USA Foreclosure Wiki

Stiff v. Equivest Financial, LLC (Ala. 2020)

4 min read

Stiff v. Equivest Financial, LLC (Ala. 2020)

Citation: 325 So. 3d 738 (Ala. 2020) · Court: Supreme Court of Alabama, No. 1181051 · Decided: June 26, 2020

A leading modern Alabama authority on tax-sale procedure. The Alabama Supreme Court held that a tax sale conducted inside the courthouse — rather than “in front of the door of the courthouse” as Ala. Code § 40-10-15 directs — was void, not merely voidable, and that the property owner did not have to show prejudice to set it aside. Because many Alabama counties historically held tax sales inside courthouses, the decision called into question the validity of numerous prior sales and prompted a legislative response.

Facts

A parcel owned by Mark Stiff (and a related family interest) in the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County was sold at a 2013 tax sale for delinquent ad valorem taxes. The county tax collector conducted the auction from the probate courtroom inside the Bessemer courthouse, not in front of the courthouse door. Equivest Financial, LLC was the purchaser. Stiff later challenged the sale, arguing it failed to comply with § 40-10-15’s location requirement. The circuit court refused to set the sale aside; the Alabama Supreme Court reversed.

Holding

The tax sale was void because it was not held “in front of the door of the courthouse” as required by § 40-10-15, and the owner was not required to show prejudice to obtain relief.

The Court treated the statutory location requirement as a mandatory condition on the collector’s power to sell, so a sale conducted elsewhere conveyed no valid tax title.

Reasoning

  • The statutory location term is mandatory. Section 40-10-15 specifies that the sale occur “in front of the door of the courthouse.” The Court read that as a clear, mandatory procedure rather than a discretionary detail.
  • Purpose of the location rule. The Court explained: “The tax-sale statutes include a clear list of procedures designed to protect the rights of property owners and the public. The requirement that a tax sale be held in a uniform public location encourages fairness and transparency, and it supports the legitimacy of the tax-sale system as a whole.”
  • Legislature, not courts, may change it. The Court added that if the “in front of the door of the courthouse” requirement is no longer thought important, removing it is a job for the legislature, not the courts.
  • Void, not voidable. Because the defect went to the collector’s authority to conduct the sale at that location, the sale was void from inception, and the owner did not have to prove that the irregularity caused harm.

Practical impact

  • For investors / operators: A treasurer’s/collector’s tax deed from an Alabama sale held somewhere other than the statutory location is exposed to a void-sale challenge. Confirm the location of sale in the chain of title and weigh quiet-title-after-tax-sale risk before relying on such a deed. Stiff is a core reason Alabama tax titles often need judicial confirmation.
  • For former owners: A sale conducted in violation of § 40-10-15’s location requirement may be set aside as void without proving prejudice, subject to applicable limitations and the State’s later curative legislation.
  • Legislative aftermath: The Alabama Legislature responded to the disruption Stiff caused for past sales (reporting and curative measures concerning sales held inside courthouses); the precise statutory cure is tracked on the alabama page and is needs_verification against the enrolled act text.

Good-law status

Still good law as the 2020 holding on § 40-10-15’s location requirement. A subsequent 2020/2022 appeal in the same litigation (Stiff v. Equivest Financial, LLC, No. 1200264) addressed remedy/interest issues on remand and did not disturb the void-sale holding. Not overruled as of last_verified 2026-06-02.

Why it matters

Stiff is the modern benchmark for strict compliance with Alabama tax-sale procedure: a purely procedural defect (wrong location) voids the sale outright, no prejudice required. It is the headline cautionary case for anyone buying or defending an Alabama tax title.

Applies in →

alabama — and informs sale-procedure, void-sale, and quiet-title-after-tax-sale analysis for Alabama tax titles.

Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.

Graph View

Backlinks