Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

10/07/94 STACY HANBACK v. DEREK MOSELEY

October 7, 1994

STACY HANBACK
v.
DEREK MOSELEY, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN CHARLES MOSELEY, DECEASED



Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court. (CV-93-126). Inge Johnson, TRIAL JUDGE.

Released for Publication December 7, 1994.

Holmes

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Holmes

HOLMES, Retired Appellate Judge

This case involves the statutory redemption of real property. Our review of the record reveals the following pertinent facts: At a mortgage foreclosure sale Stacy Hanback purchased certain real property located in Colbert County, Alabama. The purchase price paid at the mortgage foreclosure sale was $19,760. Hanback received a mortgage foreclosure deed, dated September 7, 1993. Hanback testified that the money used to purchase the property was given to her by Dosie Moseley, her boyfriend, who is Derek Moseley's brother.

There was a house located on the property which Hanback had purchased at the mortgage foreclosure sale. On September 21, 1993, Hanback entered into a sales agreement with The Carpet Broker. The sales agreement provided that The Carpet Broker was to perform certain repairs to the flooring and to replace the floor covering in the house. The total contract price was $11,807.52, which the sales agreement indicated had been paid in cash. Hanback testified that the money used to pay The Carpet Broker was also given to her by Dosie Moseley.

There was testimony in the record which indicated that The Carpet Broker had to special-order the materials needed to fulfill the sales agreement and that when items are special-ordered, the purchase price is non-refundable. The testimony also indicated that, although the sales agreement with The Carpet Broker was executed on September 21, 1993, work under the sales agreement did not begin on the house until November or December 1993, because the materials had to be ordered and received. In fact, on January 7, 1994, the date of the hearing in this case, The Carpet Broker was in the process of completing the job.

On October 12, 1993, Hanback received a letter by certified mail from the attorney for Derek Moseley, as administrator of the estate of John Charles Moseley, deceased. Derek Moseley is one of the sons of the deceased. This letter stated: "[Hanback is] herewith requested to provide a written, itemized statement of the debt and all lawful charges claimed by [Hanback] in ten days, so that the Estate may redeem this property."

All parties agree that Hanback responded within ten days by faxing a copy of the sales agreement with The Carpet Broker to Moseley's attorney. It is undisputed that this was Hanback's only response to the letter from Moseley's attorney.

Moseley acknowledged that he received the faxed copy of this sales agreement. However, he testified that he did not consider the sales agreement to be a lawful charge to be paid as part of the redemption process because the work contemplated by the sales agreement had not been started at the time that he sent the letter requesting a written, itemized statement of the debt and lawful charges or at the time he filed his complaint for redemption.

On October 26, 1993, Moseley filed a complaint for redemption pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-252. Hanback filed an answer, wherein she indicated that she had furnished an itemized statement of lawful charges to Moseley within the 10-day time limit and that the repairs and improvements contracted for with The Carpet Broker were reasonably necessary and served to enhance the value of the property.

After a hearing on January 7, 1994, the trial court issued an order, which provided in pertinent part:

"The court herewith finds that [Moseley] is entitled to redeem said real estate from [Hanback], the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, for the sum of $19,760.00. The court further finds that those certain charges as set out in the sales agreement from 'The Carpet Broker' which were admitted into evidence at this hearing do not constitute 'lawful charges' within the meaning of Section 6-5-253 Code of Alabama, and that [Hanback] failed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.