Hayden, Jr. v. Newsome Law, LLC, et al., [Ms. SC-2024-0412, Oct. 25, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Stewart, J.; Shaw, Acting C.J., and Mendheim, J., and Windom, Kellum, and McCool, Special Justices, concur; Sellers, J., concurs in part and dissents in part; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., recuse) affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands following the trial court’s dismissal of Steven Mark Hayden Jr.’s redemption action against William B. Cashion, clarifying that under Alabama’s redemption statutes, Hayden, as the debtor’s son, is not required to satisfy an entire judgment lien against his father’s estate to redeem property.
In determining the disposition of the property, the Court examines §§ 6-5-248(d) and 6-5-253(b), Ala. Code 1975. According to § 6-5-248(d), all judgments attached to a property revive upon redemption by the debtor’s children. Ms. *5. However, § 6-5-253(b) excludes these revived judgments from “lawful charges” when a debtor’s child redeems the property, meaning Hayden is not obligated to pay the full lien to redeem.
The Court holds that the trial court erred in dismissing Hayden’s action without clarifying the correct redemption amount under the statutes. Further, the Court remands for further proceedings to “settle and adjust all the rights and equities of the parties” per § 6-5-256, which provides the trial court has a statutory obligation to “settle and adjust all rights and equities of the parties.” Ms. *7.