you're her property involves her home the home her family and her business it's extremely important to her that she understand why and just record determined that because she was misled by real estate agents that she put your trust in and believe when she was told that there were no legal impediments to buying property when she did what any normal insurance the palin surance only covers payment of you then the price does not it does not it is not guaranteed if the government won't take the property away from you it does not it does not pay you for any of your you know worry about whether the property is going to pick taken away from you it does not pay you for your loss of business because you can't be sure with all of that are true but it's probably not very relevant if if the other side were anybody but the government you probably wouldn't waste time making the argument now it is fair to say that we could expect more from the government and the government might not be a lot be allowed to proceed with forfeiture in these circumstances but if that was some private is not california law and the government should have the government is required to use me new mrs galton lenders were required to show that they were innocent purchasers they did have that burden of proving that law on race noticed and clearing of titles the purpose of the california liz pins and statute is to assure free traffic in property and to ensure my understanding and the property has gone up in value so mr house will not walk away free because i don't trust and i don't think that's a proper method i think that's  find a recording stretchered innocent owner as i understand your point of view is whether she had actual knowledge somewhat from the problem is that if if he had known about the lose pendants that gives her notice of the government's claim so it's a separate issue from whether she should have known there was a marijuana operation going on there i mean i understand your argument that knowing that in the past there may have been some drug activity that was attributed to a tenet and so forth there is a jump there to get to forfeiture but the sentence presents no jump whatsoever because that is a statement by the government we're proceeding with forfeiture and that's what someone who knows that if there's actual knowledge on notice that there's this claim out there that presumably suggest you better look real carefully before you proceed and what makes it so difficult is that the person that is supposed to take the hit he gets away with the money because he stole the property because the title company didn't pick up and tell the world that there's this problem these to be looked at and so it's there's no happy resolution here the person they should lose isn't in the room anymore because  didn't stop him from leaving the room he's not room off the details the government let him out on dale left him about for months and months and months without any indication on property without that someone going to the property would be able to tell last can hire a broker who then misleads people into saying that this property has no legal problem you can buy it the government is all put salt i don't think the title company is the statute doesn't california property law provide that the prime minister's constructive notice to the world if you're going to look at list ten slot in total i question whether or not the government is even in tunnels under the california law statute to part usage encompasses knowledge as well i'm sure you understand courts lawyers everybody tends to use the shortened version the correct terminology for california law is bona fide purchaser without is limited in its use if strictly limited in its use it's not supposed to be used for other purposes and that what is being done here essentially you read if you hold that the and you have wiped out the innocent purchaser defense when are you ever going to have an innocent purchaser defense well you probably won't because people will be on those because they you've done the prudent thing and gotten a title search and gotten title insurance in the title and somebody has its job then you're going to know about the existence of the claim and you won't go forward so you won't have the innocent owner then why hasn't fanchon welcome some circumstances you may have seizures that don't involve real property where you don't have a loose pendants alternative i think i don't think that you can use anything other than a two part test in determining whether or not you're not a bona fide purchaser and therefore you can never qualify for innocent stat i also don't believe that towards the title company let me keep you away from my prescriptions this case been part of our course mediation program to prevent that and then number two it talks about actual knowledge so i i just wonder why i have why i have to have let me ask you that question yeah i think i can in other words the claim talking about that did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe correct which was i was trying to address the question as to why the two prongs were different and in particular circumstances that the hypothetical that i posited the claim as would be going to fight purchasers they would not have any actual or constructive notice of the government's lead because government courts lean later but i'm just assuming for the moment that there were enough indicators on it is but it hasn't changed the issue of whether somebody has knowledge of x or has knowledge of the legal consequences of the yaquis doesn't really address that issue this case is still good law precast proposed after it didn't address the issue of what bona government could not protect itself judgment by recording a list pendants in order to stop drug trafficking it would have to in every case seize property and eject the owner in every case and that's the only way that the property is talking to a government claim and if criminals could avoid that by simply property after the list pendants was recorded and they could easily defeat any ability of the government to successfully attempt to prevent drug trafficking and marijuana cultivation on property in a situation such as this where there's a massive amount of drugs found on the list pendants specifically indicates that the my own search of the record and at that point in december of two thousand and two i found a recorded deed that it had been recorded three weeks after the government record of h t i had no idea the government attempted to try understand the escrow closing the sale three weeks later and then i've got a date in october when the now prior owner and lender is served and a date in january a few months later when notice was posted on the property which is when the claimants say that they learned about that why did it take so long to post a notice on the property and does that raise any problem with compliance with the statute i don't think that really has any issues with respect  on the outside of the gate that indicates the property has been subject for future events i can see the second taped up there like the same time you filed a complaint or and within a couple weeks after that then we have a different factual scenario as well right absolutely and i'm not sure that that posting did not occur until january i think it probably occurred although i the record doesn't reflect this is probably initially correct when the prior owner was on the property and i assume that the pri well quite frankly would make any difference because this transaction occurred on september twenty sixth that was when the recording took place so even if the government even if you assume for example this released a posting had occurred in october and that in good faith in in a situation with regard to who comes first in recording statutes it's a very different policy matter than when when you're trying to determine who was really a and innocent owner and a person who could in good faith pay money and so for qualify under bona fide purchaser i would think in order to avoid what to protect against somebody handing it off to a relatives selling it for a can to white house where things like that that's item number one in my opinion i don't remember to then deals with the actual knowledge counsel it was no one's discussed anything it came with a number and we need had no settlement discussions would you think would win your client be willing to participate and renew the startlement and if i could have i can speak from i can't speak for the title company i only represent the title company i may be working for the title company but i don't represent them but if we could be given  that we could come back to hurt any time if i could be given two weeks to try and get the settlement going again and report back to the court as to whether would work or not i'm willing to do that my concerts half million the reason being that she's done a lot of work on the property but more so for you know the development prices are just to call her back and reopen them at anytime