These items were not available to [Co-wart] pending the outcome of that trial. Accordingly, the institution of the forfeiture proceedings did not deny him the use and enjoyment of his property, and the State’s delay in filing did not constitute a denial of due process.” Cowart and Travis timely appealed. On appeal, Cowart and Travis contend that the State’s forfeiture petition was not timely filed and that the State did not present evidence establishing with reasonable satisfaction that the property seized had any connection to the production and sale of methamphetamine. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the State instituted the forfeiture proceeding “promptly,” as required by § 20-2-93(c), Ala.Code 1975. At the outset, we note that when, as here, the trial court ent .1979) (<HOLDING>); and Kirkland v. State ex rel. Baxley, supra
holding that delay for three and onehalf years was unreasonable under rule 60b6 holding that forfeiture proceedings instituted three and onehalf weeks after service of process were prompt holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable holding that by itself three and onehalf months was insufficient to prove causation holding that a three and onehalf month temporal proximity is insufficient to create a jury issue on causation