Appeal
from Lee Circuit Court (CV-15-900526)
EDWARDS, Judge.
Betty
Hopson ("Betty") appeals from a judgment entered by
the Lee Circuit Court ("the trial court") ordering
the forfeiture of a 2002 Chevrolet Tahoe sport-utility
vehicle ("the Tahoe") that the Opelika Police
Department ("the OPD") seized from the possession
of Betty's 33-year-old grandson, Bryan Patrick Hopson
("Bryan").
On
September 16, 2015, after the OPD received information that
Bryan allegedly was selling methamphetamine from the Tahoe,
an officer from the OPD stopped Bryan for changing lanes
without using a signal. Thereafter, Bryan consented to a
search of the Tahoe. That search allegedly revealed
"a white sock hidden inside a McDonald's [fast-food
restaurant] bag in the front passenger floorboard. The sock
contained a black digital scale, a plastic bag with numerous
small plastic baggies, a plastic bag containing suspected
methamphetamine and [a] black plastic bag which contained two
plastic bags of suspected methamphetamine and loose pieces of
suspected methamphetamine."
On
September 22, 2015, the State filed a complaint for
forfeiture of the Tahoe ("the forfeiture action");
Bryan, who allegedly had title to the Tahoe, was served with
a copy of the complaint. In the complaint, the State alleged
that the Tahoe had been used to transport a controlled
substance, that the State had possession of the Tahoe, and
that, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2-93, the State
was entitled to have the Tahoe forfeited to it. The State
also pursued criminal charges against Bryan.
On
August 10, 2016, before a grand jury considered the proposed
criminal charges against Bryan, Bryan informed the trial
court that someone else allegedly owned the Tahoe. On August
10, 2016, the trial court entered an order in the forfeiture
action requiring Bryan to "provide the State with any
title information he has" and requiring the State to
"amend its pleadings to include any necessary
parties." The record does not reflect that Bryan
provided any information to the State in response to the
August 2016 order.
The
forfeiture action was delayed pending resolution of the
criminal charges against Bryan. On June 16, 2017, Bryan
entered a guilty plea on those charges. Included in his
guilty plea was a statement that he "agree[d] to
forfeiture" of the Tahoe.
On July
21, 2017, the State filed a motion for a summary judgment in
the forfeiture action. That motion stated, in pertinent part:
"The parties have reached a plea agreement in the
companion criminal matter, CC 2016-738. Through this plea,
[Bryan] acknowledges that the [Tahoe] is due to be declared
contraband and forfeited pursuant to Section 20-2-93, Code of
Alabama (1975). See Guilty Plea attached as State's
Exhibit 1."
The
trial court entered an order granting the State's motion
for a summary judgment on August 10, 2017.
Pursuant
to Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., Bryan filed a motion to
alter, amend, or vacate the order granting the State's
motion for a summary judgment.[1] He alleged that the Tahoe was
owned by Betty, who had not been made a party to the
State's forfeiture action or served with process, that
Bryan had not contributed financially to the purchase of the
Tahoe, and that the Tahoe, "titled in [Betty's]
name, was purchased by her from provable funds withdrawn from
her bank for the purpose of purchase of the [Tahoe] and
[Betty] had no knowledge that Bryan ... [was] in possession
of drugs while in the [Tahoe]."[2] The motion continues:
"4. That the motion for summary judgment was filed and
ruled on prior to setting of any hearing. That there is no
order other than an order granting summary judgment which
order is not clear as being dispositive of the ownership of
the [Tahoe] at this time.
"5. That ... Betty ... is still the owner of the [Tahoe]
as [Bryan] could not agree to extinguish or relinquish her
interest. Therefore, it appears that the State's motion
for summary judgment, while due to be granted as to [Bryan],
is not dispositive of ...