City of Montgomery v. Sylvester Vaughn and Terrance Caffey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110872 C i t y o f Montgomery v. S y l v e s t e r Vaughn and Terrance C a f f e y Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-1017) PITTMAN, J u d g e . The summary City o f Montgomery judgment i n a q u a s i ("the C i t y " ) appeals i n rem a c t i o n , o r d e r i n g from i t a to r e t u r n t o S y l v e s t e r Vaughn a n d T e r r a n c e C a f f e y c a s h t h a t h a d been seized Department f r o m them b y o f f i c e r s ("the MPD"). o f t h e Montgomery P o l i c e We r e v e r s e . 2110872 F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On F e b r u a r y 2, 2 0 0 7 , C a f f e y was s t o p p e d b y an MPD for a traffic violation. officer A w a r r a n t l e s s search of Caffey's v e h i c l e r e v e a l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $8,800 i n c a s h a n d a c o n t r o l l e d substance. in drugs, February C a f f e y was a r r e s t e d a n d c h a r g e d w i t h t r a f f i c k i n g a violation 7, 2007, o f § 13A-12-213, A l a . Code Montgomery police officers 1975. On obtained a w a r r a n t f r o m t h e Montgomery M u n i c i p a l C o u r t t o s e a r c h C a f f e y ' s residence. seized Upon execution of the warrant, MPD officers $17,875 i n c a s h f r o m t h e r e s i d e n c e and $3,500 f r o m a v e h i c l e i n the driveway. On A u g u s t 6, 2008, Vaughn was a r r e s t e d b y an MPD for distribution 13A-12-2ll, Vaughn's of a c o n t r o l l e d substance, a v i o l a t i o n A l a . Code arrest, officer the 1975. During a search officer seized $6,207 of § incident i n cash to from Vaughn. On A u g u s t 17, 2010, Vaughn filed an a c t i o n C i t y i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , a l l e g i n g seizure officials of h i s cash, to institute t h e MPD prompt had failed proceedings a g a i n s t the that, a f t e r the to notify to forfeit state the p r o p e r t y t o t h e S t a t e as r e q u i r e d b y § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( c ) , A l a . Code 2 2110872 1975; the that, instead, the MPD had transferred Drug Enforcement A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ("the the property DEA") to to commence f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s ; and t h a t , a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e DEA to 90 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e m a i n d e r as that, an f o r f e i t e d cash to the administrative because a m u n i c i p a l i t y fee. has f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g under s t a t e with the States, DEA to have brought claims state spoils." and had kept standing law, the to MPD f o r f e i t e d to law and alleged institute had the a conspired the "fil[ling United its] own B a s e d on t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s , Vaughn i n d i v i d u a l l y and " a l l individuals MPD r e t u r n e d 80 Vaughn f u r t h e r no property thereby bypassing c o f f e r s w i t h the of the had whose on b e h a l f property was of a p u t a t i v e seized by class any MPD o f f i c e r a c t i n g i n h i s c a p a c i t y as s u c h and subsequently turned over Federal to the Investigation DEA, U.S. 2010, on allegations made or Bureau of f o r f o r f e i t u r e purposes." Vaughn amended t h e 2, Customs, complaint several times. Vaughn a d d e d C a f f e y ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t s i m i l a r to i . e . , t h a t t h e MPD i t o v e r t o t h e DEA those had that the Vaughn had On December C i t y , based previously s e i z e d C a f f e y ' s c a s h and turned t o commence f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s 3 2110872 and that, at proceedings, t h e MPD conclusion also added Martinez director of the federal forfeiture t h e DEA h a d r e t u r n e d t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e c a s h t o and h a d k e p t Vaughn Arroyo the t h e r e m a i n d e r as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f e e . the claims of Ronald a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s F.A. o f t h e Alabama Department of Kidd and Teodosio "Bubba" Bingham, t h e Public Safety ("the D P S " ) , and A l a b a m a S t a t e T r o o p e r D a r r e l l Seymour (Bingham and Seymour a r e h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e DPS defendants"). The Caffey, 1 City moved insisting to that c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f dismiss the the claimants claims of had f a i l e d c o u l d be g r a n t e d Vaughn and to state a and a r g u i n g , among T h e DPS d e f e n d a n t s u l t i m a t e l y moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t them f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h a t m o t i o n , and t h e DPS d e f e n d a n t s p e t i t i o n e d t h i s c o u r t t o i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus. We g r a n t e d t h e i r p e t i t i o n and i s s u e d t h e w r i t i n Ex p a r t e Bingham, [Ms. 2100676, J a n u a r y 6, 2012] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t "a f e d e r a l c o u r t h a d a l r e a d y a c q u i r e d (and e x e r c i s e d ) i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c l a i m a n t s ' p r o p e r t y a t t h e t i m e t h e c l a i m a n t s f i l e d an i n rem p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e Montgomery Circuit Court, the circuit court had no jurisdiction"). B a s e d on o u r supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n E r v i n v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , [Ms. 1101555, M a r c h 22, 2013] So. 3d ( A l a . 2 0 1 3 ) , i n a s e p a r a t e o p i n i o n i s s u e d t o d a y , we d i s a v o w t h e l e g a l r a t i o n a l e e m p l o y e d i n Bingham. See Payne v. C i t y o f D e c a t u r , [Ms. 2110919, A p r i l 19, 2013] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 3 ) . 1 4 2110872 other things, that this Montgomery, c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n G r e e n v. C i t y o f 55 So. 3d 256 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (holding that s t a t e c o u r t h a d p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n action seeking claimants return of seized currency had f i l e d t h a t a c t i o n b e f o r e i n an because the currency the h a d been t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e DEA a n d t h e DEA h a d a d o p t e d t h e s e i z u r e ) , b a r r e d t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t by t h e c l a i m a n t s b e c a u s e t h e i r s t a t e court action seeking the claimants' federal circuit City r e t u r n o f t h e c a s h h a d been f i l e d cash had forfeiture court been transferred proceedings denied had been the C i t y ' s motion answered the complaint, In a brief City supporting asserted before the District cross-motions i t s motion that Vaughn United States the DEA and commenced. to dismiss, The and t h e a s s e r t i n g as t o t h e c l a i m s Vaughn and C a f f e y , among o t h e r d e f e n s e s , The p a r t i e s f i l e d to after had collateral estoppel. f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . as t o Vaughn's "already District of argued Court claim, the t o no f o r the avail Middle o f A l a b a m a t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t and n o t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t had e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c u r r e n c y s e i z e d from him," c i t i n g United Dollars S t a t e s v. S i x T h o u s a n d Two H u n d r e d Seven ($6,207.00) in United 5 States Currency, (No. 2110872 2:08-CV-999-MEF, J u l y 20, 2009) (M.D. A l a . 2009) ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. Supp. 2 d ) . On A p r i l 24, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t Vaughn and C a f f e y ' s City's motion. summary-judgment The judgment motion states: granted and d e n i e d "Neither party the has o f f e r e d any f a c t s w h i c h may be c o n s i d e r e d by t h i s c o u r t as t o any t r a n s f e r of e i t h e r federal before o r Vaughn's p r o p e r t y agency f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . this proceedings The Caffey's court exclusive court of the i n s t i t u t i o n against concluded i n rem either that Caffey's over T h e r e i s no record of f e d e r a l forfeiture o r Vaughn's property." t h e Montgomery jurisdiction t o any Circuit Vaughn's Court had and Caffey's p r o p e r t y by v i r t u e o f i t s h a v i n g b e e n s e i z e d p u r s u a n t t o § 20- 2 - 9 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. Standard of Review "An o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i s r e v i e w e d de n o v o , a p p l y i n g t h e same s t a n d a r d as the trial c o u r t a p p l i e d . A m e r i c a n Gen. L i f e & A c c i d e n t I n s . Co. v. Underwood, 886 So. 2d 807, 811 (Ala. 2 0 0 4 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , ' [ t ] h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s de novo a t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e , because o n l y a q u e s t i o n of law i s presented.' S c o t t B r i d g e Co. v. W r i g h t , 883 So. 2d 1221, 1223 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . Where, as h e r e , t h e f a c t s o f a c a s e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i s p u t e d , t h i s C o u r t must d e t e r m i n e whether the t r i a l c o u r t m i s a p p l i e d the law t o the u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , a p p l y i n g a de novo s t a n d a r d o f review. C a r t e r v. C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e , 669 So. 2d 812, 815 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " 6 2110872 Continental 1034-35 Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Fields, 926 So. 2d 1033, court erred ( A l a . 