How to Stop Redemption of Your Tax Deed

For Alabama tax‑deed investors, the single most powerful tool you have to shut down judicial redemption is also the simplest: Possession. The Supreme Court of Alabama’s decision in Ex parte Ross makes this more clear than ever. If the former owner is not in possession—actual, constructive, or scrambling—then judicial redemption is not allowed. That has been the law for a long time, but the Ross ruling makes it very clear to judges that investors win this argument.

Judicial redemption is not a sympathy mechanism for owners who walked away from their property. It is an equitable remedy designed only for owners who stayed in possession after a tax deed issued and therefore needed a way to resolve competing claims to the property. The Court emphasized that possession is the gateway to redemption three years after the tax sale. No possession means no judicial redemption. It does not matter how emotional the owner’s story is, how defective the tax sale might have been, or how aggressively the owner tries to re‑enter the property after the fact. If the owner was out of possession at the time redemption was sought, the door is closed.

Judicial redemption should not be confused with statutory, or administrative, redemption which can happen during the first three years after a tax sale and doesn't require possession. This is not a problem for investors buying tax deeds from ADOR.

Possession

Possession can be actual, constructive, or scrambling. Actual possession includes living there, maintaining it, or exercising physical control like having locks on the doors or a renter in it. Constructive possession applies only when no one can be in actual possession, like acreage. Scrambling possession is messy, imperfect, and disputed, but it still forces the tax purchaser to litigate to gain control. What does not qualify for possession is abandonment, vacancy, or a complete surrender of the property. If the owner left and the property became open and abandoned and the tax purchaser stepped in and secured the buildings, the owner cannot later claim judicial redemption simply because they changed their mind.

In Ross, the former owner admitted it had no possession after the tax sale. Ross, the investor, took possession immediately, lived in the home, maintained it, and exercised full control. Under the law, that should have ended the redemption claim instantly. The only reason the estate succeeded in the trial court was because Ross raised the possession issue too late. Ross litigated this pro se, that is, he didn't hire a land lawyer specializing in tax deeds. The Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that had the issue been raised earlier, judicial redemption would have been barred outright. That is the lesson investors must take from this case: the possession requirement is not just a technicality. It is a complete defense that can stop redemption in its tracks, but only if asserted in pleadings at the right time.

Three-Year "Short Statute"

The Court also rejected any argument that the 2009 amendments to section 40‑10‑82 weakened or eliminated the possession requirement. Those amendments did not expand redemption rights for owners who abandoned their property. They did not create a new pathway for redemption. They did not give owners a second chance. They simply codified long‑standing rules about constructive possession and the short (3-year) statute of limitations. Judicial redemption remains what it has always been: a remedy for owners who stayed in possession, not for those who walked away.

For investors, the message is straightforward. If you take possession early and maintain it, you control redemption. Owners who are out of possession cannot judicially redeem, and Ross confirms that this is not a flexible standard. It is a hard stop. The key is to document your possession, assert the defense immediately, and make sure the court understands that the owner’s lack of possession is fatal to their claim. When used correctly, the possession requirement is one of the most powerful tools available to protect your investment and secure your title.

Attorney Gregory Stanley is an Alabama Land lawyer

Gregory@Stanley-Law.Com