171 So. 3d 10
Ala.2014Background
- On June 1, 2011 Alabama executed a search warrant at Greenetrack and seized gaming devices, currency, and other property.
- Greenetrack filed a Rule 3.13 motion (motion for return of seized property); those proceedings were handled by a special judge and later reversed by this Court in a separate appeal.
- The State filed a separate in rem forfeiture petition (June 22) and an amended petition (June 24) seeking condemnation of the seized property; the petitions’ signature blocks showed "/s/" or "7s/_" but lacked typewritten names immediately following the mark.
- The State filed a second amended petition on July 6 that properly included typewritten "/s/ Name" signatures; later the State hand-filed and served copies with corrected signature blocks on August 30.
- Greenetrack moved to strike/dismiss the un-signed petitions as nullities and argued defective service and untimeliness; the trial court dismissed the State’s forfeiture petitions.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the unsigned petitions need not be stricken under Rule 11(a) given prompt cure, lack of prejudice, actual notice, and Rule 1(c) principles; it also rejected the State’s contention that e-filing alone constitutes a signature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Greenetrack) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether June 22 and June 24 petitions complied with Rule 11(a) and Rule 30(G) signature requirements | The missing typed names after "/s/" were a scrivener’s placement error; the petitions were effectively signed and later cured by the July 6 second amended petition | The petitions lacked the required electronic signatures and thus were nullities that must be stricken | Court: Petitions did not strictly comply but need not be stricken under Rule 11(a); prompt cure, continued attorney certification, no prejudice, and Rule 1(c) support denying dismissal |
| Whether electronic filing under Alafile alone satisfies Rule 30(G) signature requirement | Filing under an attorney’s Alafile credentials constitutes an alternate electronic signature/authentication | Absent a visible "/s/ Name" on the document, electronic filing alone is insufficient under Rule 30(G) | Court: Electronic filing alone does not satisfy Rule 30(G); Rule 30(G) requires a name following "/s/" unless the Administrative Director designates another means, which was not shown here |
| Whether the State’s service/notice was defective such that the petitions are invalid or untimely | Service by certified mail to Greenetrack complied with Rule 5(a); State also served counsel who had appeared in related proceedings | Certificates directed to counsel that had not agreed to accept service made service defective; if earliest proper filing was later, action might be untimely | Court: Service on Greenetrack by certified mail and Greenetrack’s actual notice were sufficient under Rule 5(a) and precedent; service argument does not sustain dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Greenetrack, Inc., 154 So.3d 940 (Ala. 2014) (prior appellate reversal of trial court order in related Rule 3.13 proceedings)
- First Nat’l Bank of Columbiana v. State, 403 So.2d 258 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981) (in rem forfeiture/service: Rule 5 notice suffices where custodian of property receives notice and actual notice can cure defects)
- Adams v. State ex rel. Whetstone, 598 So.2d 967 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992) (statutory promptness in forfeiture satisfied by a proceeding instituted four weeks after seizure)
- R & G, LLC v. RCH IV–WB, LLC, 122 So.3d 1253 (Ala. 2013) (judicial notice of prior appellate records between same parties)