ty lin e o f cred it . In Fe br ua ry 20 09 , fol lo win g aser ie s o f ad di ti on al m ortg ag es an d fo recl os ur es , Deut sc he Ban k, h ol de r of a m ortg ag e o n th e Pro pe rty, sue d C it ib an k, N.A. (Ci ti ba nk ), ho ld er o f a s ep arat e m ortg ag e o n t he Pro pe rty, to d et erm in e le ga l o wne rs hi p o f th e Pro pe rty ( Deu ts ch e Ban k I

). Alt ho ug h Deu ts ch e Ban k d idno t as se rt arig htto red eem th e p ro pe rty in i ts
or ig in al co m

pl ai nt , itam en de d t he co m pl ai ntin Apri l 2 01 0 t o a ss ertth at , eve n i f it di d n otha ve a fi rs t p rio rit y m ortg ag e v is -á-v is Cit ib an k, Deu ts ch e Ban k s ho ul d st il l h av e a ri gh t o f red em pt io n i n t he Pro pe rty un de r Alaba m a la w.

3 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 3 of 17InNov em be r 20 09 , th e Po rti se s fi le d aco un se le d c om pl ai ntin st at e co urt ag ai ns t b ot h Deu ts ch e Ban k andCit ib an k (Por tises I ). The Po rti se s as se rte d t ha t th ey were as si gn ees of ast atut ory rig htof r ed em

pt io n o n t he Pro pe rty acqu ire d fro m th e Ma rv in s. Th e Po rti se s al so ass ert edth atth ey were the ass ig ne es of a
se pa rat e st atut ory

rig htof r ed em

pt io n a cqui redfro m

The Sh erwi n Wil li am s Co m pa ny, ano th er jud gm en t cr ed it orwith ali enonth e ti tl e. Deut sc he Ban k a nd Ci ti ba nkrem ov edth is act io n t o fe de ral co urt an d a ns wered , Deut sc he Ban k
as se rti ng cert ai n d efen se s an d d en y in g t ha t t he Po rti se s wer e en ti tl edto rel ie f. The di stric t co urt co ns ol id at ed Deu ts ch e Ban k I an d Por tises I

forall pu rp os es . Duri ng di sc ov ery, Cit ib an k m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t, l im it edto th e Deu ts ch e Ban k I

is su es , andask edth e co urt t o d ecl are t ha t Ci ti ba nkha d t he fir stpri or it y

m ortg ag e as a m at te r of

law. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o C it ib an k, fi nd in g t ha t Ci ti ba nkhe lda pr io rit y m ortg ag e. The d is tri ct
co urt re se rv edfor

tri al , ho wev er, the is su e o f whe th er Deu ts ch e Ban k s ho ul d b e al lo wedto red eem

th e Pro pe rty with th e p aym en t o f anap pr op ria te red em pt io n pr ic e. The Po rti se s al so m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. The y

rel ie d o n C it ib an k’s arg um en t t ha t Ci ti ba nkha d afir stpri or it y m ortg ag e, an d a ss ert edth atbe cau se Deu ts ch e Ban k fa il edto pro pe rly pres erv e it s ri gh t t o re de em , on ly the Po rti se s’ 4 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 4 of 17rig htto red eem th e Pro pe rty rem ai ne d, s o t he Po rti se s wer e en ti tl edto ex erci se th atrig htun de r Alaba m a la w. Deut sc he Ban k o pp os ed , andth e d is tri ctco urt de ni edth e Po rti se s’ m ot io n a s m oo t, t o t he ex te ntth atitwas p ro pe rly ass ert edin th e Deu ts ch e Ban k I pr oc eed in g, b as edon th e res ol ut io n o f Ci ti ba nk ’s cla im to a fir stpri or it y

m ortg ag e. The d is tri ctco urt al so rul edth atth e co m pe ti ng red em

pt io n cl ai m s i de nt ifi edin Por tises I wou ldbe de ci de d a t t ria l. Fo ll owi ng a pr etria l h eari ng , Deut sc he Ban k a ndth e Po rti se s ap paren tl y ag reedth ata tr ia l wo ul d n otbe ne ces sa ry an d, i ns te ad , subm it te d t he cas e fo r di sp os it io n b as edon st ip ul at edfact s as to when , or h ow, ea ch party: (i ) ob ta in eda st atut ory rig htof r ed em

