Burden of proof

Sycamorelaughing you are so funny. There was no subsequent lease. The court order is the final decision concerning the ownership and possession of the land and buildings. There was no lease agreement made as part of the court order.

Our chain of title comes directly from this court order and from the true owners of the historic Bowen Ranch, from Gertie Bowen to Hoffman, Bekermus and Kapelusz to DCHS, Inc.

Why would the New York owners after receiving the right to possess the historic bowen ranch to include the house and land, then enter into an agreement after the court order that would provide less of an interest? There was no lease.

You are saying that Mike Castro's right to possession and ownership of this building comes through this alleged "lease". So if this is the case, Mike Castro would have to produce this alleged "lease" to prove his chain of title to the historic Bowen Ranch.

Did you know that Mike Castro has a quitclaim deed included in his chain of title. Does that make his title invalid? How do you explain the statement on Mike Castro's grant deed "BEING THE LAND AS DEFINED IN THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF THE POLICY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS SITUATED THEREON."

We would present our documents to the court which show the terms of the court order. It would be up to Mike Castro to present any agreement dating beyond the court order. Otherwise the court order is the ruling document.