Anderson Realty Grp. v. King

• Decision Date: 10 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2201014
• Parties: Anderson Realty Group, LLC v. J.C. King III
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Anderson Realty Group, LLC
v.
J.C. King III

No. 2201014

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

June 10, 2022

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-20-903660)

PER CURIAM

Anderson Realty Group, LLC ("ARG"), appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the trial court") permitting J.C. King III to redeem certain real property upon the payment of $21, 302.35 to ARG. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment.

1

Background^[1]

On August 9, 2005, King purchased a house and lot in Center Point ("the property"), and he subsequently rented it to tenants. In May 2015, a "massive" fire damaged about two-thirds of the house. A company whose name was not identified in the record secured the house, putting a tarp on the roof and boarding the windows to protect it from the elements. Additionally, the water and electricity services to the house were turned off.

Thereafter, King stopped paying the property taxes on the property. On May 24, 2016, the State of Alabama purchased the property at a tax sale and obtained a tax deed to the property. On December 11, 2019, the

2

state sold its interest in the property to Stanley Builders, LLC, which, in turn, sold its interest to ARG.

On October 27, 2020, ARG filed a complaint in the trial court to quiet title to the property. King answered and filed a counterclaim to redeem the property. Thereafter, King filed a motion for a partial summary judgment on his right to redeem the property. The trial court granted that motion on March 17, 2021. It also entered a scheduling order setting an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the amount King would be required to pay ARG to redeem the property.

At the evidentiary hearing, Joshua Anderson, ARG's managing member, testified that, when he first saw the property, the house "was pretty bad." He said that, "in any other part of town, the city would have already demolished it." It is undisputed that the house was uninhabitable after the fire. Anderson said that he would characterize the property as having only land value when he first saw it. He said that, after ARG purchased Stanley Builders' interest in the property, ARG cleaned out the house and the overgrowth around it. It then put in new framing, roofing, wiring, plumbing, air conditioning, windows, doors, siding, and gutters for the house.

3

Anderson said that, at the time ARG took possession of the property, the property had a value of, at most, $10, 000. After King notified ARG that he was going to redeem the property, Anderson said, ARG stopped working on the house and had an appraisal conducted on the property. As of January 21, 2021, Anderson said, the property was appraised at $130, 000. In its postjudgment motion, ARG asserted that its cost for remodeling the house was $88, 812. In addition, ARG had paid $6, 710.83 for taxes and an attorney fee of $3, 815.63.

Ronald Parker, a commercial and residential appraiser who had served as the chairman of the Alabama Appraisal Board, among other positions, testified on behalf of King. He differentiated between preservation improvements and renovation, explaining that with preservation improvements one is simply trying to maintain the property to ensure that "it exists later on down the line." Preservation improvements are not meant to be permanent, he said. Renovations deal with fair-market value, Parker said, and signifies that one is preparing the property to be introduced into the market. He said that the repairs ARG made on the house were renovations and not preservation improvements. Based on his inspection of the house, Parker said, he

4

estimated that the preservation improvements, including general clean up, securing the tarps, landscaping, and lawn maintenance, totaled between $10, 000 and $12, 000.

On June 8, 2021, the trial court entered a judgment determining that the redemption amount for the property was $21, 302.35 plus interest. The judgment provided that King had thirty days to redeem the property by paying that amount to ARG, failing which ARG would be entitled to a judgment quieting title to the property. ARG filed various motions after the judgment was entered, including a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court denied. King paid the redemption amount as ordered, and the trial court directed the circuit clerk to issue a deed to King. The deed was issued on August 2, 2021.

ARG filed a timely notice of appeal to our supreme court, which transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.

Analysis

Before we address ARG's appeal on the merits, we must first consider King's motion to dismiss the appeal. King contends that, because ARG accepted and deposited his redemption payment, the

5

amount of which could have been questioned on appeal, its acceptance of the money King tendered constitutes a full settlement of the issue and a discharge of the judgment. Additionally, King argues, because he has retained possession of the property and now possesses the clerk's deed transferring the property back to him, the appeal is moot.

The general rule is that when an appellant accepts the benefit of a judgment, that appellant must make restitution of the proceeds received as a condition precedent to the appeal or the appeal will be dismissed. Alco Land & Timber Co. v. Baer, 289 Ala. 567, 570, 269 So.2d 99, 101 (1972); see also Rice v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 578 So.2d 1064 (Ala. 1991); Mobile Ins., Inc. v. Smith, 441 So.2d 894 (Ala. 1983). An exception to this general rule provides that a party can maintain an appeal without refunding judgment proceeds when the opposing party, that is, the appellee, will suffer no injury as a result of allowing the appeal to proceed while the appellant retains the proceeds or when the appellant could not, on retrial, recover less than the amount of the judgment from which he appeals. Alco Land & Timber Co., 289 Ala. at 570, 269 So.2d at 101-02.

In this case, the redemption amount was based on the amount of taxes ARG had paid, $6, 710.83; an attorney fee of $3, 815.63; $10, 000 for

6

preservation improvements, which represented the lower end of Parker's estimate of the value of the preservation improvements; and $775.89 as interest on those preservation improvements, for a total judgment of $21, 302.25. It is apparent that the trial court would not enter a judgment for a lesser amount against King if a new trial were ordered. Moreover, even if this court were to determine that King was not entitled to redeem the property, such a ruling would require restitution of the proceeds he has paid. Thus, we cannot see how that outcome would result in an injury or injustice to King. See Alco Land & Timber Co., 289 Ala. at 571, 269 So.2d at 102-03. Accordingly, we deny King's motion to dismiss the appeal.

Turning to the merits of ARG's appeal, ARG first contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that King was estopped from claiming his right to redeem the property because, it says, King "tacitly indicated" for five years that he would not redeem the property. ARG claims that it sent tax notices to King before it began making improvements to the property. It then claims that King began filling out the paperwork for the redemption process but then stopped.^[2] ARG claims that it perceived

7

King's "disengagement of the redemption process and [refraining] from redeeming the property while known improvements were being implement[ed] as evidence of consent to move forward with the repairs and [that King] would not redeem." ARG argues that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, King could not redeem the property after he knowingly allowed ARG to make improvements to it.

Our review of the record indicates that ARG did not make this argument to the trial court in opposing King's motion for a...