...context that alters our reading
of OCGA §
9-16-12 (b) that service by publication is permissible in
in rem forfeiture proceedings if the “owner or interest holder . . .
resides out of this state.”
(c) Finally, Crowder argues that OCGA §
9-16-11 requires
OCGA §
9-16-12 (b) to be read to require personal service in all in
rem forfeiture cases. But OCGA §
9-16-11 only governs forfeitures
“[i]f the estimated value of personal property seized is $25,000.00 or
less,” OCGA §
9-16-11 (a), whereas the forfeiture proceeding must
begin by the filing of a complaint under OCGA §
9-16-12 in any in
rem proceeding in which the estimated value of the property exceeds
$25,000. We thus conclude that the service provisions of §
9-16-11
do not control the meaning of the service provisions of in rem
forfeiture proceedings under OCGA §
9-16-12 where, as here, the
property involved has a value greater than $25,000 and must
proceed by a complaint in superior court under OCGA §
9-16-12. See
OCGA §
9-16-2 (2) (a “‘[c]ivil forfeiture proceeding’ means a quasi-
judicial forfeiture initiated pursuant to Code Section
9-16-11 or a
complaint for forfeiture initiated pursuant to Code Section
9-16-12
or
9-16-13”).
(d) For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of
Appeals was correct to conclude that OCGA §
9-16-12 (b) (3) permits
the...