Equity Ventures, LLC v. Cheaha Bank

Citation: 267 So. 3d 854Docket: 2170365

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; July 20, 2018; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Equity Ventures, LLC, appealed the Calhoun Circuit Court's dismissal of its petition for a writ of mandamus related to the administrative redemption of property for which it held a tax deed. The property was originally owned by Superior Home Construction, LLC, with Cheaha Bank holding a mortgage. After taxes were unpaid, the State of Alabama purchased the tax lien on May 8, 2012, and assigned the certificate of purchase to Equity Ventures on January 16, 2015. Equity Ventures surrendered this certificate on December 2015, receiving a tax deed on December 28, 2015.

On October 19, 2016, Cheaha Bank demanded a value statement for improvements made to the property, citing Ala. Code § 40-10-122. Equity Ventures responded that, due to the elapsed three years since the tax sale, only judicial redemption under § 40-10-83 was valid, and offered a redemption amount of $15,989.67. Cheaha Bank then filed a petition for administrative redemption on November 4, 2016, claiming an attorney fee was not recoverable under the applicable statute and stating a willingness to pay $4,776.24. The probate court granted Cheaha Bank's petition, ruling the demand was timely and that Equity Ventures's refusal to engage in the redemption process implied a waiver of claims for improvements and other charges. The court ordered the issuance of a certificate of redemption upon payment. 

Following the issuance of the certificate on the same day, Equity Ventures sought to vacate the judgment and quash the certificate, but the probate court denied this motion on February 21, 2017.

On March 15, 2017, Equity Ventures filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the circuit court, seeking to quash or vacate a certificate of redemption issued by the probate court on November 4, 2016, claiming the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Cheaha Bank responded by filing a motion to dismiss the petition on April 12, 2017, arguing that Equity Ventures had not appealed the November judgment or sought a stay, rendering the petition moot. Following a hearing, the circuit court dismissed the petition on July 21, 2017. Equity Ventures subsequently filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the dismissal judgment, which went unaddressed and was deemed denied on November 20, 2017, under Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. On December 28, 2017, Equity Ventures appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the case to a lower court.

Equity Ventures contends that the circuit court erred in its dismissal, although the circuit court did not provide reasoning for its decision. Cheaha Bank maintains that the petition is moot, citing a prior ruling that indicates a writ of mandamus does not affect trial court jurisdiction or halt ongoing proceedings. The court noted that a writ of mandamus serves to direct a trial judge's duties but does not serve as a substitute for an appeal. It emphasized that after the thirty-day period for appeal elapsed, the trial court lost jurisdiction to vacate the dismissal, and the appellate courts could not acquire jurisdiction to remand the case. Cheaha Bank argued that since more than thirty days had passed since the final judgment in the redemption action without an appeal or stay, the probate court lost jurisdiction over the matter.

Cheaha Bank contends that the probate court lost jurisdiction, rendering any potential directives from the circuit court moot, and thus the petition for a writ of mandamus is unnecessary. In contrast, Equity Ventures asserts it was compelled to file the mandamus petition instead of appealing the probate court's decision. It cites case law, including Wall to Wall Properties v. Cadence Bank and Surginer v. Roberts, to support its position that a party aggrieved by a certificate of redemption can seek a writ of mandamus from the circuit court. The circuit court's authority to do so is affirmed in Alabama law, as it has jurisdiction over petitions regarding the denial of such certificates. Relevant precedents indicate that if a probate court incorrectly issues a certificate without confirming lawful payments, the circuit court can mandate a vacating of that certificate. Additionally, all probate court orders are treated with the same validity as those from general jurisdiction courts, and mandamus is the appropriate remedy for orders issued without authority. Alabama law provides circuit courts with general oversight over probate courts, reinforcing their role in adjudicating these matters.

The probate court's judgments and orders can be reviewed either through direct appeal or by petitioning for an extraordinary writ, as established in Helms v. McCollum. Sections 12-22-2 and 12-22-20 of the Alabama Code permit appeals from final probate court judgments to the circuit or Supreme Court. The circuit court's appellate jurisdiction can also be invoked via extraordinary writ petitions. For orders lacking statutory appellate jurisdiction, review occurs through writs of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition, as noted in Town of Flat Creek v. Alabama By-Products Corp. 

In the case of a probate judge's refusal to issue a certificate of redemption for tax-sold land, the appropriate review method is a petition for writ of mandamus, as affirmed in Ross v. Rosen-Rager. Section 12-22-21 excludes appeals related to certificates of redemption, necessitating a mandamus petition to address such issues. 

In this instance, the circuit court mistakenly dismissed Equity Ventures's mandamus petition challenging the probate court's judgment favoring Cheaha Bank's administrative redemption petition. The circuit court's dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded for consideration of the mandamus petition's merits. Additionally, Equity Ventures initiated two circuit court actions regarding the property: one to eject Superior and another to quiet title. The amounts involved total $15,990.48, although Equity Ventures's letter to Cheaha Bank specified $15,989.67. The postjudgment motion was deemed denied on November 20, 2017, following the applicable rules regarding weekends.