The Grace Foundation, the “non profit” that “took” the Lassen horses from owner after working with the bank attorney Timothy M. Ryan (formerly of Tustin and now Irvine) in setting up the horse owner [in criminal charges of animal abuse]…is facing great difficulty in legal challenges.
While Grace finally hired the 2nd attorneys for the Grace v banks/bank attorney et al, the case was moved to Los angeles, splitting up the case from the original Lassen County venue. Had Grace’s attorney filed it in Lassen County, where it should have been filed, she would not have to be in Los angeles court. Grace also obtained San Diego attorneys to file against the bank attorney’s lawsuit against Grace, which alleged [in so many words] that Grace was not telling or disclosing the truth.
Then Grace got the Los Angeles attorneys to defend the lawsuit that was originally filed in El Dorado county and moved to Los Angeles. That case for Grace, in our opinion, was something Grace thought she could win simply by putting pressure on news media. Unfortunately when bank attorneys such as Timothy M. Ryan handle cases, they pride themselves on steamrolling, which is evidenced by the Lassen case documents and the appeal by the horse owner filed last year.
In any case, Grace lost the SLAPP motion v Timothy M. Ryan (it is on appeal) and Grace is about to be blown out of the water on a motion to strike by Lassen County because she did not file the mandated tort claim first, among other things. This indicates Grace didn’t intend to go after Lassen County until it was too late. So now we will have all parties like Lassen, banks and Grace, receiver, etc. all blaming each other. Unfortunately for Grace, her legal position is so compromised our opinion is that she cannot recover, and will not be able to continue to afford three attorneys. Further, Grace tried to intervene into the Lassen case by intervention, and although it was likely possible that it should have been granted, Judge rejected it. In addition, Grace purposely kept the owners horses and has not returned them to “rightful” owners that we know of, even after the banks PAID another rancher about $53,000 to take care of them, but he never got possession of them.
So the horses are languishing at Grace’s ranch [some of them but not all, since some are missing] and no proper accounting has been given with full medical and verifiable pictures. Since Grace claims quite a few foals “died” but likely will not pony up full medical reports. Were they stillborn? Could that be blamed on the mare? Who knows, we are not vets. Our prediction is that with the turn of events in the legal proceedings, it would not surprise us to find that Grace either cannot prevail against the bank attorney, OR she might file bankruptcy, since she has claimed the group might file bankruptcy before.
If Grace really spent a million or three million on the horses (which we find hard to believe) then she may get a chance to prove it. The “disputed” ownership of the horses is not the real issue–and has never been, really. at all times, the horse owner owned the horses; only when he filed bankruptcy, did the horses become estate property; when bank attorney filed to have horses abandoned by trustee, the horses then belonged to owner again as his personal property. Because bank attorney, Grace and Lassen County all worked together to TAKE the horses from the owner, then Grace and bank attorney, using internet/social media avenues, made the case go viral. NO ONE QUESTIONED HOW THE BANK RECEIVER [which was really the bank attorney] managed to SEIZE those animals. There was NO exigency. NO warrant. The only warrant was brought out months later when no animals were on owner’s ranch. A seizure question is not determined first by looking at who owns what–it must first be determined whether or not the seizure meets CA law. In this case for animals, we don’t think it was valid no matter what Lassen Court thinks. (That judge recused himself after rubberstamping the bank attorney’s motions for years) Very few non mortgaged properties involve receivership, but in this case, the bank attorney got a receiver appointed– a rents and profits receiver–and then morphed it into an equity receiver. An equity receiver is completely different than a rents and profits. Further, the bank attorney law firm would not allow owner to even remove his own personal property, he could not set foot on the property, go into the residence, or take any personal property. Bank attorney’s receiver never properly secured the property, then later claimed it was not insured, except the receiver had formerly claimed they had to insure it??? That was one of the alleged reasons they took possession of the property by claiming it was not insured?
If the bank attorney had properly engaged in an equitable lien and mortgage (which he did not) and had actually got the valuations, value, and financial data, and then obtained the writ of attachment and worked out the rest, that would have been one thing. Due to bank attorney improperly handling the equitable lien/mortgage, the banks seemed to have obtained both the raw land/improvements, with only a small, undetermined amount of raw land to be split between 3 parties. We believe that orders stemming from the summary adjudication by bank and the seizure and receivership are all void orders. You will notice that no other parties have ever come out and analyzed this case properly, because it is 14 volumes of one big mess. Had the bank attorney done his job correctly, he would not have created a national media story against owner, evidencing a personal vendetta; he would not have improperly set up an improper equitable lien/mortgage, and he would not have worked with Grace and Lassen County to do all this because he has an ego on steroids, and cannot stand to not win at any cost. This is evidenced by both the attorney’s behavior, and his pleadings and actions. Bank attorney may win against Grace, but he definitely should not win against horse owner.