Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

18 Citing cases

  1. Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

    159 So. 3d 31 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 65 times
    In Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 31, 44 (Ala. 2013), this Court limited application of the standing doctrine to "'public law' cases."

    A. Case No. 1110373In case no. 1110373, we granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”), challenging the reversal by the Court of Civil Appeals of a summary judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court on BAC's ejectment action against Bessie T. Sturdivant. See Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 15 (Ala.Civ.App.2011). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the case.

  2. In re Patterson

    176 So. 3d 840 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    PER CURIAM. Because of the issues involved, this appeal was held in abeyance pending the adjudication of the appeal in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 15 (Ala.Civ.App.2011). Reginald A. Patterson and Diana V. Patterson appeal from a judgment in favor of GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC Mortgage”).

  3. Williams v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-199-JB-MU (S.D. Ala. Dec. 2, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    See Gray, 143 So.3d at 826; Pittman, 226 So.3d at 196 - 197. Plaintiffs' citation to Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 15 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) is also unavailing. Not only do Plaintiffs fail to explain with any particularity how Sturdivant applies to the case sub judice, Sturdivant was overruled and has no precedential authority.

  4. Sealey v. Stidham

    Case No. 2:14cv1036-MHT-WC (M.D. Ala. Jul. 30, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    In several places in this filing, Plaintiff appears to argue that the instant case is consistent with Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 15 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), although he never clearly articulates how any holding or principle from that case bears on the instant case. See Pl.'s Br. (Doc. 14) at 6, 11-12.

  5. Patterson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC

    176 So. 3d 845 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 10 times
    Discussing right to exercise foreclosure

    ”As GMAC Mortgage notes, before the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case and in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,159 So.3d 15 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), there was no notion in Alabama jurisprudence that the holder of a mortgage must have received the mortgage interest before the “initiation of foreclosure proceedings.” In Sturdivant,the Court of Civil Appeals relied on Kelly v. Carmichael,217 Ala. 534, 537, 117 So. 67, 70 (1928), to announce this rule.

  6. Forester v. Bank of America, N.A.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0160-CG-M (S.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    See Doc. 61 at 13 (citing Hardy v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 2007 WL 174391, at *6 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 18, 2007); McClung v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2012 WL 1642209, at *4 (N.D. Ala. May 7, 2012); In re Stovall, 2012 WL 1835538, at *7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. May 18, 2012)). Rather than address the legal precedent cited in BAC's brief, Forester cites Matthews v. Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd., 2006 WL 2686932 (S.D. Ala. 2006), and Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 2011 WL 6275697 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). Neither case is analogous to the instant one.

  7. In re Russell

    608 B.R. 893 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2019)

    The court even cited In re McKinney for its holding that foreclosure marks the end of the mortgagor's equitable right of redemption. Id. at 852 n.2. Ex parte GMAC overturned the decision of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals as well as another Court of Civil Appeals decision, Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 15 (Ala.Civ.App.2011), which previously considered the same issue and had held that a mortgagee must possess an assignment of the mortgage at the initiation of the foreclosure process. In doing so, the Ex parte GMAC court concluded that so long as a creditor possesses an assignment of the mortgage at the time the foreclosure deed is executed, the foreclosure sale is not void for lack of standing.

  8. Regina Daily & The Daily Catch, Inc. v. Esser

    No. SC-2022-0672 (Ala. Sep. 29, 2023)

    "'If in the end the facts do not support the plaintiffs, or the law does not do so, so be it -- but this does not mean the plaintiffs cannot come into court and allege, and attempt to prove, otherwise. If they fail in this endeavor, it is not that they have a 'standing' problem; it is, as Judge Pittman recognized in Sturdivant [v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So.3d 15 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011),] that they have a "cause of action" problem, or more precisely in these cases, a "failure to prove one's cause of action" problem. The trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to "hear" such "problems" -- and the cases in which they arise.'

  9. Stiff v. Equivest Fin., LLC

    325 So. 3d 738 (Ala. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    "Id., § 101.04(c)(2)(ii) at 403."In Alabama, the following circumstances may render a foreclosure sale void: (1) when the foreclosing entity does not have the legal right to exercise the power of sale, as, for example, when that entity is neither the assignee of the mortgage, Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 15 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), [reversed on other grounds, Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 31 (Ala. 2013) ], nor the holder of the promissory note, Perry v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 100 So. 3d 1090 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), at the time it commences the foreclosure proceedings; (2) when ‘the debt secured by the mortgage was fully paid prior to foreclosure,’ Lee v. Gaines, 244 Ala. 664, 666, 15 So. 2d 330, 331 (1943) ; (3) when the foreclosing entity failed to give notice of the time and place of the foreclosure sale, Sanders v. Askew, 79 Ala. 433 (1885), but see Kelley Realty Co. v. McDavid, 211 Ala. 575, 577, 100 So. 872, 873-74 (1924) (stating that ‘a distinction must be made between cases where there is no sort of compliance with the requirement of advertisement or other notice of the sale, and cases where there is actually given some notice of the nature required, sufficient to give public information of the pendency and date of the sale, though it be ever so defective or incomplete,’ and tha

  10. Boykin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

    300 So. 3d 562 (Ala. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Thus, Brown " ‘actually presented a question of the plaintiff's inability to prove the allegations of its complaint rather than a question of standing.’ " Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, 159 So. 3d at 42 (quoting Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 15, 27 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (Pittman, J., dissenting) (emphasis omitted)). Cf. Rhodes, 144 So. 3d at 318 (explaining that "the ability or inability of a plaintiff in an ejectment action to prove the elements of such a claim" "goes to the merits of an ejectment claim" "not to the plaintiff's standing to bring that action").