AL quiet Title time frame?

[Roger Gelpey]

We applied for and received two tax deeds on adjoining parcels in Mobile last year and are looking into quieting the titles on them. A little context: the parcels belonged to an elderly gentleman who is now deceased. The taxpayer apparently had one next of kin and died intestate. There has been a finding that a sister is the only heir to his estate which mainly consisted of these properties. We have attempted to contact the heir to obtain a QC deed to no avail. I am now in my second go around with quiet title actions and every time I turn around the rules seem to have changed. The last time it took my other attorney, close to three years to finally close things out (covid contributed).

I got the following note from my new attorney and as I say the opinion he is giving is a new wrinkle to me. Any input is welcomed!!!

Dear Roger:

Normally, a tax deed holder must have had adverse possession of the property for 10 years in order to quiet title. Some attorneys have had success with three years of adverse possession under what is called the “Short Statute of Limitations”. Unfortunately, the short period does not begin to run until “Three years after [the tax purchaser] is entitled to demand a deed”. U.S. Bank Trust v Trimble, (2180742 released November 1, 2019) City Gulf Land Co. v. Buzzelli, 501 So.2d 1211, 1213 (Ala. 1987); see also Austill v. Prescott, (MS 1170709, July 12, 2019). You were not entitled to demand a deed until March 28, 2022. Thus, I am sorry to report that you cannot file a quiet title case until March 28, 2025. I must also caution you that the “Short Statute of Limitations” may be vulnerable to legal attack.

I had not focused on this issue earlier since we had been trying to get a quit claim deed from the only heir.

[Denise Evans]

The attorney quoted random decisions that are irrelevant. To add to my earlier comment about Buzelli, here's one for Austill v Prescott. It was decided on a procedural technicality NOT on the law about how long before you can quiet title. The procedural technicality had nothing to do with tax sales. I was present for oral arguments. The court was going in favor of 3 years of possession, WHENEVER possession first occurs. But, the procedural technicality could not be ignored, so the investor lost.  After Austill v Prescott, the statute was amended to comply with the original intent of the judicial redemption law, and say three years of possession from the date the investor is entitled to possession burns off the short statute of limitations. Not, three years from the tax deed. 

AND saying the short statute of limitations might not be good law is wrong on two grounds. First, it has been around for 100 years. There is no controversy surrounding it. Second, the relevant statute is not the short statute of limitations, but the judicial redemption statute. In short, fake legal advice supported by impressive sounding case cites that don't even apply to your situation. If you want real advice, like everybody says, contact ME.