pt io n, i f atall ; (i i) a tt em

pt edto no ti fy

Cit ib an k o f an in te nt io n t o e xe rci se th atrig ht ; an d (i ii ) wou ldot he rwis e b e en ti tl edto cert ai n equi tabl e d efen se s. 1 Init s m em or an du m

op in io n, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t atva rio us po in ts th e Po rti se s an d Deu ts ch e Ban k e ach ob ta in eda st atut ory rig htof r ed em

pt io n un de r Alaba m a la w th ro ug h atra ns fer o f in te res ts , bu t t ha t Deu ts ch e Ban k’s ri gh t of red em pt io n t oo k p rio rity

ov er tha t o f th e Po rti se s. Th e d is tri ctco urt re as on ed th atDeut sc he Ban k s to odin th e sh oe s o f a g ran to r-m ortg ag or , wher eas th e Followingthe district court’s de termination that Citibank held the first priority mortg ag e 1 on the Property , Citi bank cla rified that it took no position as to whether De utsche B ank or the Portises had a right of rede mption. 5

Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 5 of 17Po rti se s s to odin sh oe s o f a g ran to r-d eb to r, an d u nd er Al ab am a la w a tra ns fere e o f

a p art y ’s red em

pt io n i nt eres t as a m ortg ag orha s p rio rit y ov er a t ran sf

eree of a pa rty’ s re de m

pt io n i nt eres t as a de bt or . See Po rti s, etal. v . Cit ib an k, 8 06 F. Sup p. 2d12 12 , 12 22 –2 4 (c it in g Al a. Co de § 6 -5 -5 48 (g )). Pro ceed in g p ro se, t he Po rti se s no w app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on . II . DISCUSSI ON Lib eral ly con st ru ed , th e Po rti se s’ pro se br ie f m ak es th e fo ll owi ng as si gn m en ts of e rro r : (i ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinall owi ng Deut sc he Ban k’s 2 red em pt io n c la im

to rel at e b ackto it s i ni ti al co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Ci ti bank ; (i i) t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt erredin it s d et erm in at io n t ha t Deu ts ch e Ban k was ex cu se d fr om st ric t co m pl ia nc e with t he pro cedur al requi rem en ts of t he Alab am a red em pt io n st atut e; (ii i) t ha t Deu ts ch e Ban k n ev er p le ad edsp eci fic al ly tha t i t was en ti tl edto rel ie f ba se d o n i ts st atus as a“ m ortg ag or ” an d t hu s wai ve d i ts rig htto an y st atut ory red em pt io n c la im

th atitm ig htha ve ha d; an d (i v) th at , inan y ev en t, a
rece nt ly pub li sh edAlab am a Co urt o f Ci vi l Ap pe al s ca se is de te rm in at iv e o f th e

At various points in their brief, the Portises also refe renc e “othe r issues and subissues 2 [si c]” that they

would have us r eview. E ven whe re c ognizable, however , any such “issues” wer e not briefe d and ar e ther efor e aba ndoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 6

Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 6 of 17is su e o f pr io rit y of r ed em pt io n a s b etweenth e Po rti se s an d Deu ts ch e Ban k. 3 Whe n, as he re, the fact s ar e u nd is pu te d a ndon ly leg al qu es ti on s re m ai n t o be de ci de d, o urrev ie w is pl en ary. Poe , 47 7 F .3dat 1 32 0. A. RELATION BACK The Po rti se s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin all owi ng Deut sc he Ban k’s cl ai m to a ri gh t o f red em

pt io n t o re la te ba ckto it s i ni ti al co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Ci ti ba nk . Our rev ie w of Al ab am a la w andou r own pre ced en t l eadus to rejectth is arg um en t. Und er Al ab am a la w, cert ai n p ers on s m ay ex erci se a st atut ory

rig htof red em pt io n t o o bt ai n t it le to for ecl os edpro pe rty with in on e y ear o f th e fo recl os ur e sa le . Ala. Co de § 6 -5 -2 52 . Here Ci ti ba nk , th e o nl y pa rty to p ro pe rly ins ti tu te fo recl os ur e p ro ceed in gs on th e Pro pe rty, hel d i ts for ecl os ur e sa le on Nov em be r 14 , 20 08 . On Feb ru ary 24 , 20 09 , Deut sc he Ban k fi le d i ts Deu ts ch e Ban k I co m pl ai nt
In response , Deutsche Ba nk alleg es that the Portises lack sta nding to c halleng e De utsche 3 Ba nk’s statutory

