FORD v. STATE

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the procedures for opening default as a matter of right under OCGA § 9-11-55(a) are applicable, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-81, in forfeiture actions under OCGA § 16-13-49. The Court of Appeals, following its holding in State of Georgia v. Britt Caribe, Ltd., 154 Ga. App. 476 ( 268 S.E.2d 702) (1980), held that the default procedures under the Civil Practice Act are not applicable to forfeiture actions. Ford v. State of Georgia, 235 Ga. App. 755 ( 509 S.E.2d 734) (1998). We reverse based on Rojas v. State of Georgia, 269 Ga. 121 ( 498 S.E.2d 735) (1998).

OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(4) provides "[i]f at the expiration of the [30-day period for filing an answer] no answer has been filed, the court shall order the disposition of the seized property as provided for in this Code section." In Rojas, supra, we held that because OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(4) was silent regarding the relation back of amendments, the forfeiture statute "cannot reasonably be construed as a specific, expressly prescribed procedure in the forfeiture statute that is contrary to the amendment provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15." (Footnote omitted.) Rojas, supra at 123. In the instant case, OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(4) is likewise silent regarding relief from judgments entered after default, hence we cannot here construe it as expressly prescribing a procedure contrary to the default provisions of OCGA § 9-11-55. Contrary to the State's argument, we find no conflict between the opening of a default as a matter of right in OCGA § 9-11-55(a) and the language in OCGA § 16-13-49(o)(4) directing the court to order the disposition of the seized property in the absence of an answer. Nothing in the statutory forfeiture language precludes parties from seeking relief from a final order entered in a forfeiture action, including the relief provided by OCGA § 9-11-55(a) in the opening of default within fifteen days of day of default as a matter of right. Although OCGA § 16-13-49 evidences the legislative intent that there be prompt disposition of property subject to forfeiture, State of Georgia v. Jackson, 197 Ga. App. 619(1) ( 399 S.E.2d 88) (1990), we must also construe the forfeiture provisions and the CPA's relief from judgment rules consistent with one of the express purposes of OCGA § 16-13-49, i.e., the protection of the property interests of innocent owners. Rojas, supra at 124.

Accordingly, we hereby reverse the Court of Appeals' holding that OCGA § 9-11-55 does not apply to the forfeiture action brought pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-49 and overrule State of Georgia v. Britt Caribe, Ltd., supra, and all other cases contrary to this opinion.

Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.