99 So. 3d 1251
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- June 4, 2009 warrant issued by Jefferson District Court to search Alexander’s residence, to hold seized items until further order of the Jefferson County court.
- June 5, 2009 search revealed cocaine, marijuana, scales, firearm, and $88,675 in cash; cash seized, dog alerted, money sealed in a DEA bag and deposited with the DEA.
- Cash later transported to a bank; cashier’s check for $38,675 made payable to the United States Marshal and given to a federal agent.
- October 26, 2009, federal civil-forfeiture complaint filed; Alexander served November 12, 2009; he defaulted; August 10, 2010, default judgment of forfeiture entered.
- March 16, 2011, Alexander filed state-court action seeking return of cash under § 20-2-93; city moved for summary judgment arguing nonclaims statute and lack of jurisdiction; Alexander cross-moved for summary judgment based on search-warrant control.
- Circuit court denied Alexander’s cross-motion and granted city’s summary judgment; this appeal followed seeking remand and return of cash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal jurisdiction via adoptive forfeiture applies | Alexander | City | No federal-adoptive-forfeiture jurisdiction shown |
| Whether state court had exclusive in rem jurisdiction over the cash | Alexander | City | State-court jurisdiction vested; no divestiture shown |
| Whether nonclaims statute bars the claim | Alexander | City | Nonclaims statute not applicable to in rem relief |
| Whether the circuit court should have granted summary judgment for Alexander on control-based theory | Alexander | City | Circuit court erred; factual issues remained; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. City of Montgomery, 55 So.3d 256 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (adoptive-forfeiture context; state can transfer to federal for forfeiture)
- Ex parte Bingham, So.3d-,- (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (adoptive-seizure explained)
- Garrett v. State, 739 So.2d 49 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (in rem jurisdiction attaches when res seized and within court control)
- Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 (1992) (jurisdictional rule for in rem actions; jurisdiction not divested)
- Scarabin v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 966 F.2d 989 (5th Cir.1992) (contrast on state’s exclusive control under different statutes)
- Edney v. City of Montgomery, 960 F.Supp.270 (M.D.Ala.1997) (DEA adoptive-seizure analyzed)
- United States v. One Ford Coupe Auto., 272 U.S. 321 (1930) (adoption effect of federal forfeiture analogous to federal seizure)