Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waning Gibbous (97% of Full)


Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

July 29, 2003 11:30PM
Conversations with Sycamorelaughing:

>>Of course Gail's document is recorded. That is the function of the
>>Recorder's Office. However, the charge was that her purported
>>ownership is not recorded. That can easily be verified by reviewing the >>property record.

Please tell us on what property record you are looking at? Mike Castro's property record? Which property record are your referring to? Did you look at the title policy? Or did you go online to review the county assessor's office records? Please be specific.

>>Parcel number 433-101-03-Z001 is the Bowen ranch house and does not
>>list either Gail or DCHS, Inc. as the property owner.

Again, where exactly were you looking? We have gone to the county assessor's site online and have been able to verify our ownership.

>>She also states that the " Bowen Ranch house and 40 acre easement
>>were assigned a separate parcel number independent of the Bowen
>>Ranch lands."

>>433-101-03-Z001 contains no wording regarding an easement. Perhaps
>>Gail should re-read the description:

>>Parcel 433-101-03-Z001 is described in County Records as BLDGS ON

Sycamorelaughing is correct that it does show bldgs on leased land in the records through dataquick. This is the issue that needs further clarification by the court. There is no lease mentioned in the Court Judgment. The Court Judgment says that Fred Moss' tenants John Ware (Mike Castro) has no right to possession of the Bowen Ranch Building or the land in control by Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz (DCHS, Inc). The survey was done, it was clearly 40 acres as fenced by Mr. and Mrs. Bowen years ago. There was a diagram in the court file as to the boundaries of the area in question.

Research what happens to property ownership when there is "adverse possession". The judge made a decision with all of the facts and evidence in front of him and determined that the Bowen Ranch building and the 40 acres fenced off by Mr. and Mrs. Bowen belonged to Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz. The County then created a separate parcel number just to reflect the results of this decision. In their records this decision was recorded in the dataquick records as buildings on leased land.

>>Real estate law is very clear that a permanent structure becomes part of
>>the property it sits on. If your neighbor builds a fence on your property,
>>it becomes your fence. There is no exception of a house or any part of a
>>house being on someone else's property. If you are unfortunate enough
>>to have your house on someone else's property, you might try to
>>negotiate a lease with the property owner.

If a person were to build a fence on another person's property and that other person ran right over or even waited three months, or four years, and that person says "hey, you built that on my property. I'm going to give you 30 days to remove the improvement or it will become my property. That can definetely happen. Someone does home improvements and installs an expensive built in stereo system that was fixed permanently to the structure, this could be considered a permanent fixture to the property and be considered in the value of the property. Long ago it was very easy and common to have some disputes about property lines and ownership.

However, if that person built a house and a fence to mark a property boundary on another's property and it was open and notarious, was done peacefully, remained in place for over five years, and no one objected to that boundary fence or the building, then the person could gain title to the land and improvements through adverse possession. The other requirement usually is the payment of property taxes.

>>For example, if DCHS, Inc. wants to have occupancy of the Bowen ranch
>>house, they could negotiate a lease with the owner of parcel 43310103.
>>That was the previous solution. The present owner of parcel 43310103
>>is Mike Castro. The alternative would be to assume and present to Mr.
>>Castro a copy of a vaiid existing lease.

>>Gail states that Chicago Title failed to conduct sufficient research into the
>>chain of title and were defrauded into issuing title insurance and that the
>>actions of Fred Moss and the purchasers are a violation of Penal code
>>Sections 549 and 550(b)(3), felonies.

>>This statement should be given full consideration and careful thought as
>>it clearly indicates the mindset of the person who wrote it.

You need to look at those document numbers that I provided you with instead of basing your opinion on someone's interpretation. Very colorful though.

I realize that these issues are not the typical of real estate transactions, however, this type of situation occurred often over the years until there were more surveyors, title companies, GPS measurements, etc. to assist people in determining land boundaries. This case over the Bowen Ranch House was extremely controversial case at the time with unique circumstances. If you would obtain copies of these documents, I could probably show you step by step how this all went. I understand that these issues can be complilcated. However, the court did make a ruling based on all the facts.

