Case Name: LOCKETT v. STATE OF GEORGIA
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1995-07-14
Citations: 218 Ga. App. 289
Docket Number: A95A0564
Parties: LOCKETT v. STATE OF GEORGIA.
Judges: Beasley, C. J., Birdsong, P. J., Pope, P. J., Andrews, Johnson and Ruffin, JJ., concur. McMurray, P. J., dissents. Smith, J., not participating.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 218
Pages: 289–293

Head Matter:
A95A0564.
LOCKETT v. STATE OF GEORGIA.
(460 SE2d 857)

Opinion:
Blackburn, Judge.
Ruby Lockett appeals from the order of the superior court granting the State of Georgia forfeiture of her interest in a parcel of land known as the Dixon Road property and a pickup truck. We determine that Lockett does not have standing to contest the forfeiture as she failed to demonstrate an ownership interest in the land or the truck as recognized by Georgia's forfeiture statute. Hill v. State, 178 Ga. App. 563 (343 SE2d 776) (1986) (claimant in forfeiture action has burden to demonstrate ownership interest in property).
The record reflects that the State filed its complaint for forfeiture on September 9, 1992. Lockett filed a motion to dismiss and an answer on September 25, 1992. In contravention of the forfeiture statute, Lockett's answer was unverified, although on May 29, 1993, several months after the hearing, she filed a verification. In it Lockett averred that she inherited the Dixon Road property but offered no legal documentation of her interest. Similarly, Lockett averred that the truck was a gift from her son and that title was registered in her name, but she provided no documentary evidence of the title. The State responded to Lockett's motion to dismiss, asserting that she had not adequately evidenced her claim to ownership. Subsequently, on October 8, 1992, a hearing on the forfeiture was held as required by OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (5). Lockett submitted no evidence at the hearing.
In order to contest a forfeiture, a party must be an "owner" or "interest holder." See OCGA § 16-13-49 (n) (3) and (o) (3). OCGA § 16-13-49 (a) (6) defines an "interest holder" as a secured party under OCGA § 11-9-105 or as the beneficiary of a perfected encumbrance pertaining to an interest of the party. There is no evidence in the record nor does Lockett claim to be an "interest holder" in the forfeited property. In order to have standing to contest the forfeiture, Lockett must demonstrate that she is an "owner" of the forfeited property as that term is outlined in the statute. OCGA § 16-13-49 (a) (7) defines an "owner" as a person "who has an interest in property and is in compliance with any statute requiring its recordation or reflection in the public records in order to perfect the interest against a bona fide purchaser for value."
Apart from Lockett's unverified statements, there was no evidence supporting her claim of ownership presented before or during the hearing. Consequently, we find Lockett did not meet her burden of demonstrating ownership and is without standing to contest the forfeiture.
Pretermitting the issues of (1) whether Lockett's sworn statements alone were sufficient to meet her burden as to her ownership of the Dixon Road property or the truck and (2) whether failure to verify an answer in a forfeiture action is an amendable defect, this late-filed amendment is insufficient to demonstrate Lockett's standing. As noted by this court previously, the legislature has outlined very specific requirements for filing a claim in a forfeiture action so as to "as sure some degree of legitimacy to the claim and to elicit supportive factual information so as to expedite the proceeding." State v. Cannon, 214 Ga. App. 897 (449 SE2d 519) (1994). Permitting those who contest a forfeiture to delay substantiating their claim of ownership until months after the statutory hearing has concluded contradicts the very purpose of this statutory scheme and should not be permitted.
Because Lockett has not properly demonstrated her standing to contest the forfeiture, we affirm the decision of the lower court.
Judgment affirmed.
Beasley, C. J., Birdsong, P. J., Pope, P. J., Andrews, Johnson and Ruffin, JJ., concur. McMurray, P. J., dissents. Smith, J., not participating.
The need to comply with the claim and answer requirements of OCGA § 16-13-49 have been strictly construed in other contexts. See State v. Alford, 264 Ga. 243 (444 SE2d 76) (1994) and State v. Cannon, 214 Ga. App. 897 (449 SE2d 519) (1994).