Re: Burden of proof

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.