its judgment after conducting an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct and will not be disturbed unless the record shows that it is contrary to the great weight of evidence. Ex parte McConathy, 911 So.2d 677 (Ala.2005). “The ore tenus rule does not, however, extend to cloak a trial judge’s conclusions of law or incorrect application of law to the facts with a presumption of correctness.” $3,011 in United States Currency v. State, 845 So.2d 810, 814 (Ala.Civ.App.2002). Section 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975, provides for the forfeiture o g that 10-week delay between the seizure of property and the institution of forfeiture proceedings did not meet the promptness requirement of § 20 — 2—90(c)); Eleven Automobiles v. State, 384 So.2d 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); Winstead v. State, 375 So.2d 1207 (Ala.Civ.
holding that a forfeiture proceeding instituted four weeks after seizure met the promptness requirement of the statute holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that forfeiture proceeding instituted more than seven months after property was seized did not meet the promptness requirement of  202  93c holding that forfeiture proceedings instituted eight months after the seizure of property failed to meet the promptness requirement holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture