Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

454 So. 2d 981

Light v. Mullins

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided July 13, 1984

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1984-07-13

Relies on 423 So. 2d 143 - Chism v. Hicks

Decided 1984-07-13

PER CURIAM.

¶1Robert Light brought suit against Randall Mullins for a determination of the proper sum of money necessary to redeem certain real estate from a mortgage foreclosure sale to Randall Mullins. The trial judge found that $38,862.63 was the proper sum. In this amount was an item for removal of an outbuilding by Mullins. Light objects to his having to pay for the removal.

¶2After reviewing the evidence, we cannot say that the trial judge committed error. Consequently, under the ore tenus rule, the judgment is affirmed. Chism v. Hicks, 423 So.2d 143 (Ala.1982).

¶3AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
/454/so2d/981 · .json · Public domain