On August 12, 1980, pursuant to former Ga. Code Ann. § 79A-828 (OCGA § 16-13-49), the State of Georgia filed a petition to condemn $50,948.00 cash which was found allegedly in close proximity to contraband drugs seized from the residence of Joseph Chester. Contending that Chester had no standing to contest the condemnation beсause in his answer to the petition he had denied any property right in the money, the state moved for summary *619 judgment, and the trial court granted that motion. On appeal, Chester asserts that stаnding to contest forfeiture proceedings obtains from a superior right of possession of the seized property rather than ownership, and that the trial court should have granted his earlier motions to dismiss which were based upon an allegedly inadequate verification оf the petition for condemnation. Held:
1. There is no plethora of appellate dеcisions in Georgia on this issue, but it is clear that to have standing to contest a forfeiture a party must have at least some property interest in the subject matter of the condemnation proceeding.
Sacchinelli v. State,
The appellant’s reliance upon County of Oakland v. Bice,
In his answer to the state’s petitiоn to condemn, the appellant denied any property interest in the $50,948.00 sought to be condemned, and there was no formal withdrawal or amendment of that pleading. However, the issue of ownership of the money was contested at the hearing on summary judgment, and other evidence such as the appellant’s testimony from the prior criminal proceeding cоntradicted an absolute denial of any property interest in all of the $50,948.00. Consequently, the appellant’s answer may not now be considered an admission in judicio that barred him from showing to the contrary. See
Stephens v. Tate,
Concerning approximately $14,000 found along with a Colt .45 pistol in a brown attache, the appellant testified (at the criminal proceeding) that he owned a Colt .45 pistol and often had large sums of money at home but that he did not know if that money was his. The appellant did claim ownership of $6040 supposedly found in a shaving kit. This evidence was sufficient to establish an issue of fact over the ownership of the remaining $18,038 ($50,948 — $32,910), and the trial court erred in granting summаry judgment for that portion of the money sought to be condemned. (The above figures may raise the question of whether the state actually seized more money than it sought to condemn, but that matter is irrelevant to the question of whether $50,948 may properly be condemned.)
2. OCGA § 16-13-49 (e) (and fоrmer Ga. Code Ann. § 79A-828 (e)) requires that the petition for condemnation be “verified by a duly authorized agent of the state.” In this case, the appellant contends that the district attorney’s vеrification, which stated that the facts set forth in the petition were true and correct tо the best of his knowledge and belief, was legally insufficient. The appellant relies upon
Carter v. Hayes,
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.