I thought I was clear in my presentation on the issue of ownership of the Bowen Ranch buildings. However, since both Gail and Wizard have voiced confusion, I will be happy to lead them through it in greater detail:

The current owner of any property parcel is recorded in the County records. To determine the current owner of any property, go to the Office of the County Assessor and view the current recorded owner for the parcel in question. In this case, that parcel is:

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.

In my research, I found that neither the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office nor their on-line record lists Gail Fry or William or DCHS, Inc. as the current property owner of record for parcel 403-101-03-Z001.

Gail claims that Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz gained title to the Bowen buildings and an easement on the land beneath the buildings through adverse possession. That is clearly a false statement. Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz have never been on record as owners of the land under the Bowen buildings. Neither is there a recorded easement for use of the Bowen buildings.

On discovering that the Bowen Ranch buildings were on Moss Ranch, Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz had several options:

(1) Move the buildings back onto their own property. (The structures were too fragile to survive and lacked the value to justify the cost.)
(2) Purchase the land under the buildings from Fred Moss.
(3) Obtain an easement from Fred Moss for continued use of the land and the buildings.
(4) Negotiate a lease giving them use of the property under the buildings for a period of time, retaining ownership of the buildings during the term of the lease by creating a separate tax parcel for the buildings.

The cost of purchasing or obtaining an easement was not acceptable, so they negotiated a lease with Fred Moss. At the expiration of the lease, the Bowen Ranch buildings remained on Moss Ranch as so ownership went to Fred Moss.

The theory of the doctrine of adverse possession is that the person who holds or uses property adversely against the rightful owner should ultimately be entitled to own that property. The possession must be adverse, hostile, actual, notorious, exclusive, continuous and under claim of right. Under the doctrine of adverse possession, the courts permit subsequent owners to obtain the benefits of the doctrine, if the requisite time period has been continuous and hostile.

This law clearly favors Mike Castro's claim of ownership to the Bowen Ranch buildings. Even if Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz obtained a right to either the land or the house, it could be readily taken from them by adverse possession. Possession of the house and buildings has certainly met the requirements of being "adverse, hostile, actual, notorious, exclusive, continuous and under claim of right". Of course this action is unnecessary as Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz only retained ownership of the Bowen buildings during the term of the lease. They never had any property right to the land underneath.

The attorney for Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz wrote a letter to Ms, Fry declaring that they had no known interest in the Bowen Ranch buildings. The letter accompanied the Quitclaim Deed and that declaration was emphasized several times within the body so that there would be no misunderstanding. Transaction law requires that something of value must be received for something of value. In this case, Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz received $1500 for a document known by them to have no value in terms of conveying property right. They had repeatedly declared that fact to Ms. Fry, but she was insistent on completing the transaction.

It is difficult to know Ms. Fry's motivation. With her claimed knowledge of real estate law, it is not likely that she believed that she could actually obtain possession of the Bowen Ranch buildings. More likely, she saw it as a tool to appeal to others for funds for her own use while enjoying the opportunity to use the quitclaim to further harass Mike Castro in the public eye. Although worthless as a claim for ownership, she was able to convert the quitclaim into something very useful to her own ends.

She claims that she will be eventually taking her case to court, but the more astute realize that she uses the quitclaim to keep a faked issue in the public face to support her appeal for additional funds. To gain sympathy, she whips up resentment against Mike Castro and tells her supporters that they will one day triumph and be the proud owners of historic Bowen Ranch.

The case will never go to court as the statute of limitations has since expired. In any case, it is difficult not to feel sympathy for those who have been victimized by her scheme.