Opinion ID: 1129527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I, II, and IV

Text: Appellant Williams argues that Mobil Oil was an indispensable party because it was the true owner of the land, and that plaintiffs below were, therefore, not entitled to redemption, and directs this court's attention to a deed from the plaintiffs below to Mobil Oil. Williams further contends that, since Mobil Oil was not a party to the action, it perpetrated some sort of fraud on the trial court. We disagree with each of these assertions. It is well settled in Alabama that a deed is not effective until it is delivered to the grantee. Pittman v. Pittman, 247 Ala. 458, 25 So.2d 26 (1946). The record does not contain any evidence that there was a delivery of a deed to Mobil Oil. One of the trial court's specific findings of fact was that the plaintiffs (the heirs of Mack Holder) were in legal possession of the subject land; that finding resolved issues one and two against Williams. Since the evidence was presented ore tenus, we uphold the trial court's findings, inasmuch as they were not plainly and palpably erroneous, and were supported by the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom. Eagerton v. Courtaulds North America, Inc., 421 So.2d 104 (Ala.1982). Even if the trial court had found that there was delivery of a deed transferring ownership to Mobil Oil, it still was not an indispensable party to the suit. The Alabama Code allows redemption by the person against whom the taxes were assessed or the owner of the land at the time of the sale, his heir, devisee, vendee or mortgagee.... Code 1975, § 40-10-83. Mobil Oil did not belong in any of these categories. Thus, the proper parties for redemption were before the court, and Mobil Oil was not an indispensable party to be joined under Alabama Rule 19. There is not even a scintilla of evidence that Mobil Oil perpetrated a fraud on the trial court in not seeking joinder in this action. Therefore, appellant cannot prevail on this issue.