Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

"Notice the March 28, 2000, that is the recording date of the Quitclaim Deed to DCHS, Inc. The County is just behind in their record keeping or we need to send them more information. Either way, the interest is showing on the county records and the names shown Max and Rose Hoffman are two of the people that DCHS, Inc. purchased their interest from."

Answer:
No argument from me. However, you still have not heard what I am saying. The Hoffman interest was terminated at the conclusion of their lease. Your property parcel is described as "BUILDINGS ON LEASED LAND". When the lease was terminated, they lost ownership of the buildings. Why do you think they did not collect rent from the subsequent occupants of the Bowen Ranch House? They certainly showed their will to fight! They did not because they no longer owned the buildings. Fred Moss started leasing them out as he was the new owner.

There was no 40 acre easement as you have claimed. Where did you ever get that idea? From a court record stating that a previous occupant had noted a disparity which later proved to be a mis-survey?

The quitclaim you have is worthless unless you can produce an unbroken lease from the date of the creation of the parcel in question. Can you do that?





"Evidence Code 110, Burden of Producing Evidence: means the obligation of a party to introduce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against him on the issue."



"If Mike Castro is relying upon some alleged land lease or agreement between the New York Owners and Fred Moss, then Mike Castro has the burden of producing this lease."



"DCHS, Inc. has a court order that fails to mention any lease requirement or anything about removing the building from Fred Moss' land."



"Fred Moss through his tenants has reentered into a building which he was ordered removed from the building and the historic lands by the court."


Answer:
You are speaking of events in court that happened before the lease. I have made that point several times. They have no application to your argument.
As for burden of proof, that will be a requirement that will rest upon you as plaintiff. It is you who must prove your case. Mike Castro has no such burden. He is the current property owner of record. He must only produce his title to prove his ownership. You are the one that is questioning his right of ownership. You will have the burden of producing evidence to the contrary.

The only hope you have of removing him from his property is by producing an unbroken lease from the time the property parcel was created to the present date. You could then present the court with your quitclaim along with your valid lease. In that case, Mike would have to defend himself against a condition that existed prior to his ownership. The burden of proof would then be on him. Of course, the title company would be required to go to his defense to protect their interest.

We both know that there is no current lease.