right to redemption. We cannot a gree . Standing r equire s proof of thr ee elements: an “ injury

in fac t” that is “par

ticularized” a

nd “ac tual or imminent”; “a c ausal connec tion between the injury and the c onduct complained of ”; and likelihood “that the injury will be redr essed by

a fa vorabledecision.” L

ujan v. Def

ender s of Wildl ife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S. Ct . 2130, 2136 (1992). On this re cord, the Portises satisfy the eleme nts of standingto challeng e the va lidity of De utsche B ank’s right of rede mption. I f De utsche B ank’s rede mption claim is valid and takes priority over the Portises, as deter mined by the district court, the Portises are deprive d of the opportunity to exercise their right of

rede mption, a concr ete a nd particula rized, and ac tual harm. This injury is directly

related to the validity

of De utsche B ank’s right of rede mption and whether it was properly

exercised. F inally , a fa

vorable decision by

this court on the issue of

the validity

of De utsche B ank’s right of rede mption would result in the Portises’ ability

to exercise their right of

rede mption. 7 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 7 of 17ag ai ns t Ci ti ba nksee ki ng a de cl arat ory jud gm en t as to leg al an d e qu it ab le ti tl e to th e p ro pe rty, well wi th in th e o ne y ear l im itrequi redby the red em pt io n s ta tu te . As
se t o utab ov e, ho wev er, thi s co m pl ai ntdi d n otcla im

a st atut ory

rig htof red em pt io n. Ra th er, Deu ts ch e Ban k a ss ert edit s ri gh t o f red em pt io n o nl y

in it s am en de d c om

pl ai nt , fil edonApri l 5 , 20 10 , well be y on d t he on e y ear p eri od requi redby A laba m a la w. There fo re, wh ethe r Deu ts ch e Ban k m ay ex erci se a ri gh t to red eem de pe nd s o n wh ethe r it s amend edco m pl ai ntrel at edba ckto it s o rig in al
co m pl ai nt . The Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e an d t he Alab am a Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pro cedur e are subs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e wit h re ga rdto when anam en dm en t re la te s ba ckto th e o rig in al co m

pl ai nt . Com

pa re Fe d. R. C iv . P. 15 (c) wi th Ala. R. Ci v. P. 15 (c). In pe rti ne ntpa rts , each pro vi de th atanam en dm en t t o apl ead in g “ rel at es ba ckto th e d at e o f th e o rig in al pl ead in g” when th e cl ai m or d efen se ass ert edin th e am en de d p le ad in g a ro se ou t o f th e “ co nduc t, tran sa ct io n, o r oc cu rren ce” s etforth
oratt em pt edto be setforth in th e o rig in al pl ead in g. Se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (c)( 1) (B); Ala. R. Ci v. P. 1 5( c)(2 ). Und er ei th er fe de ral law, o r Alaba m a la w, a de te rm in at io n t ha t an am en de d c om pl ai ntrel at es ba ckto anori gi na l co m pl ai ntis
rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Dav enpo rt v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 17 F.3d13 41 , 13 43 n. 4 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); E & S Faci li ti es , Inc . v. Pre ci si on Ch ip pe r Co rp ., 56 5 8 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 8 of 17So . 2d54 , 62 (Ala . 19 90 ).

The di stric t co urt h el d tha t Deu ts ch e Ban k’s am en de d c om pl ai ntof Ap ril 5, 20 10 “ aro se ou t o f th e co nduc t, tran sa ct io n, o r oc cu rren ce s etou t . . . inth e or ig in al pl ead in g,” an d t he refo re re la te d b ackto Deut sc he Ban k’s o rig in al
co m pl ai ntof F eb ru ary 24 , 20 09 . Port is , 80 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 21 9– 20 . In d oi ng so , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth atAlab am a co urts ha ve ap pl ie d re la ti on ba ckpri nc ip le s to fin d a n a m en dm en t t im el y un de r th e st atut ory

red em pt io n l im it at io ns pe rio d. See, e.g ., Peaco ck

v. Cl ay , 83 1 S o. 2 d 3 3, 3 8 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. 2 00 1) . The Po rti se s ha ve po in te d t o n o aut ho rit y forth e p ro po si ti on th atrel at io n b ackis im pe rm is si bl e un de r Alaba m a la w forth e ex erci se of ast atut ory rig htof r ed em