I can understanding that how this Bowen Ranch ownership question developed is not very common today. It was more common in the Wild West before modern services were available.

When the legal description is changed between related parties and these parts of the legal description are definetely necessary to the document, this is real estate fraud. Fred Moss had this parcel number 0433-101-007W (W means public lands) which was assigned to the Moss Ranch Buildings when it was proven in court that the Moss Ranch Buildings were on public land. On Mike Castro's Grant Deed parcel 0433-101-007 is shown to pretend their is an interest in the Bowen Ranch transferred to Mike Castro. Mike Castro's deed shows except the buildings. The legal description for Kevin and Tanya's shows their interest free of the Moss Mill eassement. Do Kevin and Tanya own their property free from the burden of a road that was used by the public and recorded in the Federal Register? According to their altered legal description, they do. Do you remember Tanya quoting that paragraph called SUBJECT TO? and that paragraph did not show up on her deed? Now how did that happen? Fred Moss removed the SUBJECT TO: paragraph through several recorded documents.

Tell me the chain of title for Mike Castro's interest in the Bowen Ranch Building? Did he obtain ownership through Fred Moss, is that what you believe? Then where did the New York owners come in? Are they in Mike Castro's chain of title?

A chain of title goes like this: Gertie Bowen transferred to the New York Owners ownership in the Bowen Ranch lands and buildings. There was a court case which resulted in a separate parcel number and legal description of the Bowen Ranch Building and related land. The New York Owners transfer the ownership of the separate Bowen Ranch lands to Rancho Las Flores. They forgot all about the Bowen Ranch Building separate interest that was never transferred. It is still in their name. Gail pays five years of property taxes. Gail contacts the New York owners by mail through the internet and find them. They respond and refer me to their attorney. We work out an agreement to transfer their interest as reflected in the court judgment. We pay them the money, they sign the documents in front of notaries, we record our quitclaim deed.

Mike Castro however has his chain of title from Fred Moss. Didn't the court judgement determine that Fred Moss (John Ware) had no right to possession of the Bowen Ranch building or the described lands? Fred Moss pretends that he owns the Bowen Ranch buildings, who is around to object? Fred can make a lot more money from the Bowen Ranch building than the bare land that he really does own. So Fred Moss is not above leasing out buildings that he knows he doesn't own and collecting rent. Watch out for his tenants, they defend their illegal possession of the Bowen Ranch building with Fred Moss' unlimited cash and Attorney son along with threats of tearing down the building, etc.


Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

sycamorelaughing 717July 29, 2003 03:51PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

jobe 459July 29, 2003 05:49PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

Wizard 436July 29, 2003 08:56PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

LaughingBear 398July 29, 2003 09:58PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

Rick 411July 30, 2003 01:37PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

jobe 433July 30, 2003 03:28PM

Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

katrina island 691July 29, 2003 11:30PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

katrina island 432July 30, 2003 08:06AM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

katrina island 408July 30, 2003 08:13AM

Re: Not DCHS, Inc.

sycamorelaughing 382July 30, 2003 11:19PM

Re: Yes DCHS, Inc.

katrina island 405July 31, 2003 12:18PM

Burden of Producing Evidence

katrina island 363July 31, 2003 12:33PM

Re: Not DCHS, Inc.

sycamorelaughing 421July 30, 2003 02:21PM

Re: Not DCHS, Inc.

katrina island 413July 30, 2003 03:05PM

Re: Yes DCHS, Inc.

jobe 483July 30, 2003 09:34PM

Re: Yes DCHS, Inc.

mojavegreen 403July 31, 2003 11:01AM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

LaughingBear 421July 30, 2003 09:22PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

LaughingBear 437July 31, 2003 03:41PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

Wizard 420July 31, 2003 05:53PM

Re: Who Owns Bowen Ranch House?

katrina island 818August 01, 2003 12:54PM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login