State of Ga. v. Williams

After the State initiated forfeiture proceedings against Raegain Williams’ automobile under OCGA § 16-13-49 n, Williams filed a timely but deficient claim of ownership. The State moved for judgment after the expiration of the time period for filing a challenge to the forfeiture proceedings. Williams attempted to amend her original claim of ownership to cure the deficiencies, but the trial court denied the amendment and declared that all right, title, and interest in the automobile was forfeited to the State. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that under the reasoning of Rojas v. State of Georgia ,1 the relation back provision of the Civil Practice Act CPA2 applied to Williams’ amended claim.3 We granted the State’s petition for certiorari, and now affirm. Forfeiture proceedings against property deemed to be worth less than $25,000 proceed under OCGA § 16-13-49 n. In order to challenge the State’s attempted condemnation under that subsection, any person claiming ownership of the property must file a claim of ownership within thirty days of the date of the State’s second notice publication.4 Williams’ claim of ownership was timely, but defective because it was not verified and it failed to include other elements necessary for a valid claim of ownership.5 Specifically, Williams’ claim failed to include 1 the date, identity of the transferor, and circumstances of her acquisition of the property, 2 the specific provision of OCGA § 16-13-49 upon which she relies to support her claim that the property is not subject to forfeiture, and 3 evidence of her ownership interest.6

After the State sought judgment based on the defective claim of ownership, Williams sought to cure the deficiencies by filing an amended claim. The State argued that the amendment could not be accepted as it was untimely, but Williams asserted that the amended claim of ownership should “relate back” to the defective claim of ownership for purposes of determining the timeliness of the claim. The trial court rejected Williams’ amended claim of ownership and held that the property was forfeited to the State.