2005). Discussion On a p p e a l , in ordering Caffey control the C i t y argues t h a t i t to return because, over the property i t asserts, the currency the c i r c u i t seized " t h e DEA and f r o m Vaughn a n d had already completed gained administrative f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h i s a c t i o n was f i l e d b y Vaughn and Caffey i n [Montgomery] C i r c u i t C o u r t on A u g u s t 17, 2010, and December 2, 2010, r e s p e c t i v e l y . " Vaughn and Caffey take contending that the c i r c u i t it issue that assertion, c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t h a d b e e n p r e s e n t e d w i t h no f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t seized federal Vaughn from Vaughn agency and and Caffey for federal Caffey had City's assertion had been property transferred f o r f e i t u r e proceedings filed their seeking return of the property. the with action only a before i n state Vaughn a n d C a f f e y i s based to insist court that upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e i r c o m p l a i n t and t h e C i t y ' s r e s p o n s e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t , b u t , they maintain, " [ a ] l l e g a t i o n s are not f a c t s . " 7 2110872 Caffey's Claim F a c t s a l l e g e d i n a c o m p l a i n t and n o t d e n i e d i n t h e answer are t a k e n as t r u e . So. 835, 836 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . fail to refute affirmatively See Woods v. Wood, 219 A l a . 523, 524, 122 M o r e o v e r , t h e C i t y d i d more t h a n the f a c t u a l allegations acknowledged the t r u t h T h e r e was, i n t h e p r e s e n t case, fact brought that, return of before Caffey the cash seized of the complaint; i t of those allegations. s i m p l y no d i s p u t e from simply a state-court as t o t h e action f o r him, the cash had been t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e DEA f o r f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d that, at the conclusion returned the majority of those proceedings, t h e DEA h a d o f t h e c a s h t o t h e MPD a n d h a d k e p t t h e r e m a i n d e r as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f e e . The "equitable sharing" of f e d e r a l and s t a t e o r l o c a l e n t i t i e s in has funds between t o which Caffey referred h i s p l e a d i n g s does n o t o c c u r u n t i l entered a f i n a l United States. A.2d forfeited 143, 144 881(e)(1)(A), after a federal judgment f o r f e i t i n g See De S a n t i s (2005). v. S t a t e , The a p p l i c a b l e provides: 8 court the property to the 384 Md. 656, 657, 866 statute, 21 U.S.C. § 2110872 "(e) Disposition of f o r f e i t e d property "(1) Whenever p r o p e r t y i s c i v i l l y o r c r i m i n a l l y f o r f e i t e d under t h i s subchapter t h e A t t o r n e y General may-¬ "(A) ... t r a n s f e r t h e p r o p e r t y t o a n y F e d e r a l agency o r t o any S t a t e o r l o c a l l a w enforcement agency which participated d i r e c t l y i n the seizure or f o r f e i t u r e of the p r o p e r t y . " In to t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e p a r t i e s ' d i s a g r e e m e n t was n o t as t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s , b u t as t o t h e l e g a l i m p o r t o f those f a c t s , namely: the property federal court seized forfeiture from w h e t h e r t h e MPD's t r a n s f e r r i n g Caffey proceedings a c t i o n seeking return to a barred federal Caffey's agency f o r later of the property. state- The Supreme Court o f Alabama d e f i n i t i v e l y answered t h a t q u e s t i o n i n E r v i n v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 3d [Ms. 1101555, M a r c h 22, 2013] So. ( A l a . 