4th AC <—— [click to read a very involved pleading]—–
This complaint has been amended 4 times now, and involves the seizure and taking of horses by a receiver which was puppeteered by a bank attorney, while pretending the owner’s horses were legally seized, then got the 3 parties (the county, the receiver, the rescue) to hand the animals over from one to another to another, then claimed it was not his fault but the fault of all the other parties?
Bleep! why is this pic here? Because when bank attorney Ryan is caught, he will have plenty of TIME on his hands to be in the ocean? on his stand up board with paddle?
As we have stated prior, a rents/profits receiver which is improperly used and appointed does not have authority to seize property, and judge never ordered seizure besides. There was no warrant for seizure, it was supposed to be moving them only for examination. Instead they were left on the ranch because they didn’t have anything wrong with them.
No party obtains any ownership usually, when the seizure/taking is done without authority, although there are some exceptions. This wasn’t one of them. We certainly hope that the bank attorney is punished appropriately because this entire case was set up and then moved forward with extreme stealth and shady procedure. There is no judge in the case that currently understands what occurred because it is pretty convoluted.
And to think it only had to do with horses and foreclosure– the residence, was owned by Mr. Allen, horse owner had formerly owned it with his ex partner. Banks didn’t own the raw land, but claimed they owned the 14 acres which the improvements sat upon [which was actually the horse owner’s land because of faulty boundary issues/more] — then bank attorney Ryan filed a first deed of trust, reformation and tried to claim the banks owned the land parcels and the residence. Hell, the banks even admitted they don’t own the land last year.
Why would a bank attorney crucify a horse owner so he would go to jail, and engage in improper actions? Our guess is that the WF bank cannot prove up any title, and because they ignored the person who held the mortgage when it was discovered there was a boundary dispute, they did not become involved to solve it. It was because the land owner sued the banks so they could get the title straightened out that this lawsuit started.