Opinion ID: 1797539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Permanent Improvements

Text: SEI further argues that the trial court erred in determining the amount it would have to pay for permanent improvements under § 6-5-253(a)(1). Citing Wallace v. Beasley, 439 So.2d 133 (Ala.1983), SEI contends that the trial court erred by simply accepting the Byrds' cost estimates for various permanent improvement projects without determining the reasonable value of those improvements. The Byrds responded by asserting that the ore tenus standard requires this Court to affirm the trial court's ruling unless that ruling was plainly and palpably wrong. 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.2d 415 (Ala.1994). The law of Alabama provides that it is the reasonable value of the permanent improvements to the land, not their cost, that must be paid by the redeeming party. Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-254(a); Wallace, 439 So.2d at 135-36; Ladd v. Parmer, 278 Ala. 435, 178 So.2d 829 (Ala. 1965); Durr Drug, 241 Ala. at 395, 2 So.2d at 906. The record indicates that the trial court did not obtain evidence of the reasonable value of the permanent improvements, and thus misapplied the law to the facts by including in the redemption price the cost of the permanent improvements instead of their reasonable value. [7] On remand, the trial court should assess each permanent improvement and include the reasonable value thereof in the redemption price.