2013). In Ervin, o u r supreme court held that a state-court a c t i o n s e e k i n g t h e r e t u r n o f p r o p e r t y t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y been s e i z e d by m u n i c i p a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , and forfeited to the United States t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e DEA, "amounts t o a collateral a t t a c k i n s t a t e c o u r t on a f i n a l j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y a f e d e r a l court. ... As the successor in title 9 to the forfeited 2110872 property, the [ m u n i c i p a l i t y ] i s e n t i t l e d b e n e f i t of t h a t f i n a l Caffey the contends United States Montgomery Circuit judgment." to the res j u d i c a t a So. 3d a t that the f o r f e i t u r e . of h i s property was not authorized Court had exercised because (a) preexisting in jurisdiction over the p r o p e r t y by v i r t u e o f i t s h a v i n g the f o r the search warrant seizure transfer of the p r o p e r t y the property arguments i n E r v i n , and to whose e x e c u t i o n (b) t h e MPD the o u r supreme DEA. the rem issued r e s u l t e d i n the h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o Rejecting the court stated: "Even i f a l l t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s were c o r r e c t , t h e y amount o n l y t o an a t t a c k on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e r e s i n an i n rem a c t i o n , n o t an a t t a c k on t h e subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of the f e d e r a l court over a f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n brought under f e d e r a l law. As s u c h , t h e y come t o o l a t e and a r e b e i n g a d v a n c e d i n t h e wrong c o u r t . See P o r s c h e C a r s N o r t h A m e r i c a , I n c . v. P o r s c h e . n e t , 302 F.3d 248, 256 ( 4 t h C i r . 2002) (distinguishing between objections to subject-matter jurisdiction and o b j e c t i o n s t o a c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e r e s i n an i n rem a c t i o n , and e x p l a i n i n g t h a t , as w i t h i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' i n ... c i v i l forfeiture c a s e s , f o r y e a r s c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t o b j e c t i o n s t o i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n may be w a i v e d ' and c i t i n g c a s e s i n s u p p o r t ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. N i n e t e e n Thousand E i g h t H u n d r e d F i f t y F i v e ($19,855.00) D o l l a r s i n United States Currency [Ms. 2:12-CV-14 6-WKW, Nov. 19, 2 0 1 2 ] , F. Supp. 3d , n.6 and a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t (M.D. A l a . 2012) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t 10 to same 2110872 o b j e c t i o n s t o i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n not t i m e l y a s s e r t e d ) . " So. 3d a t Ervin, (emphasis added). the judgment of to Caffey's claim respect the may waived i f B a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Montgomery is be Circuit reversed, and Court the with cause is remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e City. Vaughn's Although the unrefuted Claim a l l e g a t i o n s of the complaint r e g a r d i n g Vaughn's c l a i m w o u l d n o r m a l l y make f u r t h e r i n q u i r y into the i g n o r e two the Middle underlying facts unnecessary, this District f r o m Vaughn of Alabama p e r t a i n i n g to ($6,207.00) in United i n F. Supp. 2d) States the United States Currency, ( h e r e i n a f t e r c i t e d as 757 Currency, and United ($6,207) D o l l a r s i n F. Supp. 2d 1155 11 (No. A l a . 2009) (not r e p o r t e d H u n d r e d Seven "$6,207-II"). seized H u n d r e d Seven ( h e r e i n a f t e r c i t e d as " $ 6 , 2 0 7 - I " ) , S i x T h o u s a n d Two for federal currency U n i t e d S t a t e s v. S i x T h o u s a n d Two 2:08-CV-999-MEF, J u l y 20, 2009) (M.D. S t a t e s v. cannot d e c i s i o n s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t the Dollars court (M.D. Ala. 2010) 2110872 In $6,207-I, which t h e C i t y c i t e d i n i t s b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g facts appear: "Sometime b e t w e e n A u g u s t 6, 2008, a n d S e p t e m b e r 8, 2008, Montgomery P o l i c e o f f i c e r s t r a n s f e r r e d t h e ... c u r r e n c y t o t h e DEA f o r f o r f e i t u r e p u r p o s e s . On O c t o b e r 7, 2008, Vaughn f i l e d a c l a i m asserting o w n e r s h i p o f t h e ... c u r r e n c y . "On December 17, 2008, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a v e r i f i e d c o m p l a i n t f o r f o r f e i t u r e i n rem." Id. filed On J a n u a r y 8, 2009, t h e f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e