Anthony Grant appeals the trial court’s order striking his Answer to a Complaint for Forfeiture filed by the State in connection with the seizure of $60,020 in cash. A related matter recently came before this Court in Grant v. State , __Ga. App.__ Case No. A09A2040, decided March 9, 2010 “Grant I “. There, Grant appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion to set aside and re-enter a March 4, 2009 order denying his application for return of the $60,020 the “March 4 order”. In Grant I , this Court set out the facts and procedure underlying this matter as follows: The record shows that Captain Terry Wright with the Glynn County Police Department’s Narcotics Enforcement Team received information from an anonymous caller concerning Grant’s alleged drug distribution activities in Liberty, McIntosh and Glynn counties. On January 4, 2009, the same caller informed Captain Wright that Grant would be traveling from McIntosh County to Glynn County in a silver rental vehicle and in possession of a kilogram of cocaine and some currency. On that same day, a Glynn County patrol officer observed the subject rental vehicle traveling on Highway 17, and another patrol officer subsequently stopped the rental vehicle driven by Grant for weaving. After another officer brought a drug dog to the scene, the drug dog alerted on the vehicle. Police officers searched the rental vehicle and discovered $60,020 concealed in the back seat, wrapped in aluminum foil in separate bundles. Grant denied ownership of the concealed money and only claimed ownership of $3,000 in the glove compartment of the car, which was returned to him. On January 14, 2009, Grant filed an application for the return of property to recover the $60,020 in cash seized by Glynn County police “application”, contending that the police had illegally seized his money; that the search was illegal; and there was no pending forfeiture action filed by the State. See OCGA § 16-13-49 q 4. The trial court held a hearing on Grant’s application on February 17, 2009, and by order dated February 25, 2009, it determined that probable cause existed for seizure of the concealed funds. This order was filed on March 4, 2009, yet the record does not indicate that counsel for the parties were served with a copy of the order. On April 21, 2009, Grant filed a motion to set aside and re-enter the March 4 order, asserting that the trial court failed to comply with OCGA § 15-6-21 c, as he did not receive a copy of the order denying his application “application order”. Grant I , at slip op. 1-2. Subsequently, on May 28, 2009, the trial court denied Grant’s motion to set aside. In Grant I , this Court found that the trial court failed to address the issue of compliance with OCGA § 15-6-21 c as raised in the motion and further failed to enter the findings necessary for this Court to consider that issue on appeal. Accordingly, the Court vacated the May 28 order and remanded the case to the trial court “with direction that it make the necessary findings.” Grant I , at slip. op. 3.
This appeal arises out of a Complaint for Forfeiture filed on February 26, 2009, to which Grant filed an answer on March 16, 2009. Although the State intended its complaint to be filed in the same action as Grant’s application, somehow the forfeiture complaint was assigned a separate case number and was assigned to a different judge.1 On April 16, 2009, at the State’s request, the forfeiture action was assigned to the same judge who presided over the original action involving Grant’s application.
