Re: Not DCHS, Inc.

sycamorelaughing wrote:

> 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.

Hoffman, Bekermus, Kapelusz, perhaps showing as the owner?
https://nppublic.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/newpims/ParcelResults.asp?Inqtype=3

The current search by parcel number does not work currently at the SB County Tax assessor's site because they are in the process of hiding all the records that relate to their public officials due to safety concerns, post 9/11? At least that is the reason provided.
>
> 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.

Well, I didn't see any of that in the court order. We went to the courthouse on Arrowhead to the archives and reviewed microfische records as to the proceedings and have several documents from the old court case. You could do the same research. So, who else would have the power to make such demands besides a court judge?

>
> 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.
>
Well, if you are stating that there was a lease for the land between the parties, Fred Moss and Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz, then please provide a copy of said lease. I have been to Fred Moss' office and he had quite a record and file system with a secretary. We received some of Fred's records when they were sent to Gary Roe during the proposal to lease the Bowen Ranch or option to buy. Fred Moss sent Gary Roe several proposals. Fred Moss owns a substantial amount of real estate in the high desert and was a willing seller and/or negotiator.

The remainding statements concerning adverse possession, we will explore in more detail in the next post. Adverse possession is an interesting subject and needs definitions and elements which will take some time to prepare a response.

So, for now please explain how this ownership is showing on the county records under Hoffman, etal.?