Court Opinion

ID: 9612394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:08:12.222228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:25.681399
License: Public Domain

BERNES, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring specially.
I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in finding that appellant’s failure to perfect his security interest barred him from asserting that interest in the course of the forfeiture proceeding. I also concur in the majority’s decision to overrule Shepard v. State of Ga., 267 Ga. App. 604 (600 SE2d 691) (2004). However, I believe that the majority has incorrectly assumed that “the relevant facts are not in dispute.” In my view, such an assumption is unauthorized because we do not have a transcript of the forfeiture proceeding. Indeed, the state has asserted that the issue of whether appellant had a security interest in the vehicle, irrespective of whether that interest had been perfected, was a hotly contested issue between the parties.1
More importantly, it is unclear whether the trial court resolved this issue in its order. The trial court’s order could be construed as stating that even if appellant had a security interest in the vehicle, he could not contest the forfeiture because his interest had not been properly perfected. Thus, the trial court may have pretermitted the issue of whether appellant had a security interest in the vehicle. Accordingly, since we have concluded that the trial court erred by focusing on whether the security interest had been perfected, the trial court’s order should be reversed and remanded with instruction. This would give the trial court an opportunity to resolve or clarify whether appellant had a security interest in the vehicle. See generally In re R. L. L., 258 Ga. 628 (373 SE2d 363) (1988) (ambiguity in trial court’s order required remand with instruction); Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Interstate Constr. Co., 212 Ga. App. 590, 592 (442 SE2d 772) (1994) (same).
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Smith, Judge Ellington, and Judge Mikell join in this opinion.

 Specifically, the state argued in its brief that “questions were raised at the May 6, 2004, hearing [as to] the legitimacy of th[e] document” alleged to establish appellant’s interest in the truck.