The State‟s pursuit of an advisory opinion, moreover, is
inconsistent with thecourse of events leading to the disposition of seized currency and seized equipment inwhich former defendant Multimedia initially claimed an interest. With regard to thecurrency, after former defendants Cornerstone and FTV disclaimed any interest in thatproperty, the State moved for summary judgment merely upon the showing that no partythen claimed a right to that property and no party could thereafter claim a right to that
property under the Court‟s intervention Order. State‟s Motion for Summary Judgment a
sto $549,981.28 in United States Currency at 3. On that basis alone, the State claimed it
entitled to the forfeiture of the Currency.
summary judgmentOrder awarding the State possession of the seized funds was consistent with thedisposition suggested by Defendants with respect to seized machines, merely stating:With no opposition having been filed, the pending summary judgmentmotion of the plaintiff, State of Alabama, referable to the $549,981.28 incurrency previously seized, is granted. The Court declares that the State of Alabama is entitled to these funds, which are deemed forfeited to the State.August 28, 2012 Order.
The same is true with respect to this Court‟s Order
regarding seized Multimediaequipment. That Order, having declared that the seized property to belong to the State,
directed that the State “proceed to
destroy the seized property,
August 8, 2012 Order ¶¶1-2, even though the Order included the further s
tipulation that “
[a]ll issues relating to theseized property are hereby fully and finally resolved without trial or further adjudicationof any issue of fact or law
¶ 3. This Court importantly entered that Order upon jointmotion of the State and Multimedia, suggesting at a minimum that the State is well aware