Opinion ID: 2532185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Creation of a Problematic Cotenancy

Text: Penick argues that the trial court's judgment, which requires him to sign a deed in lieu of foreclosure, is inappropriate in light of the circumstances of this case. According to Penick, the deed in lieu of foreclosure will create a problematic cotenancy among the Lodge, the City of Birmingham (which holds a first mortgage on the property), and the purchaser at the tax sale. In support of this argument, Penick cites 1631 Second Avenue North, L.L.C. v. Raine, 963 So.2d 71 (Ala.2007). In Raine, the trial court, after considering the circumstances of this case, held that `the court would be causing more problems for these parties than it would solve' if it ordered specific performance of a real-estate contract because such an order would result in a cotenancy among strangers. 963 So.2d at 75 (emphasis added). This Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating:  Given the circumstances of this case, we find no palpable error by the trial court in declining to order specific performance. . . . 963 So.2d at 75-76 (emphasis added). Penick, however, has not articulated in his brief how specific performance of the agreement in this case could result in a cotenancy, much less a problematic one. Further, he has not cited any legal authority to support his bare assertion that specific performance will result in a problematic cotenancy. We are unable to address the merits of an Penick's argument regarding the creation of a problematic cotenancy because he has failed to articulate that argument, and he presents no authority in support of it. See Stover v. Alabama Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 467 So.2d 251, 253 (Ala.1985).