Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waning Crescent (12% of Full)


Advanced

Re: Burden of proof

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

July 31, 2003 06:49PM
In reply to Gail's question: "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.""

Gail, I am losing my patience answering the same questions over and over, so I will answer the one fresh question that you have asked, even though it has an obvious answer. Mike Castro's grant deed contains that wording because the buildings are on a separate parcel. That parcel has been the subject of our discussion, remember? The separate parcel was forfeited to Fred Moss when the lease expired.

Court orders do not change the ownership of a property. You must know that! The mandated actions that result from court orders are the vehicle for changes in property ownership. In this case, it was the lease that Hoffman, et al was given to provide them the opportunity to protect their interest in the Bowen Ranch buildings. However, they let the lease lapse without taking action and so lost ownership of the buildings to Fred Moss. How many times must I explain that?

If you will pardon me for saying so, it is absurd for anyone who claims to have a knowledge of real estate to suggest that a court order is an action recognized by a title company to record a change of ownership. You really need to sit down with a knowledgeable person and review the information that I have provided and have them explain it to you.

If that doesn't work for you, go hire an expensive lawyer who will tell you what I have just told you for free. Or go the full route and hire a lawyer to pursue your case. In any case, please get on with whatever you are going to do and stop dragging it back and forth in front of us. Don't you realize that we have been subjected to this for YEARS??!!

Which reminds me, the Statute of Limitations for your case has already expired, anyway. So please stop trying to get more mileage out of your worthless quitclaim deed and move on.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

sycamorelaughing 1149July 31, 2003 02:29PM

Burden of proof

katrina island 625July 31, 2003 03:24PM

Re: Burden of proof

sycamorelaughing 600July 31, 2003 06:49PM

Conversations with Sycamorelaughing

katrina island 564August 01, 2003 04:27PM

Re: Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

jobe 617July 31, 2003 04:01PM

Re: Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

LaughingBear 570July 31, 2003 04:07PM

Re: Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

katrina island 2764August 01, 2003 01:08PM

Re: Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

LaughingBear 558July 31, 2003 08:57PM

Re: Quitclaim, lease, and burden of proof

jobe 1101August 01, 2003 04:56PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login