pt io n. Th us we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on th atth e am en dm en t was ba se d o n t he
sa m e tr an sa ct io n a s t ha t d es cri be d i n t he ori gi na l co m pl ai ntwas n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Deu ts ch e Ban k’s am en de d c om pl ai ntex erci si ng it s ri gh t o f red em pt io n rel at edba ckto it s o rig in al co m pl ai nt , th us sat is fy in g t he Alab am a red em pt io n st atut e’s on e y ear r equi rem en t. 4
In connec tion with their relation bac k argument, the Portises alleg e for the first time on 4 appea l that the district court’s judgment must be vacated for f ailure to join the Portises as an indispensable par

ty , presumably

to the orig inal action betwe en De utsche B ank and Citibank. This argument is without m erit. The Portises we re not a n indispensable par

ty to that liti g ation beca use the Portises only

acquir ed an inter est in the Property afte r De utsche B ank filed its ac tion in Febr uary 2009. J .R. McClenney

and Son, Inc. v. Reimer, 435 So. 2d 50, 52 (A la. 1983) (“‘ Indispensable pa

rties’ a re pe rsons who not only

have a n interest in the controversy but an interest of suc h a natur e that a f inal decr ee c annot be made without either af fec ting that inter est 9 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 9 of 17B. COMP LIANCE W ITH STATUTO RY REQUIREMENTS

The Po rti se s al so arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de te rm in in g t ha t Deu ts ch e Ban k was ex cu se d fr om st ric t co m

pl ia nc e wit h t he pro cedur al requi rem en ts of t he Alab am a red em pt io n s ta tu te . Spe ci fic al ly, th e Po rti se s ar gu e th at : (i ) th e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly excu se d Deu ts ch e Ban k’s fa il ur e to m ak e a writ te n d em an d fo r a s ta te m en t o f de btpu rs ua ntto Ala. Co de § 6 -5 -2 52 ; an d (i i) th e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly excu se d Deu ts ch e Ban k’s fa il ur e to ten de r pa ym en t fo r th e Pro pe rty where no writ te n d em an d fo r a s ta te m en t o f de btwas m ad e.

1. Fa il ur e to Mak e a Writt enDem an d Inpe rti ne ntpa rt, Al a. Co de § 6 -5 -2 52 pro vi de s t ha t “ [a]nyone de si rin g a nd
en ti tl edto red eem

m ay m ak e wri tt ende m an d o f th e p ur ch as er o r hi s o r he r tra ns fere es for

a st at em en t i n wri ti ng of t he de btan d a ll lawf ul ch arg es cla im ed
. . . .” Id . (em

ph as is ad de d) . As in di cat edby the di st ric t co urt, “ th e p orti on of t he st atut e g ov ern in g d em an d i s wri tt enin pe rm is si ve term s.” Po rti s, 8 06 F. Sup p. 2 d at12 21 . In Sp en cer v . W es t Al a. Pro pe rti es , Inc ., th e Supr em e Co urt o f Alaba m a

or leaving the controve rsy in such a c ondition that it s final deter mination may

be wholly inconsistent with equity

and g ood conscie nce.” ) (quotation mar ks omitt ed). O nce the Portises acquir ed a c ognizable interest, and f ollowing the Portises’ c ommenceme nt of Portises I on November

13, 2009, the district court immediately consolidated the two c ases f or re solution of common questions of law a nd fac t relate d to the competingclaims to the Property . On this rec ord, we cannot sa

y that the district court e rre d in failingto join the Porti ses to the Deutsche Bank I litigation. 10 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 10 of 17in te rp ret eda ne arl y id en ti cal , ol de r ve rs io n o f th e sa m e st atut e, § 6 -5 -2 34 , hel d 5 th atth e p ro vi si on s t he rei n wer e “ cl earl y pe rm is si ve ,” an d a ll owe d aparty to
ex erci se it s ri gh t o f red em pt io n e ve n a fte r itha d fa il edto de m an d ast at em en t o f th e d eb t an d l awfu l ch arg es . 56 4 S o. 2 d 4 25 , 42 8 (Al a. 19 90 ). W e d ecl in e th e Po rti se s’ in vi ta ti on to in te rp retSp en cer n arro wly fo r th e pr op os it io n t ha t “ a d em an d fo r a wri tt enst at em en t i s ex cu se d wh ere t en de r is
m ad e wit hi n t he on e-year red em pt iv e p eri od .” InSp en cer, the Alab am a Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y