c o m p l a i n t was served on Vaughn's counsel (who i s a p p e l l a t e Vaughn a n d C a f f e y i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e ) . Vaughn, acting dismiss the following precluded through federal grounds: from (a) t h a t exercising p r o p e r t y because, pursuant complaint the federal in rem a motion t o based district on the c o u r t was jurisdiction over the Vaughn m a i n t a i n e d , t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court had e x e r c i s e d property On J a n u a r y 11, 2009, t h e same c o u n s e l , f i l e d forfeiture counsel f o r preexisting i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n t o § 20-2-93(b), over the A l a . Code 1975, a n d (b) t h a t t h e MPD h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o t r a n s f e r t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e DEA. I n a memorandum and opinion issued 28 d a y s b e f o r e Vaughn return filed on J u l y 20, 2009 h i s state-court o f t h e p r o p e r t y on t h e same 12 grounds), (1 y e a r action f o r the federal 2110872 district court arguments. i n $6,207-I addressed, and r e j e c t e d , both That c o u r t s t a t e d : "[Vaughn a r g u e s t h a t ] when t h e Montgomery P o l i c e s e i z e d t h e ... c u r r e n c y , i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n v e s t e d in the C i r c u i t Court o f Montgomery County. T h e r e f o r e , t h e argument c o n t i n u e s , because i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t 'the c o u r t f i r s t assuming jurisdiction o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y may m a i n t a i n a n d exercise that j u r i s d i c t i o n to the exclusion of the o t h e r , ' Penn Gen. C a s u a l t y Co. v. P e n n s y l v a n i a , 294 U.S. 189, 195, 55 S. C t . 386, 79 L. E d . 850 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , t h i s Court l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n . "Vaughn's argument f a i l s b e c a u s e o f t h e d o c t r i n e of adoptive forfeiture. '[U]nder the "adoptive f o r f e i t u r e " d o c t r i n e , the United States' adoption of the S t a t e ' s s e i z u r e o f [the p l a i n t i f f s ' ] cash has t h e same e f f e c t as i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a d o r i g i n a l l y s e i z e d t h e c u r r e n c y . ' U.S. v. $119,000 i n U.S. Currency, 793 F. Supp. 246, 249 (D. Haw. 1992) . A d o p t i v e f o r f e i t u r e was i n c o r p o r a t e d f r o m t h e common law i n t o American j u r i s p r u d e n c e by J u s t i c e S t o r y i n T a y l o r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 How. (44 U.S.) 197, 205, 11 L. E d . 559 (1845) : " ' A t t h e common l a w a n y p e r s o n may, a t h i s peril, seize f o r a forfeiture to the government, and, i f t h e government adopts h i s s e i z u r e , and i n s t i t u t e s p r o c e e d i n g s t o e n f o r c e t h e f o r f e i t u r e , and t h e p r o p e r t y i s condemned, he w i l l be c o m p l e t e l y j u s t i f i e d . So t h a t i t i s w h o l l y i m m a t e r i a l i n s u c h a c a s e who makes t h e s e i z u r e , o r w h e t h e r i t i s i r r e g u l a r l y made o r n o t , o r w h e t h e r t h e cause a s s i g n e d o r i g i n a l l y f o r t h e s e i z u r e be t h a t f o r w h i c h t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n t a k e s place, provided the adjudication i s f o r a sufficient cause.' 13 2110872 "Vaughn a r g u e s p r i n c i p a l l y t h a t t h i s C o u r t l a c k s jurisdiction over the ... currency because j u r i s d i c t i o n f i r s t vested i n the C i r c u i t Court of Montgomery C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n rem p r o c e e d i n g s ' t h e c o u r t f i r s t assuming j u r i s d i c t i o n over the p r o p e r t y may m a i n t a i n and e x e r c i s e that jurisdiction to the e x c l u s i o n o f t h e o t h e r . ' Penn Gen. C a s u a l t y Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189, 195, 55 S. C t . 386, 79 L. Ed. 850 (1935); see [United States v.] W i n s t o n - S a l e m / F o r s y t h C o u n t y [Bd. o f E d u c . ] , 902 F.2d [267,] 271 [ ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ] . However, u n d e r the d o c t r i n e of a d o p t i v e f o r f e i t u r e , the date of t h e s e i z u r e d a t e s b a c k t o t h e d a t e t h e ... c u r r e n c y was initially seized by the Montgomery Police Department; i t i s as i f federal authorities o r i g i n a l l y e x e c u t e d t h e s e i z u r e . See, e.g., U.S. v. C e r t a i n R e a l P r o p e r t y Known as L o t B G o v e r n o r ' s Rd., M i l t o n , NH, 755 F. Supp. 487, 490 (D.N.H. 1 9 9 0 ) ; s e e a l s o J e f f e r s v. U.S., 187 F.2d 498, 504 (D.C. C i r . 