Opinion ID: 1797539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Credit for Rents and Timber Cut

Text: SEI also argues that the trial court erred in not giving it credit against the cost of redemption for the rental value of the land after the date of its complaint for redemption, and in not giving it credit for timber that the Byrds cut. With respect to the rental value of the land, § 6-5-253(c) provides: The purchaser shall be entitled to all rents paid or accrued including oil and gas or mineral agreement rentals to the date of the redemption, and the rents must be prorated to such date. The purchaser or his or her transferee and his or her tenants shall have the right to harvest and gather the crops grown by them on the place for the year in which the redemption is made, but must pay a reasonable rent for the lands for the proportion of the current year to which such redemptioner may be entitled. (Emphasis added.) The record indicates that the Byrds grew and harvested crops on the property after the date on which the complaint for redemption was filed. See Dicie v. Morris, 285 Ala. 650, 654, 235 So.2d 796, 798 (1970) (stating that the date the complaint for redemption was filed serves as the date of redemption). The Byrds had the right to grow and harvest those crops, but § 6-5-253(c) requires that they pay SEI a reasonable rent for the use of the land for the time after the date of redemption. [8] Thus, the trial court erred to the extent it did not provide SEI a credit against the redemption price for the post-redemption rental value of the land. SEI also presented evidence that the Byrds cut and sold some amount of timber in July 1995 and that they destroyed other timber while clearing a portion of the land for farming. Section 6-5-253 provides, in pertinent part: (d) [Anyone] entitled and desiring to redeem shall be granted a credit as against the amount of money required to be paid for redemption as follows: (1) For all timber cut or sold on the land by the purchaser or his or her transferees, during the statutory period of redemption. (Emphasis added). Because all the timber, whether sold or destroyed, was cut, or otherwise removed from the land, during the statutory period of redemption, SEI was entitled to a credit therefor under § 6-5-253(d)(1). The trial court erred to the extent it failed to determine the value of the timber the Byrds cut and to give SEI a credit for that sum against the redemption price. In sum, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal; we affirm that portion of the trial court's judgment that included the higher-priority mortgage in the redemption price; we reverse those portions of the judgment computing interest, valuing permanent improvements at cost and not granting credit for rental value and timber cut or destroyed; and we remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, HOUSTON, and KENNEDY, JJ., concur. BUTTS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.