st at edth atth e red em

pt io n s ta tu te s ar e “ rem ed ia l i n n atur e” an d th eref or e m us t b e g iv en“ a li be ral in te rp ret at io n s o a s t o e ffec tu at e th ei r ob jecti ve s.” Sp en cer, 5 64 So . 2dat 4 27 . “ The pu rp os e o f th e red em pt io n s ta tu te s is to all ow a d efau lt in g p ur ch as er, wit h c ert ai n re st ric ti on s, the op po rtu ni ty to red eem pro pe rty tha t h as be enlo stby forec lo su re. In de ed , st atut ory rig ht s o f red em pt io n a re i nt en de d t o re sc ue fro m sac rif ic e th e p ro pe rty of a d eb to r.” Id
. (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n i ts de te rm in at io n t ha t u nd er Al ab am a la w, § 6 -5 -2 52 ’s writ te n d em an d p ro vi si on is pe rm is si ve . Thu s, Deu ts ch e Ban k’s fa il ur e to m ak e a wri tt ende m an d o f th e d eb t
an d l awfu l ch arg es cla im edby Citi ba nkat t he Pro pe rty’ s fo recl os ur e d idno t v oi d

The c omment to Ala. Code § 6-5-252 pr ovides that “[t] his section was e ssentially the 5 prior Section 6-5- 234.” I d. 11

Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 11 of 17Deu ts ch e Ban k’s s ub se qu en t at te m ptto ex erci se it s ri gh t o f red em pt io n. 2. Fa il ur e to Tend er Pa ym en t W e al so rejectth e Po rti se s’ arg um en t t ha t Deu ts ch e Ban k’s fa il ur e to ten de r pa ym en t fo r th e Pro pe rty with in on e y ear o f fo recl os ur e can no t b e ex cu se d. Th e red em pt io n s ta tu te pro vi de s, i n p ert in en t p art , th at“ [a]nyone en ti tl edan d d es iri ng to red eem real est at e u nd er the pro vi si on s o f th is art ic le m us t al so pa y

or t en de r to th e p ur ch as er . . . th e p ur ch as e p ric e p ai d a t t he sal e, wit h i nt eres t . . ., andall ot he r la wfu l ch arg es , als o wi th in te res t . . . .” Ala. Co de § 6 -5 -2 53 . The Po rti se s co rrec tl y st at e th at“ [p ]ay

m en t o r te nd er t o t he pu rch as er . . . [is ] a co nd it io n pr eced en t t o fi li ng a co m pl ai ntto red eem , un le ss ex cu se d.” Nich ol s v . Col vi n, 67 4 S o. 2 d 5 76 , 57 9 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. 1 99 5) . As th e d is tri ctco urt re co gn iz ed , ho wev er, u nd er Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt p rece de nta red em pt io ne r’s fai lu re t o m ak e p aym en t o r te nd er p rio r to fil in g aco m pl ai ntto red eem

is ex cu se d i f th e red em pt io ne r “ subm it s h im se lf t o t he juri sd ic ti onof t he co urt an d o ffer s t o d o equi ty.” Rob in o v . Green , 11 9 S o. 2 d 8 97 , 89 9 (Al a. 19 60 ). Here, Deu ts ch e Ban k’s co m

pl ai ntso ug hta de cl arat io n t ha t the Cit ib an k fo recl os ur e was vo idan d of no effe ct . In the alt ern at iv e, Deu ts ch e Ban k re qu es te d t ha t “ if t he Co urt de te rm in es th atDeut sc he Ban k i s n oten ti tl edto th e rel ie f reque st ed
. . . ab ov e, Deu ts ch e Ban k b e en ti tl edto red eem th e Subjec t p ro pe rty from Cit ib an k fo r an 12 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 12 of 17ap pr op ria te red em pt io n p ric e.” Und er Ro bi no , on ce Deu ts ch e Ban k s ub m it te d it se lf t o the co urt’s jur is di ct io n a ndoff eredto pay

