Mitchell v. Curry

I dissent to the denial of the application for rehearing because I believe that the application raises an argument that should be addressed by modifying this court’s opinion released on original submission.

*357In his application for a rehearing, Leviene Curry argues that this court erred by holding that he possessed the property “by way of a tax deed.” See Mitchell v. Curry, 70 So.3d 353, 353 (Ala.Civ.App.2010). Curry states that he did not come into possession of the property by way of a tax deed but that, instead, he came into possession by way of a tax-sale certifícate. He correctly points out…