Post Seizure Hearing under Penal Code 597.1 and Abandonment, Civil Code 1815
1815. An involuntary deposit is made:
(a) By the accidental leaving or placing of personal property in
the possession of any person, without negligence on the part of its
owner.
(b) In cases of fire, shipwreck, inundation, insurrection, riot,
or like extraordinary emergencies, by the owner of personal property
committing it, out of necessity, to the care of any person.
(c) By the delivery to, or picking up by, and the holding of, a
stray live animal by any person or public or private entity.
(d) By the abandonment or leaving of a live animal, as proscribed
by Section 597.1 of the Penal Code, in or about any premises or real
property that has been vacated upon, or immediately preceding, the
termination of a lease or other rental agreement or foreclosure of
the property.
1816. (a) The person or private entity with whom a thing is deposited in the manner described in Section 1815 is bound to take charge of it, if able to do so. (b) Any person or private entity with whom a live animal is deposited in the manner described in subdivision (d) of Section 1815 shall immediately notify animal control officials for the purpose of retrieving the animal pursuant to Section 597.1 of the Penal Code. Animal control officers who respond shall be entitled to exercise the right afforded them pursuant to that section to secure a lien for the purpose of recovering the costs of attempting to rescue the animal. Nothing in this subdivision shall impose any new or additional civil or criminal liability upon a depositary who complies with this subdivision. (c) A public agency or shelter with whom an abandoned animal is deposited in the manner described in Section 1815 is bound to take charge of it, as provided in Section 597.1 of the Penal Code. (d) The person in possession of the abandoned animal is subject to all local ordinances and state laws that govern the proper care and treatment of those animals. (e) For purposes of this section, the person or private entity that notifies animal control officials to retrieve the animal or the successor property owner shall not be considered the keeper of the animal or the agent of the animal's owner as those terms are used in Section 597.1 of the Penal Code
"This bill would provide that an involuntary deposit is made by the abandonment or leaving of a live animal in or about any premises or real property that has been vacated upon, or immediately preceding, the termination of a lease or other rental agreement or foreclosure of the property. The bill would require any person or private entity with whom a live animal is involuntarily deposited to immediately notify animal control officials for the purpose of retrieving the animal."
Abandoned Pets
DESCRIPTION
Generally, a voluntary deposit of property occurs when a
party gives to another, with his or her consent, possession
of their personal property; whereas an involuntary deposit
of property occurs when the property is provided to another
by accident (without negligence) or by necessity.
This bill would provide that an involuntary deposit is also
made by the abandonment or leaving of a live animal in or
about any premises or real property that has been vacated,
upon, or immediately preceding, the termination of a rental
agreement or foreclosure of the property.
This bill would require any person or private entity with
whom a live animal is left, as specified, to immediately
notify animal control officials for the purpose of
retrieving the animal as provided by Penal Code Section
597.1, which authorizes any peace officer, humane society
officer, or animal control officer to take possession of
the abandoned animal and provide care for the animal until
the animal is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be
returned to the owner.
This bill would also authorize animal control officials to
secure a lien upon the animal for the purpose of recovering
the costs of rescuing it, as provided by Penal Code Section
597.1.
It is pretty obvious that the person has to abandon and leave the animal
for this to apply. Owner never left them, the County, the Receiver and
the rescue/bank attorney SEIZED the animals about 1 month after getting
an exigency removal, without due process. There was no due process because
there was no order to give ownership up--the animals were only to be moved
in part, to the fairgrounds to determine if they needed vet care. The horses
were to be returned to owners and never were returned.
This bill does not mean bank attorney works with a rescue and AC to use
improper method of seizing animals while owner is still on property, and
bank attorney goes to court acting as the Receiver, to say he must gain
custody/remove due to exigency health of animals. Nope.
There cannot be an involuntary deposit of something which has already been
there with the owner for years, but bank is trying to TAKE property over which
they may have some equitable lien that was never proven up in $$ amount in a
lawsuit brought by the one owning the property, not the bank?
As far as "foreclosures" go, there was/is no foreclosure, because banks do not have
title they can prove; thus they had to use other means; Bank of America admitted they have no ownership. Banks have only a potential interest in improvements that are
situated on owner's land, and they did not partition it. They never filed a lis pendens.
They claim they inherited the improvements somehow (which was in securitized trust.)
That leaves Wells Fargo Bank. Bank attorney Ryan was REMOVED from the case.
He was replaced with other Bryan Cave attorneys. Those attorneys have done
very little in the case and have not even tried to take the property. There are some
key, hard issues with that, and they don't want to make it worse than it already is
we guess, even though someone had offered the now-evicted rescue about $800,000 to
settle the case and she refused.
Although El Dorado held post seizure hearing on the horses which WERE involuntarily
left at the ranch, the horses ARE evidence in a criminal case AND we have no idea
where they went. Lassen did not respond to the post seizure notice, but there are
still criminal charges pending on those horses. Do we really think Lassen can
convict owner by using pictures? They would have to get witnesses to lie. There
are no witnesses except interested parties like animal control wanting to save their
own hides.
