Jerome Green was arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The state initiated a forfeiture action for the 1989 Chevrolet truck in which the cocaine was found. Gladys Shepard filed a claim alleging she was an owner, then arguing she was an interest holder. The trial court determined that Shepard’s interest had not vested, she was not a legal owner of the truck, and the truck was contraband. Shepard appeals, alleging the trial court erred in finding that the state established a prima facie case for forfeiture of the truck. Specifically, Shepard argues that the state did not meet its burden of proof in establishing that the truck was used in any illegal activity. Because Shepard lacks standing to challenge the forfeiture, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. There are very specific requirements for contesting a forfeiture.1 To have standing to contest a forfeiture, a party must have at least some property interest in the subject matter of the condemnation proceeding.2 The statute specifies that a party must be an “owner” or “interest holder.”3 A person who has no interest in the property cannot complain of its forfeiture; as a stranger to the property, she is a mere member of the public volunteering to challenge the entitlement of the state to the property.4 The statutory procedure contained in OCGA § 16-13-49 makes no provision for such a challenge, and it must be strictly construed.5
The record in the present case shows that Shepard loaned $4,000 to Green on January 14, 2003. In exchange, Green allegedly signed a promissory note stating as follows: I promise to pay all the money back by January 14, 2004. If all money is not paid back Ms. Shepard can confiscate my 1989 Chevrolet 1500 truck. I am giving Ms. Shepard the title to the vehicle until the full amount is paid. If the full amount is not paid she will keep the title and get the truck. Approximately one month after allegedly signing the promissory note, Green was stopped with approximately a pound of marijuana in the car, and the car was taken. The record clearly shows that Shepard did not record the title until after Green was arrested and the truck had been seized. The record is also clear that Shepard did not purchase the truck from Green. Based on these facts, the trial court correctly determined that Shepard was not an owner or an interest holder in the truck.