th e ap pr op ria te red em

pt io n pr ic e, itwas e xc us edfro m m ak in g p aym en t o r te nd er p rio r to fil in g i ts co m pl ai nt . Thu s, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s h ol di ng th atDeut sc he Ban k’s fa il ur e to ten de r pa ym en t i s ex cu se d. C. FAILURE TO PLEAD FOR RELIEF AS A ‘MORTGAGOR’ Fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , th e Po rti se s as se rt t ha t b ecau se Deut sc he Ban k fai le d t o s pe ci fic al ly ple adth atitwas e nt it le d t o arig htof r ed em pt io n b as edup on it s s ta tu s as a “ m ortg ag or ” p rio r to subm is si on of i ts tri al bri ef— in st eadass ert in g in it s co m pl ai nton ly a gen eral en ti tl em en t t o re de m pt io n— Deu ts ch e Ban k wai ve d
an y st atut ory red em pt io n c la im

th atitm ig htha ve ha d. Al th ou gh no t s ta te d i n s o m an y word s, the Po rti se s ef

fect iv el y arg ue th atth e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldbe rev ers edbe cau se Deut sc he Ban k fa il edto st at e a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. Fe d. R. C iv . P. 12 (b )(6 ). Thi s co urt h as no t s qu arel y de ci de d wh ethe r th e d efen se of f ai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

up on whi chrel ie f can be gr an te d i s wai ve d b y

th e ap pe ll an t’s fa il ur e to rai se itin th e tr ia l co urt. See Sm it h v. At la s Off

-Sh or e Bo atServ ., Inc ., 65 3 F .2d10 57 , 10 60 n. 1 (11 th Cir . 19 81 ). 6

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d we a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer 6 Fifth Circuit hande d down bef ore O ctober

1, 1981. 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)
. 13

Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 13 of 17Bu t ev enif we a ss um e wit ho utde ci di ng th atsu ch a cl ai m canbe rai se d fo r th e fir stti m e o n app eal , th is arg um en t al so fai ls forth e rea so ns th atfol lo w. To s ta te a cl ai m

forrel ie f, th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e requi re tha t a p le ad in g c on ta in (i) “ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e g ro un ds forth e co urt’s juri sd ic ti on ”; (ii ) “ a sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e pl ead er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f”; an d (i ii ) “ a d em an d fo r th e rel ie f so ug ht , whi ch m ay in cl ud e rel ie f in th e al te rn at iv e o r di ffer en t t y pe s o f rel ie f.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 8(a ).

“ Pl ead in gs m

us t b e co ns tru edso as t o d o ju st ic e.” Id . at 8 (e). Ho wev er, “ [i]n
as se ss in g t he su ffi ci en cy

of t he co m

pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns , we are b ou ndto ap pl y th e pl ead in g s ta nd ardart ic ul at edin Bel l At la nt ic Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 95 5 (2 00 7) , andAsh cro ft v . Iqb al , 55 6 U.S. 6 62 , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7 (2 00 9) .” Lanf

ear v . Hom e Dep ot , Inc ., 67 9 F .3d12 67 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). “ As
a res ul t, the pl ai nt iff

m us t p le ada cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” Id
. (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. 7 Init s fi rs t co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t Ci ti ba nk , fil edin th e Ci rcu itCo urt o f Mo nt go m ery Co un ty, Alab am a in Feb ru ary 20 09 , Deut sc he Ban k a ss ert edth atit

By comparison, Alabama c ourts maintain a per missive approac h to what may suffice for 7 a we ll-plead c omplaint. Peacock v. Clay , 831 So. 2d at 36. This standard wa s not chang ed by the United States Supreme Court’ s decisions in Twombly and I qbal. See Mc Kelvin v. Smith, 85 So.3d 386, 391 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). 14

Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 14 of 17he ldleg al an d e qu it ab le ti tl e to th e Pro pe rty. T he co m pl ai ntlai d o utsp eci fic gr ou nd s fo r why Deut sc he Ban k was en ti tl edto rel ie f. Deut sc he Ban k’s am en de d
co m pl ai nt , fil edin Apri l 2 01 0, i nc lu de d, i n t he alt ern at iv e, it s re qu es t t o re de em th e Pro pe rty. T he Fed eral an d Al ab am a Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e eac h e xp res sl y pr ov id e fo r cl ai m s o f rel ie f m ad e in th e al te rn at iv e. See Fe d. R. C iv . P. 8(a )(3 ); Ala. R. C iv . P. 8(a )(2 ). Deut sc he Ban k’s cl ai m to st atut ory

