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
>>LEASED LAND PARCEL 43310103 LOCATED IN SEC 11 TP 3N R 3W.

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.