Loveless v. State of Georgia, 337 Ga. App. 250

Background

In Feb. 2015 the State filed a civil in rem forfeiture under OCGA § 16-13-49 (2014) to condemn cash seized near drugs during searches of Gary Loveless, his vehicle, and a hotel room.
Loveless filed an answer claiming ownership of $12,231, denying nexus to drug activity, asserting Fourth Amendment suppression arguments, and invoking the Fifth Amendment and OCGA § 24-5-506 to refuse to provide certain factual details required by the statute.
The State moved to strike the Answer and for default judgment, arguing Loveless failed to meet the statutory pleading requirements of OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(3).
The trial court struck the Answer for failure to include the date of transfer, identity of transferor, and circumstances of acquisition, found Loveless had asserted a blanket Fifth Amendment refusal rather than question-by-question claims, and entered default forfeiture.
Loveless appealed, arguing the strike/default was improper because he invoked constitutional privileges and raised a Fourth Amendment defense, and that the court missed the 60-day hearing requirement.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding strict statutory pleading compliance required and that the Fifth Amendment/OCGA privilege claims did not excuse the omissions; the 60-day hearing rule did not apply where the answer was insufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in striking Loveless’s Answer for failure to satisfy OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(3) pleading requirements	Loveless argued his Answer raised disputed facts and constitutional defenses (Fourth and Fifth Amendments) and statutory privilege, so it should not be struck	State argued the Answer omitted required factual details (date of transfer, transferor identity, circumstances of acquisition) and thus failed statutory strict-pleading requirements	Affirmed: Answer legally insufficient under §16-13-49(o)(3); strike and default forfeiture proper
Whether invocation of the Fifth Amendment/OCGA § 24-5-506 allowed Loveless to omit statutorily required factual disclosures	Loveless claimed privilege against self-incrimination and statutory privilege barred providing the requested details	State argued there is no blanket privilege in civil proceedings and privilege must be claimed question-by-question; inferences may be drawn from refusal	Affirmed: Privilege did not excuse statutory requirements; Loveless failed to specifically claim privilege on each item and did not meet burden to show real danger of incrimination
Whether the trial court could not consider Fourth Amendment suppression absent full factual answer	Loveless argued Fourth Amendment suppression was a sufficient defense and warranted consideration despite pleading defects	State contended without a legally sufficient answer the court lacked authority to consider suppression	Affirmed: Court could not reach suppression issue after striking the deficient answer
Whether the 60-day hearing requirement of OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(5) required dismissal for lack of timely hearing	Loveless argued no hearing was held within 60 days, so complaint should be dismissed	State argued the 60-day requirement applies only when a sufficient answer is filed	Affirmed: 60-day rule inapplicable because the Answer did not strictly comply with the statute

Key Cases Cited

Crimley v. State, 330 Ga. App. 639 (review standard; de novo review of legal conclusions)
Arreola-Soto v. State of Georgia, 314 Ga. App. 165 (strict compliance with §16-13-49(o)(3) required in civil forfeiture answers)
State of Ga. v. Alford, 264 Ga. 243 (an answer lacking requisite facts fails statute’s pleading requirements)
Jones v. State of Ga., 241 Ga. App. 768 (failure to timely file an answer in strict compliance results in dismissal/equivalent to no answer)
Sanders v. State, 259 Ga. App. 422 (Fifth Amendment invocation in civil forfeiture; adverse inferences and pleading consequences)
Land v. State of Ga., 265 Ga. App. 859 (court may draw unfavorable inferences from invocation of right against self-incrimination in forfeiture)
Simpson v. Simpson, 233 Ga. 17 (civil cases may permit unfavorable inferences from privileged refusal to testify)