red em pt io n was supp orte d b y

th e sa m e fac ts as i ts cla im to ti tl e in th e Pro pe rty. H ere a ga in , in so far a s Deu ts ch e Ban k’s am en de d c om pl ai ntsee ki ng red em

pt iv e rel ie f rel at ed ba ckto it s o rig in al co m

pl ai nt , un de r ei th er the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e o r Alab am a’s m or e li be ral pl ead in g s ta nd ard s, Deu ts ch e Ban k’s co m pl ai ntst at eda cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. In ot he r wor ds , Deut sc he Ban k d idno t waiv e it s ri gh t t o re de m

pt iv e rel ie f si m

pl y be cau se itfai le d t o s pe ci fy th atitwas en ti tl edto red em

pt iv e rel ie f ba se d upo n i ts st atus as am ortg ag or . Thu s, the Po rti se s’ Rul e 1 2( b) (6 ) arg um en t fa il s.

D. EFFECT OF INTERVENING A LABAMA CASELAW Fi na ll y , th e Po rti se s ar gu e th atev enif Deu ts ch e Ban k’s ri gh t o f red em pt io n is co gn iz ab le an d was pro pe rly inv ok ed , an i nt erv en in g Al ab am a Co urt o f Ci vi l App eal s o pi ni on , Che ss v. Bu rt, 8 7 S o. 3 d 1 20 1 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. 2 01 1) , “ is de te rm in at iv e” tha t t he Po rti se s’ rig htof r ed em pt io n t ak es pri or it y

ov er Deu ts ch e 15 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 15 of 17Ban k’s ri gh t o f red em pt io n. The Po rti se s co rrec tl y

ob se rv e th atCh es s s ta nd s fo r th e p ro po si ti on th atas be twee n two t ran sf

eree s o f st atut ory

rig ht s o f red em

pt io n t o t he same pro pe rty, the tra ns fere e who see ks to red eem fir stha s p rio rit y

an d t he sec on d p art y

can no t fu rth er re de em

be cau se th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e Alaba m a red em pt io n s ta tu te li m it s fu rth er re de m

pt io n t o m ortg ag or s an d d eb to rs . See Ch es s, 8 7 S o. 2 d a t 1 21 1 (ci ti ng Ala. Co de § 6 -5 -2 48 (d )). Thi s p ro po si ti on , ho wev er, d oe s n ot hi ng to st ren gthe n t he Po rti se s’ po si ti on in so far as th e Po rti se s an d Deu ts ch e Ban k e ach acqui redred em

pt io n ri gh ts as t ran sf

eree s. In de ed , on ce i t i s es tabl is he d t ha t Deu ts ch e Ban k’s am en de d c om pl ai ntex erci si ng it s ri gh t o f red em pt io n re la te s ba ckto it s o rig in al co m

pl ai ntof F eb ru ary 24 , 20 09 , supr a, Ch es s ac tu al ly de te rm in es th atas b etweenth e Po rti se s an d Deu ts ch e Ban k, Deu ts ch e Ban k’s red em pt io n c la im

tak es pri or ity . Per Ch es s, i f Deu ts ch e Ban k, wh ic h s ou gh t red em pt io n b efo re the Po rti se s, i s en ti tl edto red eem th e p ro pe rty, the Po rti se s ar e no t t he n e nt it le d t o fu rth er re de em be cau se § 6 -5 -2 48 (d ) li m it s fu rth er re de m pt io n to m ortg ag or s an d d eb to rs an d t he Po rti se s ar e n ei th er. See Ch es s, 8 7 S o. 2 d a t 12 11
. The Po rti se s d idno t o th erwi se bri ef an y arg um en ts co nt es ti ng th e d is tri ct
co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f pr io rity of r ed em pt io n ri gh ts . “ [I]ss ue s n otbri efedon 16 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 16 of 17ap pe al by a pro se li ti ga ntare d eem edab an do ne d.” Tim so n, 5 18 F.3dat 8 74
.

The refo re we wi ll no t d is tu rb th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n o f pr io rity as be twee n Deu ts ch e Ban k (a s t ran sf eree of am ortg ag or ) an d t he Po rti se s (a s tra ns fere es of ade bt or ). II I. CONCLUS IO N Fo r eac h o f th es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si onres ol vi ng ex erci se of th e st atut ory

rig htof r ed em

pt io n o n t he Pro pe rty in f av orof De ut sc he Ban k i s AFFIRMED.

17 Case: 11-15790 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 17 of 17