News Home / Legal Developments / Montgomery County Circuit Court doesn't have jurisdiction over bingo machines

Montgomery County Circuit Court doesn't have jurisdiction over bingo machines

On February 25, 2010, the plaintiff opened a facility in Mobile County. The facility contained 25 electronic devices, which the plaintiff described as lawful charitable bingo machines. On that same day, the Governor's Task Force on Illegal Gambling seized the 25 machines and other items from the facility. The machines were temporarily stored in a state warehouse in Montgomery County.

On March 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed an inverse-condemnation suit in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, seeking compensation for the machines and other property. At some point after the suit was filed, the task force transported the machines back to Mobile County.

On March 14, the Montgomery County Circuit Court held a hearing. Upon finding out that the bingo machines had been transported back to Mobile County, the court ordered their return to Montgomery County. At that point, the attorneys for the state indicated that the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the machines. Nevertheless, the court ordered them returned within 10 days.

On March 18, the Mobile County district attorney filed a forfeiture action in the Mobile County Circuit Court and sought dismissal or transfer of the plaintiff's suit in the Montgomery County Circuit Court.

The state then appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which stayed the Montgomery County court's order. The supreme court reversed the circuit court, pointing out that Alabama law prevented the circuit court (a trial court) from interfering with a criminal proceeding by civil action. A forfeiture action is considered an extension of law enforcement against illegal gambling. The supreme court directed the Montgomery County Circuit Court to vacate its order directing that the machines be returned to Montgomery County and directed the court to dismiss the plaintiff's suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Ex parte Rich, decided on September 16, 2011.

Items on this web page are general in nature. They cannot—and should not—replace consultation with a competent legal professional. Nothing on this web page should be considered rendering legal advice.

Return to top.
Return to Legal Developments.