Stiff v. Equivest Financial, LLC, [Ms. 1181051, June 26, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). In a plurality
decision, the Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin and Stewart,
JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result; Shaw, Wise, Bryan, and
Mendheim, JJ., dissent) reverses the Jefferson Circuit Court’s judgment
refusing to set aside a tax sale of Stiff’s property that was sold
at a tax sale that took place inside the Bessemer courthouse instead of
“in front of the door of the courthouse” as required by §
40-10-15, Ala. Code 1975. “When an appeal focuses on the application
of the law to undisputed facts, we apply a
de novo standard of review.” Ms. *4, citing
Carter v. City of Haleyville, 669 So. 2d 812, 815 (Ala. 1995).
The opinion concludes that the irregularity in the sale renders it void:
The tax-sale statutes include detailed instructions on the manner in which
a tax sale must be held: “Such sales [of land for taxes] shall be
made in front of the door of the courthouse of the county at public outcry,
to the highest bidder for cash, between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 4:00
P.M., and shall continue from day to day until all the real estate embraced
in the decree has been sold.” § 40-10-15. Jefferson County
ignored one of those requirements – the location of the tax sale
– with no apparent excuse. Despite that, Equivest argues “that
the holding of the tax sale indoors rather than outdoors [in front of]
the courthouse substantially complies with the requirements of Section
40-10-15.” Equivest’s brief at 15. This is essentially an
argument that the statute’s sale-location requirement is a minor
technicality that is not essential to the objectives of the tax-sale statutes.
We disagree – the sale-location requirement plays an important role,
and a county may not disregard it for convenience.
Ms.*7.
Justice Bryan’s dissent (joined by Justices Shaw, Wise, and Mendheim)
would have affirmed the circuit court’s judgment as “substantially
compliant with the statutory requirements….” Ms. *19.