
June 2025 Judicial Update
June 27, 2025
Our state and federal appellate courts stay busy hearing cases all year long. AAR’s Legal Team has compiled information about the cases that impact the real estate industry. Read on to learn more.
Alabama Supreme Court
The Need for Surveys
The Alabama Supreme Court recently rendered a decision related to adverse possession. In EBSCO Indus., Inc. v Ballard et al (Ala. 2025), EBSCO and Ballard owned adjacent properties. EBSCO leased a portion of its land to Ballard as hunting grounds beginning in 1990. In late 2021, Ballard began construction of a hog farm. When EBSCO discovered the construction, they notified Ballard that they believed the hog farm was being built on EBSCO’s land. Eventually, EBSCO sued, claiming trespass (among other things). Ballard argued that he had acquired the disputed land by adverse possession. The Circuit Court agreed, citing actions that Ballard had taken on the land, such as planting and harvesting trees and replacing an existing gate. EBSCO appealed the case.
This case involves a claim of adverse possession by prescription, which required Ballard to show that his use of EBSCO’s land was “actual, exclusive, open, notorious, and hostile . . . under a claim of right for [] twenty years.” (See EBSCO at 7, citing Kerlin v Tensaw Land & Timber Co., 390 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1980)). Ballard argued that the actions he took on EBSCO’s land met these requirements. However, Alabama has well-established caselaw finding that when an owner of a property leases it to another property, the lessee uses the property permissibly. Since the lessee’s use is permitted, it is not hostile. Because the lease between EBSCO and Ballard included the disputed property, Ballard’s use of EBSCO’s land was not “hostile” until after the lease ended. Since the lease didn’t end until shortly before EBSCO filed the lawsuit, Ballard was unable to meet the 20-year period required for adverse possession by prescription. Therefore, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision.
This case also included a concurring opinion by Justice Sellers that should be of special note to Alabama real estate licensees. The opinion noted that an increasing number of cases which are before the Alabama Supreme Court involve, at least in part, buyers who did not obtain surveys prior to purchasing their property. The opinion summed up the importance of surveys well, and we ask you to share this same word of caution with buyers you work with: “although obtaining a survey may seem like a needless closing cost, having one avoids future headaches, dissension among neighbors, and litigation costs. . . a survey conducted at the time of purchase or commencement of construction would have established the boundary line, defined the area of property owned, and eliminated the costs, uncertainty, and anxiety of asking a court to impose a remedy when an assumed line of demarcation turns out to be incorrect and not the legal boundary of the property.” (emphasis added)
We urge you to heed the words of the Court and emphasize the importance of pre-closing inspections, including surveys, to all buyers.
Appealing Multiple Properties’ Valuations
The Alabama Supreme Court also recently released an opinion in Scott v Al. Dep’t Rev. (Ala. 2025), a case involving an appeal of multiple properties’ valuations. Alabama law allows County Boards of Equalization to “assess parcels of land in the county to determine their value for property-tax purposes.” Id. at 2, citing Ala. Code §§ 40-3-9, 40-3-10, and 40-3-16. If the owner believes the Board of Equalization’s findings are in error, other sections of Alabama law allow the owner to file a protest with the Board and then to appeal to the Circuit Court.
In this case, Scott appealed the Board’s valuation of 176 parcels of property to the Circuit Court. The Board argued that Scott’s appeal should be dismissed because it was filed as one single appeal for all 176 properties, rather than 176 separate appeals. The Circuit Court agreed with the Board and dismissed the case. However, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed. It found that because there is not specific language in the relevant sections of Alabama law that limit an owner’s appeal to a single property, the Legislature didn’t intend for owners to have to file separate appeals for each of their properties. As such, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and sent it back to the Circuit Court for further consideration.
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
Statute of Frauds
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently released an opinion related to the Statute of Frauds in Ransby v Moore (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The Statute of Frauds is a legal concept that requires certain types of contracts, including real estate Purchase Agreements, to be made in writing. Alabama’s law requires “that a contract for sale of land, to satisfy the statute of frauds, must describe the land with such certainty that it can be identified without resort to oral evidence.” Id. at 8, citing Goodwyn v Jones, 288 Ala. 71, 75 (Ala. 1971). In Ransby v Moore, Moore sold a parcel of land to Ransby. When Moore purchased the property, she received a deed that contained a legal description of the property, including its metes and bounds. The Purchase Agreement between Moore and Ransby stated that it was for a property that was 2.5 acres and provided a specific address.
Moore passed away before the deed was transferred to Ransby. Moore’s estate argued that the contract between Moore and Ransby was void, and therefore Ransby had no interest in the property, because the contract did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Specifically, the estate argued that the property was not described in a satisfactory manner, because 2.5 acres was not its accurate size. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals disagreed with Moore’s estate. It reasoned that because Moore only owned one parcel of land, located at the address given in the Purchase Agreement, and because that address only contained one parcel of land, which was under 2.5 acres, there could be no doubt as to the property in question. Since the property was satisfactorily described, the contract was valid and satisfied the Statute of Frauds..
Boundary Line Disputes
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently considered Galloway v Moore and Moore (Ala. Civ. App. 2025), a case involving a boundary line dispute between owners of adjacent properties. One of the issues in the case was that a tree that had previously marked part of the boundary between the properties was no longer standing and the stump had been removed. Without the tree, the parties and the surveyors they worked with had trouble determining the boundary line. When the Circuit Court issued its opinion, it gave a description of the property but did not specifically describe where the boundary line that had previously been marked by the tree should be placed. One of the parties appealed, arguing that the Circuit Court was required to specify exactly where the boundary is located. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals agreed, finding that Ala. Code § 35-3-3 requires the Circuit Court’s order to “locate and define the boundary lines involved by reference to well-known permanent landmarks.” (emphasis added) Because the Circuit Court’s order was not descriptive enough, the case was sent back to the Circuit Court for further consideration.
Federal Court of Appeals
COVID-Era Eviction Moratorium
The Federal Court of Appeals recently declined to rehear a 2024 decision related to the COVID-era federal eviction moratorium. In 2024, the Court heard a case brought by residential landlords that argued that the eviction moratorium amounted to a taking by the federal government. A split three-judge panel agreed with the landlords, finding that they had stated a claim for a taking. The federal government asked the Federal Court of Appeals to rehear the case, but it declined. If the landlords are ultimately successful in their case, the federal government would have to compensate the landlords for lost earnings during the eviction moratorium. Because the case has the potential to have such wide-ranging consequences, the Federal Court of Appeals urged the Supreme Court to weigh in.
AAR’s Legal Team will monitor this case as it proceeds.