1950) ('The Government may a d o p t t h e s e i z u r e w i t h t h e same e f f e c t as i f i t h a d o r i g i n a l l y b e e n made b y one duly authorized.'). As a consequence, j u r i s d i c t i o n v e s t e d i n t h i s Court a t the time of the s e i z u r e , and t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y n e v e r h a d i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e ... c u r r e n c y . See $119, 000, 7 93 F. Supp. a t 24 9; see a l s o 3 C r i m i n a l P r a c t i c e M a n u a l § 107:67 (2009) ('In an adoptive f o r f e i t u r e , the state or l o c a l seizing agency turns the property over to federal a u t h o r i t i e s f o r f o r f e i t u r e , and t h e s t a t e o r l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s do n o t t a k e a f f i r m a t i v e s t e p s t o s e e k forfeiture. A f t e r a f e d e r a l agency adopts a s t a t e o r l o c a l s e i z u r e , t h e p r o p e r t y i s deemed t o have been s e i z e d by t h e f e d e r a l government, and i s t h u s s u b j e c t t o e x c l u s i v e f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as o f t h e date of s e i z u r e . ' ) . " "Vaughn a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h i s C o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e Montgomery P o l i c e 14 2110872 D e p a r t m e n t h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o t r a n s f e r t h e s e i z e d c a s h t o t h e DEA u n d e r A l a b a m a Code § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( b ) . I t i s of l i t t l e concern t o t h i s Court whether the Montgomery P o l i c e were a c t i n g p u r s u a n t t o s t a t e l a w when t h e y t r a n s f e r r e d t h e d e f e n d a n t c u r r e n c y t o t h e DEA. Even a s s u m i n g t h e t r a n s f e r was u l t r a v i r e s , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s may a d o p t a s e i z u r e e v e n when t h e p e r s o n who s e i z e d t h e p r o p e r t y h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o do s o . W i n s t o n - S a l e m / F o r s y t h C o u n t y , 902 F.2d a t 272 ( c i t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. One F o r d Coupe A u t o . , 272 U.S. 321, 325, 47 S. C t . 154, 71 L. Ed. 279 ( 1 9 2 6 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. One 1956 F o r d Tudor Sedan, 253 F.2d 725, 727 (4th C i r . 1958)). ' I t f o l l o w s t h a t the g o v e r n m e n t may a d o p t a s e i z u r e where t h e r e was no authority to transfer the property.' W i n s t o n - S a l e m / F o r s y t h C o u n t y , 902 F.2d a t 272." Acting through new c o u n s e l , Vaughn a p p e a l e d 2 from the order d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , b u t , on December 22, 2009, t h e United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit d i s m i s s e d t h e a p p e a l as h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n f r o m a n o n f i n a l n o n a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r , c i t i n g 28 U.S.C. § 1291. then entered a notice of appearance on March and Former c o u n s e l 9, 2010, and resumed h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Vaughn. On September $6,207-II 2010, the federal district court i n i s s u e d a memorandum o p i n i o n and o r d e r g r a n t i n g Government's Government 24, to motion file for a a summary proposed judgment; or The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d former c o u n s e l ' s motion w i t h d r a w f r o m r e p r e s e n t i n g Vaughn on May 6, 2009. to 15 of forfeiture the on 2 decree directing the 2110872 before O c t o b e r 1, 2010; a n d s t a t i n g : separate final judgment." 757 F. "The C o u r t w i l l Supp. enter a 2d a t 1165. The f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment o f f o r f e i t u r e on October counsel's 2010. In judgment. 