AAR’s Legal Team monitors state and federal appellate courts to bring you takeaways from cases that could impact your clients/customers or your business.

11th Circuit 

The 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed Cano, Fernandez, and Alonso v. 245 C&C, LLC and CFH Group, LLC, a case involving the Fair Housing Act. In this case, a family sued their landlord, claiming the landlord violated the Fair Housing Act by not providing certain accommodations for a family member with a disability, retaliating against them, and breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The court considered requests by the tenant, including reserving a handicapped parking spot, modifying a bathroom, and complaints about noise. The court found that most of the family’s claims failed because the landlord either did not know the accommodations were necessary, the family did not provide proof, or the complaints were outside the law’s time limits. Some issues, like noise or maintenance entry, were allowed under the lease, and the family could not show retaliation in a legally meaningful way.

For REALTORS®, this opinion emphasizes landlords’ obligation to follow fair housing rules and provide reasonable accommodations when they know a tenant has a disability, but also demonstrates tenants’ need to clearly request accommodations and provide documentation if needed. Although landlords should take accommodation requests seriously, not every complaint is a legal violation, and keeping clear records of requests and communications can help if disputes arise.

Alabama Supreme Court

Procedures Before a Foreclosure

A recent Alabama Supreme Court case,  Laborde and Cruz-Candelo v Citizens Bank, N.A., involved a couple who bought a home with a VA-backed loan in 2015. After falling behind on payments in 2022, the couple tried to bring the loan current before the foreclosure sale, but the bank allegedly refused to accept payment. The home was sold to third-party buyers, and the couple later repurchased it. The couple then sued the bank for breach of contract, wrongful foreclosure, and unjust enrichment. The trial court dismissed the couple’s suit.

The Alabama Supreme Court held that only one of the couple’s claims was due to be dismissed, and that the trial court should have considered the other claims further. Central to the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision was the allegation that the couple attempted to cure their default before the foreclosure sale, but that the bank prevented them from doing so. The Court ruled that the bank should not be able to benefit from its lack of cooperation, stating, “‘[a] party to a contract who has caused a failure of performance by the other party cannot take advantage of that failure.’” Laborde at 15, citing Dixson v. C. & G. Excavating, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1160 (Ala. 1978)). As a result, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The court’s decision emphasizes that homeowners may have legal claims if a bank prevents them from exercising rights in their mortgage. Even after a foreclosure sale, ownership of the property may be affected if the bank did not follow required procedures, and disputes over the sale can continue. Consumers who wish to purchase a property at a foreclosure sale should do so after careful consultation with an attorney.

Restrictive Covenants

Another recent Alabama Supreme Court case, Dendy and Dendy Investment Group v Ryan et al.,  involved properties being built in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants that included approval requirements for new construction. The neighborhood’s Architectural Review Committee sued a property builder after the builder began construction on unapproved designs – and continued the construction even after warnings from the Architectural Committee. The trial court ruled against the property owner.

On appeal, the property owner argued that the trial court should have applied the “relative-hardship test” in this case. The relative-hardship test says that the court should consider “the harm resulting to one landowner from the enforcement of a restrictive covenant,” and if it is “considerably disproportionate to the benefit received by the landowner seeking enforcement,” the court may choose not to enforce the restrictive covenant. In this case, the trial court declined to apply the relative-hardship test because of the actions taken by the property owner. Specifically, the property owner repeatedly admitted that although he had submitted one design for approval by the Architectural Committee, he began building a property with an entirely different design. He understood the different design would require its own separate approval but nonetheless chose to continue with construction. He even continued construction after receiving a warning about the unapproved design from the Architectural Committee.

The Alabama Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s decision not to apply the relative-hardship test because of the property owner’s unclean hands. It found that while a trial court is still permitted to apply the relative-hardship test when a party has unclean hands, it is not required to do so. Therefore, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The case serves as an important reminder that the actions one chooses to take (or to not take) can have significant bearing on their ability to make legal arguments in the future.

Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals considered a case involving a request for a grant of an easement, Pickens and Pickens v Osborne. Although the facts of that case are overly complex for the purposes of this article, the case serves as a good reminder that there are various types of easements, each with their own requirements. In this case, the type of easement in question was a prescriptive easement. According to Alabama caselaw, a prescriptive easement requires that the claimant can show that their use of the premises has been ongoing for at least 20 years, made adversely to the rights of the owner, “under a claim of right [which is] exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted,” and that the owner has “actual or presumptive knowledge.” Bull v Salsman, 435 So.2d 27, 29 (Ala. 1983). When a different type of easement is contemplated, Alabama caselaw imposes different standards on the claimant.

If the consumer you’re working with is interested in a property that would require an easement (for example, it does not have access to a public road, boat launch, or other types of access or use without crossing someone else’s property), it’s important for that consumer to educate themselves about what the requirements of that specific situation would be. In these cases, AAR highly recommends that the consumer both (1) requests a survey and (2) consults with an attorney.

Further Reading

The appellate courts have released other recent opinions that relate to real estate and/or property law, but hinge upon legal procedural issues or other issues outside the scope of this article. These cases can be viewed at the following links:  Sanchez v Renasant Bank (11^th Cir. Ct. App. 2026); Moore v Stewart (Ala. Civ. App. 2026); and Granillo, Pittman, and Ace v Garrison and Hanback (Ala. Civ. App. 2026).