property to a third party for $8,500. The original owner then attempted to redeem the property and argued that the redemption amount was based on $8,500 paid at the subsequent sale, not the $380,000 paid at the foreclosure sale. This Court, while noting that the sale price should be reduced by the amount of the insurance proceeds the bank received when the house on the property was destroyed, concluded that § 6-5-253(a) referred to the sale price at the foreclosure sale, not at the subsequent sale. We stated that “both the plain meaning and the existing precedent governing this statute lead us to conclude that Pitts must pay Gangi the purchase price paid by Bank One at the foreclosure sale.” Pitts, 896 So.2d at 436. See also Dicie v. Morris, 285 Ala. 650, 653, 235 So.2d 796, 798 (1970) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the LLC argues that the word
holding that the mortgagee had no right to rents under its assignment of rents during the redemption period because it purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt at its foreclosure sale holding that debtor not bank paid the propertytax redemption amount even though debtor paid this amount using proceeds of loan from the bank holding that the debtors right to cure ended when the sheriff accepted the bid at the foreclosure auction even though the order confirming the sale had not been entered at the time of the bankruptcy filing holding that a foreclosure action becomes final only when the order confirming sale establishes who gets the property at what price and what deficiency judgment if any will be entered against the mortgagor holding that the redemption price was based on the amount bid at foreclosure  and not  what the subsequent purchaser paid  for the property