15, light Vaughn of the d i d not appeal foregoing argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t from facts, that appellate c o u r t was p r e s e n t e d with no f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t p r o p e r t y s e i z e d f r o m Vaughn h a d b e e n transferred proceedings to federal i s , at the very When Vaughn f i l e d 2010, the preclusion" doctrine barred agents least, for federal forfeiture disingenuous. h i s s t a t e - c o u r t a c t i o n on A u g u s t 17, of collateral estoppel or "issue him from a s s e r t i n g t h a t , because a s t a t e c o u r t h a d e x e r c i s e d p r e e x i s t i n g i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n over the cash, exercise the f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n court could not properly o v e r t h e same property. "The elements of c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l i s s u e i d e n t i c a l t o t h e one l i t i g a t e d s u i t ; (2) t h a t t h e i s s u e was a c t u a l l y t h e p r i o r s u i t ; (3) t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o f n e c e s s a r y t o t h e p r i o r judgment; and parties a r e : (1) an i n the p r i o r litigated in t h e i s s u e was (4) t h e same "... [ T ] h e 'same p a r t i e s ' r e q u i r e m e n t i s n o t s t r i c t l y enforced i f the p a r t y r a i s i n g the defense o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l , o r t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom i t i s asserted, i s i n p r i v i t y with a party to the p r i o r 16 2110872 a c t i o n . The t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g i f two p a r t i e s a r e i n p r i v i t y f o c u s e s on i d e n t i t y o f i n t e r e s t . " D a i r y l a n d I n s . Co. v. J a c k s o n , (citations omitted). collateral estoppel sought t o l i t i g a t e he h a d a c t u a l l y federal to first are s a t i s f i e d and second because litigated i n $6,207-I, court could fourth "parties" the issue over property element exercise t h a t , Vaughn c l a i m e d , i s also satisfied. to the f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e h a d t h e same i n t e r e s t proceedings. and The U n i t e d in was Although rem subject court. the a c t i o n were t h e only United t o the cash i n b o t h t h e s t a t e and t h e f e d e r a l States i n the f e d e r a l - c o u r t a c t i o n the C i t y i n the s t a t e - c o u r t a c t i o n had s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s because each had a stake The court cash Vaughn of the s t a t e S t a t e s a n d $6,207 i n c a s h , Vaughn was a c l a i m a n t and of namely: whether t h e properly t h e p r e e x i s t i n g i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n The elements i n s t a t e c o u r t was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e i s s u e district jurisdiction The 566 So. 2d 723, 726 ( A l a . 1990) third could was despite element properly necessary the fact i n having -- the cash whether exercise the r e s o l u t i o n of i n rem jurisdiction t o t h e j u d g m e n t -that the federal d e n y i n g Vaughn's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s 17 forfeited. i s also district which over the satisfied, court's order t h e f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n was 2110872 not a "final j u d g m e n t " f o r p u r p o s e s o f a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291. (1982) final See R e s t a t e m e n t judgment judgment' i s rendered. However, (as d i s t i n g u i s h e d includes from any p r i o r another a c t i o n that Oil o f Judgments § 13 ("The r u l e s o f r e s j u d i c a t a a r e a p p l i c a b l e o n l y when a preclusion be (Second) f o r purposes merger and b a r ) , adjudication o f an i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y accorded conclusive effect."); of issue 'final issue in firm to Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth R e f i n i n g Co., 297 F.2d 80 (2d C i r . 1 9 6 1 ) . In Lummus, Second C i r c u i t the United States Court of Appeals f o r the stated: "Whether a j u d g m e n t , n o t ' f i n a l ' i n t h e s e n s e o f 28 U.S.C. § 1291, o u g h t n e v e r t h e l e s s be considered 'final' i n t h e sense of precluding further litigation o f t h e same i s s u e , turns upon such f a c t o r s as t h e n a t u r e o f t h e d e c i s i o n ( i . e . , t h a t i t was n o t avowedly t e n t a t i v e ) , t h e adequacy o f t h e h e a r i n g , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e v i e w . ' F i n a l i t y ' i n t h e c o n t e x t h e r e r e l e v a n t may mean l i t t l e more than t h a t t h e l i t i g a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e has r e a c h e d s u c h a s t a g e t h a t a c o u r t s e e s no r e a l l y good r e a s o n f o r p e r m i t t i n g i t t o be litigated again." 297 F.2d a t 89. The f e d e r a l district court's decision i n $ 6 . 2 0 7 - I d e n y i n g Vaughn's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was n o t t e n t a t i v e . Vaughn's motion was granted, would have a dispositive ended one that, the l i t i g a t i o n . 