Largely the problems have been satisfying judges that all the due process requirements have been met to protect the rights of defendants. It requires RIGOROUS adherence to the statutory requirements and also erring on the side of caution when in doubt. By that last statement, I mean that if a plaintiff THINKS someone MIGHT have redemption rights (such as an adverse possessor) they should be included in the lawsuit as defendants. Then, such persons can prove to the judge they have redemption rights, or not, as the case might be. But, at least they are before the court from the very beginning.
Some of the problems have been sloppy drafting. Alabama has had a "notice pleading" system for many years. In other words, if a defendant can sort of figure out why they are being sued, from reading the complaint, that is enough. The Alabama Supreme Court has been looking for a test case so they can pivot to more rigorous pleading standards. I think many circuit court judges know that, and they are already tightening up on pleadings requirements, especially in judicial foreclosure lawsuits. From a due process standpoint, it is essential that defendants truly understand why they are being sued and what their rights are. If I crash into your car with my car, and you sue me, I know why you are doing that. With judicial foreclosures, it is not so clear.
Sometimes, the guardian ad litem appointed by the court must continuously ask the plaintiff's lawyer for information required by law but not voluntarily included in the initial pleadings package. It causes delays.
I am preparing a Complaint package and checklists for the new system that will go into effect on October 1, 2024. I think it will help speed things up.