Hunstein v. McDade
Opinion
Ralph J. Hunstein seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the Douglas County District Attorney to deliver funds that were seized in 1989 from James E. Query’s bank account and awarded to the state [516]*516in 1993. Hunstein claims that Query assigned the funds to him as payment of attorneys’ fees in a federal criminal case.
To obtain the right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, the petitioner must show both a clear legal right to the relief sought and the absence of another adequate remedy. Hunstein has failed to make either showing. His remedy was to file a claim on his own behalf in the state forfeiture action, which he did not do. As a result, he is not an owner or interest holder under the forfeiture statute and does not have a clear legal right to the seized funds. See OCGA § 16-13-49 (a). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of mandamus.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
480 S.E.2d 192 (Hunstein v. McDade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.