18 had i t been The federal 2110872 d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d and t h o r o u g h l y e x p l a i n e d i t s r e a s o n s for rejecting right Vaughn's to appeal permitting arguments. from the the issue v e r y good r e a s o n s to Although Vaughn d e c i s i o n , t h e r e was be reason for and f o r n o t p e r m i t t i n g i t t o be s t a t e c o u r t , namely: relitigated t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f f e d e r a l i s m and The p u r p o s e o f t h e r u l e o f e x c l u s i v e i n rem whereby "the p r o p e r t y may court first maintain and assuming 294 U.S. 189, 195 jurisdiction, jurisdiction (1935), is Cas. to Co. promote v. in comity. over exercise that j u r i s d i c t i o n e x c l u s i o n o f t h e o t h e r , " Penn Gen. no i n state court relitigated no had the to the Pennsylvania, "the harmonious c o o p e r a t i o n o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e t r i b u n a l s , " P r i n c e s s L i d a o f Thurn prevent & Taxis v. unseemly Thompson, 305 conflicts between c o u r t s , " M a n d e v i l l e v. C a n t e r b u r y , U.S. 456, 318 U.S. (1939), federal the 466 and 47, 49 "to state (1943), and t o m a i n t a i n " c o m i t y b e t w e e n c o u r t s ; s u c h harmony i s e s p e c i a l l y c o m p r o m i s e d by to assert jurisdiction s t a t e and concurrent of Cadillac Seville, each 866 f e d e r a l j u d i c i a l systems control over the depends," United F.2d 1145 1142, 19 res States attempting upon v. One (9th C i r . 1989). which 1985 2110872 A f t e r the federal d i s t r i c t of court entered a f i n a l judgment f o r f e i t u r e on O c t o b e r 15, 2010, and t h e C i t y r e c e i v e d equitable successor share of the f o r f e i t e d funds, in title to the forfeited e n t i t l e d to the res j u d i c a t a benefit Ervin, fact 2010, So. 3d a t that . the C i t y , property, of that final its " [ a ] s the [was] ... judgment." That i s so, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e Vaughn f i l e d h i s s t a t e - c o u r t action on A u g u s t 17, b e f o r e t h e f i n a l j u d g m e n t o f f o r f e i t u r e i n $ 6 , 2 0 7 - I I was rendered, because, "[f]or effective date a of final purposes judgment of res judicata, i s the date the of i t s r e n d i t i o n , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e d a t e o f commencement o f t h e a c t i o n i n which i t i s rendered or the a c t i o n i n which i t i s t o be given (1982). effect." Restatement (Second) o f Judgments Comment a. o f § 14 o f t h e R e s t a t e m e n t explains: " I n o r d e r t h a t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t s h a l l be g i v e n r e s j u d i c a t a e f f e c t i n a pending a c t i o n , i t i s not r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h a l l have b e e n r e n d e r e d b e f o r e t h a t a c t i o n was commenced. N o r i s a j u d g m e n t , otherwise e n t i t l e d to res judicata e f f e c t i n a p e n d i n g a c t i o n , t o be d e p r i v e d o f s u c h e f f e c t b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a c t i o n i n w h i c h i t was r e n d e r e d was commenced l a t e r t h a n t h e p e n d i n g a c t i o n . It is m e r e l y r e q u i r e d t h a t r e n d i t i o n o f t h e f i n a l judgment s h a l l a n t e d a t e i t s a p p l i c a t i o n as r e s j u d i c a t a i n the pending a c t i o n . " 20 § 14 2110872 See a l s o A l a b a m a Power Co. v. Thompson, 250 A l a . 7, 12, 32 So. 2d 795, 799 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , i n w h i c h o u r supreme c o u r t stated: "When two a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e same i s s u e o r i s s u e s , b e t w e e n t h e same p a r t i e s o r t h e i r p r i v i e s , a r e p e n d i n g a t t h e same t i m e , so t h a t a f i n a l j u d g m e n t i n one w o u l d be r e s j u d i c a t a o r a b a r i n t h e o t h e r , when t h e j u d g m e n t i n one becomes f i n a l i t may be urged i n the other by appropriate proceedings, r e g a r d l e s s o f w h i c h a c t i o n was begun f i r s t . I t i s t h e f i r s t f i n a l judgment a l t h o u g h i t may be i n t h e s e c o n d s u i t , t h a t r e n d e r s t h e m a t t e r res j u d i c a t a i n the other s u i t . " The j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t w i t h t o Vaughn's c l a i m i s r e v e r s e d , respect a n d t h e c a u s e i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e C i t y . REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 21

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.