339 Ga. App. 367
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Following a traffic stop, officers seized $53,648 in cash from Shannon Coffey along with drugs, scales, packaging, and firearms; State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint under OCGA § 9-16-12.
- Coffey filed an answer asserting ownership; State moved for a more definite statement asserting the answer failed to meet statutory pleading requirements.
- After being ordered to amend, Coffey filed an amended answer claiming $49,800 was legitimately inherited from a joint safety-deposit account with his grandmother and that his mother witnessed the contents.
- The State moved to strike the amended answer, arguing it did not include Coffey’s residence address, the date or timeframe he acquired the funds, supporting documentation, and that the verification language was defective.
- The trial court struck Coffey’s amended answer for failing to comply with OCGA § 9-16-12(c)(1) and ordered forfeiture; Coffey appealed claiming his answer was legally sufficient.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the answer failed to provide required statutory details (in particular the acquisition date/timeframe and documentation) and Coffey had had an opportunity to cure the defects.
Issues
| Issue | Coffey's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s failure to "set forth" residence address in answer complied with OCGA § 9-16-12(c)(1)(B) | Failure to deny the complaint’s allegation of his home address operated as an admission under OCGA § 9-11-8(d), so address was effectively provided | Answer did not affirmatively provide claimant’s residence as required by the statute | Court expressed doubt that non-response satisfied the statute but did not decide this issue definitively; found other defects dispositive |
| Whether answer set forth the date or timeframe and source of claimant’s interest per OCGA § 9-16-12(c)(1)(D) | Alleged inheritance from joint safety-deposit account sufficed; exact date not necessary | No date or even timeframe was provided despite State’s request for more definite statement | Held deficient: failure to state date/timeframe (or adequate timeframe) warranted striking the answer |
| Whether claimant provided required supporting documentation and additional facts per OCGA § 9-16-12(c)(1)(F) & (G) | Allegations about inheritance and witness (mother) were adequate; documentation was not required or was unavailable | No copies of documentation were attached and no facts tying the funds to the alleged inheritance were provided | Held deficient: absence of documentation/additional supporting facts supported striking the answer |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by striking answer after allowing amendment | Coffey argued amended answer was legally sufficient and striking was improper | State argued claimant was given chance to cure and failed to do so; striking was appropriate | No abuse of discretion: court properly struck the answer after Coffey failed to correct deficiencies when prompted |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Ga. v. Alford, 264 Ga. 243 (1994) (legislature may impose special pleading requirements and those govern in statutory proceedings)
- Loveless v. State of Ga., 337 Ga. App. 250 (2016) (in rem forfeiture answers must strictly comply with OCGA § 9-16-12(c)(1))
- Arreola-Soto v. State of Ga., 314 Ga. App. 165 (2012) (where exact acquisition date is not provided, an adequate timeframe may suffice)
- Howard v. State of Ga., 321 Ga. App. 881 (2013) (no abuse of discretion in striking answers when claimants fail to cure pleading defects after being given opportunity)
- Dearing v. State of Ga., 243 Ga. App. 198 (2000) (verification sufficiency principles)