# Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

> Supreme Court of Alabama · September 13, 2013 · 159 So. 3d 31

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4817749

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP. (In re Bessie T. Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP) Ronald C. Robinson v. Steven J. Cox and Robin K. Cox and Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 13, 2013
- **Citations:** 159 So. 3d 31
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Main
- **Judges:** Bolin, Bryan, Himself, Main, Moore, Murdock, Parker, Shaw, Stuart, Wise
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4817749

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that *205the right of the foreclosing entity to conduct a foreclosure sale must be proven in order to show that the buyer at a foreclosure sale has superior legal title and a cause of action to eject the debtor
- holding that the right of the foreclosing entity to conduct a foreclosure sale must be proven in order to show that the buyer at a foreclosure sale has superior legal title and a cause of action to eject the debtor
- noting that " '[l]ack of statutory authorization best supports analysis as the lack of a claim upon which relief can be granted, … not a claim over which the forum court lacks subject matter jurisdiction' " (quoting Jerome A. Hoffman, The Malignant Mystique of "Standing," 73 A…
- holding that standing, as developed in Lujan, addressed only public-law cases and that applying it to private-law cases was error
- explaining difference between issues affecting a party's cause of action and issues implicating a party's standing and the court's subject-matter jurisdiction

## Opinion text

MAIN, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I agree that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals should be reversed in case no. 1110373. I also agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in case no. 1110458. However, in my opinion, in deciding these cases, the discussion of the concept of standing as it relates to “public law” and “private law” eases is unnecessary. Because the main opinion’s discussion of “public law” and “private law” as it relates to standing is unnecessary in order to dispose of these cases, I concur only in the result in case no. 1110373 and case no. 1110458.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4817749. Public record. Not legal advice.