Alabama Supreme Court Appellate Alert: Decisions from September 12, 2025

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, August 12, which included two opinions of interest to the Alabama business community:

Collins v. W. Ala. Bank & Trust – This ejectment case resulted in several special writings concerning the continued application of a century-old precedent addressing foreclosure sales. West Alabama Bank commenced ejectment actions against the Collinses for properties it purchased at a foreclosure sale. At summary judgment, the Collinses argued that the foreclosure sale price was unconscionably low. A non-precedential portion of an unsigned opinion concluded that the case was governed by the 1927 case of Hayden v. Smith. According to the main opinion, Hayden established a framework by which a court could set aside a foreclosure based on inadequate sale price when either (1) the price is one-tenth or less of the fair market value; or (2) the price is above one-tenth and below one-third of the fair market value and there is evidence of unfairness or fraud. The main opinion affirmed judgment for the Bank because the Collinses had not provided evidence at the summary judgment stage to support either of these grounds. Concurring specially, Justice Cook acknowledged that Hayden’s framework might be outdated, and he invited parties in future cases to ask the Court to reexamine how this 1927 case should be applied in the context of modern-day mortgages. He also called upon the Legislature to consider creating improvements to Alabama’s foreclosure system. Concurring in part and concurring in the result, Justice Sellers, joined by Justice Lewis, reiterated his previously-expressed position that there is no wrongful disclosure when a mortgagee uses its power of sale simply to satisfy the debts owed to it. Concurring in part, concurring in the result in part, and dissenting in part, Justice Bryan, joined by Justice Wise, concluded, based on more recent cases, that a sale price of 40% of the fair market value could create a triable issue on whether the price was inadequate.

Ex parte Tanner Medical Center – In a fractured decision, the Supreme Court decided a case implicating questions of first impression about personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and the Alabama Medical Liability Act (“AMLA”). No opinion garnered a majority. The result suggests that the Alabama Supreme Court may construe the constitutional constraints on personal jurisdiction somewhat loosely. But at the same time, it appears that five Justices did not believe that this case belonged in Alabama court. The opinions hinted at ways future defendants might prevail and offered advice to the bench and bar.

A local hospital transferred a Randolph County man to a facility in west Georgia owned by an affiliated Georgia corporation. Based on alleged malpractice at the Georgia facility, the man sued the Georgia corporation in Randolph County circuit court for violations of the AMLA. The Georgia corporation filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The circuit court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court denied the ensuing petition for a writ of mandamus. The main opinion, written by Chief Justice Stewart and joined by three other justices, rejected the Georgia corporation’s jurisdictional argument that the alleged malpractice had no relation to its activities in Alabama. Applying U.S. Supreme Court precedent that jurisdiction is proper even if the defendant’s forum contacts did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries, the main opinion concluded that there was a sufficient relationship between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation to support jurisdiction. Turning to venue, the main opinion observed that it was a question of first impression whether the AMLA’s venue provision applies to claims based on out-of-state negligence. The main opinion declined to address that question because the Georgia corporation failed to directly address it in its petition.

Justice Cook, joined by Justice McCool, concurred specially to “address issues . . . the bench and bar should note for future cases.” First, Justice Cook doubted that the AMLA’s venue provision applies to claims against out-of-state defendants. Second, he suggested that the Georgia corporation should have moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens and relied on the “significant argument . . . that Georgia law should apply to the provision of these medical services in Georgia.” But because the defendant did not make such a motion, Justice Cook concluded that the Court could not reach those issues, “even if we believe there are significant reasons for why this action should not be in an Alabama court.”

Justices Shaw, Wise, and Sellers dissented. Justice Shaw criticized the main opinion as a significant extension of the U.S. Supreme Court precedents it cited. In the cited cases, the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, but they did still occur within the forum state. Justice Sellers dissented based on his conclusion that—even assuming there was jurisdiction—the case would ultimately need to be tried in Georgia based on forum non conveniens principles.

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to us, or to any other member of Maynard Nexsen’s Appellate Group.