Byrd v. Southeast Enterprises, Inc.

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed appeals arising from Southeast Enterprises, Inc.'s statutory redemption of real property purchased by the Byrds at a foreclosure sale. The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, upheld the finding that the Byrds committed fraud on the court by failing to disclose timber-sale proceeds, and held that the trial court improperly excluded a higher-priority mortgage and applied a repealed redemption statute. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of the redemption price.

Holdings

1. Southeast Enterprises did not lose its statutory right to redeem by failing to post a supersedeas bond or obtain a stay during the prior appeal because the issue had already been resolved against the Byrds and was governed by the law-of-the-case doctrine.
2. Southeast Enterprises' independent action for relief from the judgment based on fraud on the court was timely filed and was an appropriate procedural mechanism.
3. The evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Byrds committed fraud on the court by failing to disclose the timber sale and the $170,000 advance, which affected the redemption-price calculation.
4. The trial court could not revisit the prior determination that the higher-priority FmHA mortgage had to be included in Southeast Enterprises' redemption price because that determination became the law of the case and the record did not support a fraud-on-the-court finding as to FmHA.
5. The trial court erred by calculating the redemption price under the preamendment redemption statutes; it was required to apply Ala. Code § 6-5-253 and the Supreme Court's prior opinion because the foreclosure occurred after January 1, 1989.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Southeast Enterprises lost its statutory right to redeem by failing to post a supersedeas bond or obtain a stay during the prior appeal.
2. Whether Southeast Enterprises' independent action alleging fraud on the court was timely and procedurally proper under Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.
3. Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the Byrds committed fraud on the court by failing to disclose the timber sale and related proceeds.
4. Whether the trial court could revisit on remand the prior determination that the higher-priority FmHA mortgage had to be included in the redemption price.
5. Whether the trial court used the correct statutory provisions to calculate the redemption price.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded