California Grant Deed From Corporation To Individual: Fill & Download for Free

People do not know that black people are the owners of the lands in North America because that is a falsehood. Black people who have bought land or who have inherited land own the land on which they hold the title to.Native American Indians, the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, have proof that they were living on the land as far back as 40,000 years ago. They had no “titles” to the land other then the fact they had lived on it for hundreds of generations. The only land they now own, is the land “granted” to them through treaties with the United States Government. Some tribes were “given” their traditional lands or parts of it, to liveon as reservations or reserve. In actuality, they don’t “own” the land as it is held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and under the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management. The United States Government retained “ownership” over the surface and mineral rights of the land.The Alaska Natives (except Metlakatla) do “own” the land they finally received under The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,or ANCSA, signed into law by President Nixon in 1971. “It abrogated Native claims to aboriginal lands except those that are the subject of the law.“In return, Natives received up to 44 million acres (180,000 km2) of land and were paid $963 million.The land and money were to be divided among regional, urban, and village tribal corporations established under the law, often recognizing existing leadership.” WikipediaHowever, it took the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is a United States federal law passed on November 12, 1980, by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on December 2 of that year to expedite certain provisions under the ANCSA.“Under Title VIII, Subsistence Management And Use,of the ANILCA, Alaska Natives and other rural residents were granted hunting and fishing rights when fish and game are not under outside threat. In addition the bill expedited the complete enactment of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which were still dragging along.” Wikipedia“ANILCA provided varying degrees of special protection to over 157,000,000 acres of land, including national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, recreational areas, national forests, and conservation areas.” Wikipedia“ The Act provided for 43,585,000 acres of new national parklands in Alaska; the addition of 9.8 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System; twenty-five wild and scenic rivers, with twelve more to be studied for that designation; establishment of Misty Fjords and Admiralty Island National Monuments in Southeast Alaska; establishment of Steese National Conservation Area and White Mountains National Recreation Area to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management; the addition of 9.1 million acres to the Wilderness Preservation System, and the addition of 3,350,000 acres to Tongass and Chugach National Forests. “ The passage of ANILCA helped to expedite provisions of the earlier 1971 ANCSA.In parts of America, that had been under the control of Spain, primarily California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, the King of Spain gave out land grants for the purposes of establishing settlements, missions, and farms. These lands had been “conquered” by the Spanish Conquistadors in the 16th century in the name of the King and Queen of Spain, who had bankrolled the expeditions. Part of the land grants were made to the Catholic Church and the Pope.In America, starting in the 16th century, land grants were given for the purpose of establishing settlements, missions, and farms. In addition to Spain, other countries granting land included Portugal, the Netherlands, and Britain.“Between 1783 and 1821, Spain offered land grants to anyone who settled in their colony of Florida. When that colony was transferred to the United States, the resulting treaty agreed to honor all valid land grants. As a result, years of litigation ensued over the validity of many of the Spanish Land Grants.” Wikipedia“Spain and later Mexico, were offered land grants along the Rio Grande River near the Texas/Mexico border. These grants were given to help colonization of the area by Mexican and Spanish nationals, and strengthen frontier towns along the Texas border.” WikipediaAfter Spain gave up control of its colonies in America, Mexico took over the colonies and land formerly granted by Spain. “During the Mexican period of California (and other portions of Mexican territories inherited from New Spain), hundreds of ranchos and large tracts of land were granted to individuals by the Mexican government. The ranchos established land-use patterns that are recognizable in the California of today.”“Controversy over community land grant claims in New Mexico persist to this day.”New Mexico was unique because of the 1680 Pueblo Revolt. During that time, most if not all proof/paper work of land granted by the Spanish was destroyed.“Land grants were made both to individuals and communities during the Spanish (1598–1821) and Mexican (1821–1846) periods of New Mexico's history. Nearly all of the Spanish records of land grants that were made in what is now New Mexico prior to the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 were destroyed in the revolt.”After the Pueblo revolt, historians can often only be certain of land grants that were made after the Spanish Reconquest of New Mexico in 1693."The two major types of land grants were private grants made to individuals, and communal grants made to groups of individuals for the purpose of establishing settlements. Communal land grants were also made to Pueblos for the lands they inhabited." Wikipedia“Of the hundreds of grants, Spain made only a few. The remainder were granted by Mexico after 1821. The ranchos established land-use patterns that are recognizable in the New Mexico of today.” WikipediaToday, in New Mexico, there are still land grants from the Spanish and Mexican era of rule that are recognized. Some of the very large land grants were seized by the United States after the Mexican-American War.There are other types of land grants in the United States. One type is the Public colleges and universities which are the most notable examples of land grants. “In 1862, the Morrill Land-Grants Act was signed into law to support the educational advancement of agricultural and industrial studies.” Home | GRANTS.GOV”States received 30,000 acres of land for each congressional seat at the time. The states used the sale of the land, or the land itself, to establish new schools or new programs within existing schools to advance the purpose of the grant.” Home | GRANTS.GOV“In 1890 and 1994, the Land Grant University (LGU) System was expanded to establish and support historically black colleges and universities as well as tribal colleges and universities respectively.” Home | GRANTS.GOVLand Grants for “Homesteading” “The passage of the Homestead Act of 1862 established a land grant program that allowed individuals, both U.S. citizens and intended citizens, to apply for 160-acre plots of land. “Homesteading” was a term referring to the process of moving west onto land in unsettled territories and cultivating the land. Recipients of the Homestead Act land grants were required to live on the land for 5 years and improve it by growing crops and building a dwelling of at least 12 by 14 (the legislation didn’t specify feet or inches, which presented some problems—current grant policies are more thorough and careful now). After five years, recipients could apply for the deed of title to own the land permanently.” Home | GRANTS.GOV“It is worth noting that the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Morrill Land-Grants Acts of 1862 & 1890 were signed into law amidst the historical backdrop of one of the most important and transformational periods in U.S. history. These land grant programs were created and implemented during the American Civil War, Reconstruction Era, and industrialization of the United States.” Home | GRANTS.GOVAre there still land grants available today ? “There are grants that involve land, but the current land grant programs are much different than the historical land grant programs we’ve covered here.” http://Gov.gov

I wrote this article some time ago:Don't Insure for the Mortgage Amount (Regardless of What the Bank Says)Author: Bill WilsonEvery agency has experienced this to one degree or another: A client buys a house and the replacement cost of the dwelling is considerably less than the mortgage amount. The insurer refuses to issue a policy with a Coverage A amount greater than the replacement cost, but the lender insists on a policy limit equal to the mortgage amount.Here's a typical situation:"We need your help! We're getting beat up by lenders insisting that we insure a home for the loan amount rather than replacement value. In our area, selling price values are soaring but replacement values are steady. People are refinancing with lower interest rates, starting a vicious battle between the loan officer (representing the lender) and us (representing the insurance company)."Here lies the problem: the loan officer will absolutely accept nothing short of the loan amount and they become angry and very threatening if we don't do exactly as they demand. The insurance companies demand some type of proof as to why we are requesting an increase (and a refinance is not the reason)."A typical situation is as follows: The bank faxes our office a request to change the mortgage clause and increase coverage to the loan amount. We respond that we need an appraisal showing replacement value from them to increase coverage. They normally supply an appraisal which agrees with our current coverage. We then advise them that we cannot increase coverage as we currently insure at replacement value and that their appraisal agrees. Now the trouble starts. We normally receive multiple calls from the loan officer calling us illegal, unprofessional, not serving our client, threatening to take the business away from us, and on and on. The calls start at the CSR level, then move up to the personal lines manager, and sometimes moves up to me, the owner, with each one of us explaining the same thing."This problem is only getting worse and I'm afraid it could get a lot worse. I'm concerned that banks will use this issue as leverage to rewrite our policies into their markets."I contacted the local insurance department office and he advised I could lodge an individual complaint on each situation with them. We're getting about 7 to 8 requests per day of which 1 or 2 can get real ugly."The lender's position is understandable, but misguided. Clearly, they want to protect their investment. That investment consists of two components: (1) the real estate (land, home, outbuildings, etc.), and (2) the loan itself. Insurance is the mechanism designed to protect against the pure risk of loss to the real property. However, the loan itself is a speculative business risk...that's not the function of insurance.As an example, let's say the purchase price and loan amount for a home is $200,000...for the sake of simplicity, we'll forget about any down payment. This $200,000 represents market value, not insurable value. The cost to rebuild the home itself might be $140,000, with the $60,000 balance being the value of the land and other structures. The purchase price includes the value of land, all structures, and even other property that may not be covered by a homeowners policy.The purchase price may also include the "value" of the location. I once looked at two new homes, both built from the same floor plan by the same contractor. The asking price for one of the homes was 50% higher than the other based SOLELY on the location of the home in a "preferred" neighborhood. The cost to rebuild the homes would be virtually identical.Under a homeowners policy, the insurance company would never pay more than $140,000 if the home was completely destroyed unless required to by a state's valued policy law (which is another reason for not insuring the loan amount). There has been no damage to the land or the "location value" (or at least the policy isn't going to pay that amount), so it would largely be pointless to insure the property for more than the structural replacement costs.It does not serve the bank's interest in any way to be the mortgagee on a policy with a policy limit equal to the loan amount because neither the insured nor the bank will ever collect that amount. The policy will only pay an amount based on the valuation method included in the contract. Again, this is the case if no valued policy law applies...if it does, then the insured could actually profit from the loss by insuring the loan amount rather than the replacement cost of the property. This would violate one of the fundamental tenets of insurance and, conceivably, could create a moral hazard.If an insurance company issues a replacement cost (or, worse, an ACV) policy with a limit greater than the actual cost to repair or replace, they may be in violation of the insurance laws in most states. I'm pretty sure all states require that rates/premiums be adequate, not excessive, and not unfairly discriminatory. What these banks are asking is that the insurance company issue a policy with an excessive premium (payment for coverage the insured can never collect without a total loss and triggering of a valued policy law, which has a likelihood of maybe 1-3%) and that's probably illegal.For example, TENNESSEE has an "Unfair Competition and Deceptive Practices" statute regarding loan amounts that exceed the value of a building or structure:"Lenders of money - Extenders of credit."(a) No person who lends money or extends credit may:"(8) Require, in connection with a loan or extension of credit secured by real property, that the debtor procure insurance for the protection of the property for an amount that exceeds the replacement cost of the structures existing on the secured property at the time of the loan or extension of credit or, in the case of a construction or improvement loan, insurance which exceeds the value the structures are expected to have upon completion of the construction or improvements."This law was enacted by an initiative of IIABA's state affiliate, the Insurors of Tennessee, in response to the situation described above.So, as you can see, a lender should not be permitted to demand an insurance limit that exceeds the value of the property insured as defined by the insurance contract. The insured or lender should never receive more than the actual value of the damaged property. In addition, "over-insuring" the property could be illegal, by statute or contract.Note: For another excellent article on this subject, and specific to FLORIDA law, check out Insuring for the Mortgage Amount on the Florida Association of Insurance Agents web site. As the article explains, Florida Administrative Code prohibits a mortgage lender from requiring insurance in an amount that exceeds the replacement cost of the home:"4-167.009 Mortgage Fire Insurance Requirements LimitedNo mortgage lender shall, in connection with any application for a mortgage loan in this state which is secured by a mortgage on residential real estate located in this state, require any prospective mortgagor to obtain by purchase or otherwise a fire insurance policy in excess of the replacement value of the covered premises as a condition for granting such a mortgage."Another state that has responded to this situation via insurance department directive is GEORGIA. According to Georgia Directive 98-PC-1, Establishment of Property Values and Corresponding Insurance Amounts on Mortgaged Properties Insured in Georgia (June 26, 1998):"Land values may not be included in the computation when determining the amount of appropriate homeowners insurance because homeowners insurance does not insure the land on which the home is located. Therefore, such activities are in violation of O.C.G.A. 33-6-5(6)(A) which provides as follows: 'No person shall knowingly collect any sum as premium or charge for insurance, which insurance is not then provided or not in due course to be provided subject to acceptance of the risk by the insurer by an insurance policy issue by an insurer as permitted by this title.'"The directive goes on to say that agents engaged in this practice can be fined from $1,000-$5,000 for each act and/or have his licensed suspended, revoked or placed on probation. Any insurer in violation of the law may have its certificate of authority suspended, revoked or placed on probation.Following the publication of this article, we heard from several other states who have similar "over insurance" laws besides Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee...below is a summary listing of the other states we're aware of with "over insurance" prohibitions.ArizonaARS 44-1208. Loans secured by real estate; prohibited practices; insurance. Except for consumer lender loans regulated pursuant to section 6-636, for any loan that is secured by real property, a person shall not require as a condition of the loan that the borrower obtain property insurance coverage in an amount that exceeds the replacement cost of the improvements as established by the property insurer.[Note: The statute covers only real property (not mobile homes) and does not include commercial buildings. For more information, go to: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/44/01208.htm]CaliforniaCalifornia Civil Code § 2955.5 says, in part:(a) No lender shall require a borrower, as a condition of receiving or maintaining a loan secured by real property, to provide hazard insurance coverage against risks to the improvements on that real property in an amount exceeding the replacement value of the improvements on the property.(b) A lender shall disclose to a borrower, in writing, the contents of subdivision (a), as soon as practicable, but before execution of any note or security documents.(c) Any person harmed by a violation of this section shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief and may recover damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.(d) A violation of this section does not affect the validity of the loan, note secured by a deed of trust, mortgage, or deed of trust.ConnecticutStatute 360-757 originated with public act PA 84-212 which prohibits a mortgage lender from requiring a prospective home buyer to obtain a fire insurance policy in excess of the home's replacement value, as a condition of granting a mortgage loan on residential property located in the state and secured by such a mortgage. The act was effective on October 1, 1984. On October 1, 2000, the statute was broadened by PA 00-95 to include flood insurance, extended coverage insurance, or any combination of insurance, including fire insurance.IllinoisPublic Act 093-1021 Effective August 24, 2004:Section 5. The mortgage Insurance Limitation and Notification Act is amended by adding Section 17 as follows:Sec. 17. Insurance coverage.(a) No lender shall require a borrower, as a condition of receiving or maintaining a loan secured by real property, to provide hazard insurance coverage against risks to the improvements on that real property in an amount exceeding the replacement value of the improvements on the property.(b) Any person harmed by a violation of this Section shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief and may recover damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.(c) A violation of this Section does not affect the validity of the loan, note secured by a deed of trust, mortgage, or deed of trust.MassachusettsGeneral Law, Chapter 183, Section 66 says, in part:A bank, lending institution, mortgage company or any mortgagee doing business in the commonwealth, when making a mortgage loan, shall not require, as a condition of a mortgage or as a term of a mortgage deed, that the mortgagor purchase casualty insurance on property which is the subject of the mortgage in an amount in excess of the replacement cost of the buildings or appurtenances on the mortgaged premises.MichiganMORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES (EXCERPT)Act 135 of 1977445.1602a Property/casualty Insurance as condition to loan; limitation on amount required; amount as condition of sale, transfer, or assignment. [M.S.A. 23.1125(2a)]Sec. 2a. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a credit granting institution that requires a mortgagor to maintain property/casualty insurance as a condition to receiving a mortgage loan shall not require the amount of the property/casualty insurance to be greater than the replacement cost of the mortgaged building or buildings.(2) A credit granting institution may require an amount of property/casualty insurance that is required of the credit granting institution as a condition of a sale, transfer, or assignment of all or part of the mortgage to a third party. This subsection does not require that the credit granting institution anticipate a sale, transfer, or assignment at the time the mortgage loan is made.History: Add. 1995, Act 214, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1995MontanaIn 2009, SB 375 amended MCA 32-1-430, 32-3-604, and 32-10-401 to provide that a “lender may not require insurance on improvements to real property in an amount that exceeds the reasonable replacement value of the improvements..”New HampshireRSA 417:4 printed 01-12-2006 from NH Insurance Dept websiteXVI. COERCION IN REQUIRING INSURANCE.(a) No creditor or lender engaged in the business of financing the purchase of real or personal property or of lending money on the security of real or personal property may require, as a condition to such financing or lending, or as a condition to the renewal or extension of any such loan or to the performance of any other act in connection with such financing or lending, that the purchaser or borrower, or the purchaser's or borrower's successors shall negotiate through a particular insurance company or companies, insurance agent or agents, broker or brokers, type of company or types of companies, any policy of insurance or renewal of a policy insuring such property. This provision does not prevent the exercise by any mortgagee of the right to approve on a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis only insurance companies authorized to do business in this state, selected by the borrower.(b) There shall be no interference either directly or indirectly with such borrower's, debtor's or purchaser's free choice of an agent and of an insurer which complies with the foregoing requirements, and the creditor or lender may not refuse the policy so tendered by the borrower, debtor or purchaser. Upon notice of any refusal of such tendered policy, the insurance commissioner shall order the creditor or lender to accept the tendered policy, if the commissioner determines that the refusal is not in accordance with the foregoing requirements of this subparagraph. Failure to comply with such an order of the insurance commissioner is a violation of this section.(c) Whenever the instrument requires that the purchaser, mortgagor, or borrower furnish insurance of any kind on real or personal property which is being conveyed or which is collateral security to a loan, the mortgagee or lender shall refrain from disclosing or using any and all such insurance information to its own advantage and to the detriment of either the borrower, purchaser, mortgagor, insurer, or company or agency complying with the requirements relating to insurance.(d) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a creditor or lender of a loan secured by an interest in real property shall not require the borrower to keep the mortgaged property insured under a property insurance policy in a sum in excess of the value of the buildings on the real property.(e) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no creditor or lender shall require as a condition to closing a loan that the borrower provide an original insurance policy at said closing; provided, however, that the creditor or lender may require the borrower to produce at closing a binder showing the borrower as a named insured and creditor or lender as mortgagee, and confirming that insurance has been issued, is in force, and will remain in full force until a copy of the final policy is delivered to the creditor or lender or until the creditor or lender has received notice of cancellation in accordance with the policy conditions.(f) No insurer may automatically write insurance on a debtor who has contracted credit based on the principle that the insurance is applicable unless specifically rejected by the debtor, unless the premium or such other identifiable charge as may be applicable is paid in full by the creditor.New JerseyNJAC 3:1-13.1Insurance tie-in prohibition(c) No lender shall, in connection with any application for a loan secured by a mortgage on real property located in New Jersey, require any mortgagor to obtain by purchase or otherwise a fire insurance policy in excess of the replacement value of the covered premises as permitted under N.J.S.A. 17:36-5.19 as a condition for granting such mortgage loan.New York3 NYCRR 38.9 Limitation on excess insurance and required disclosures(a) Limitation on excess insurance.No mortgage banker or exempt organization shall require any mortgagor, in connection with the granting of a mortgage loan, to obtain a hazard insurance policy in excess of the replacement cost of the improvements on the property as a condition for the granting of such mortgage loan.North Carolina58-63-25 "Unfair methods of competition" or "unfair and deceptive acts or practices"The following are hereby defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance:(13) Overinsurance in Credit or Loan Transactions. In connection with a loan or extension of credit secured by real or personal property or both, requiring the applicant to procure property and casualty insurance against any one risk which results in coverage which exceeds the replacement value of the secured property at the time of the loan or extension of credit. In connection with a secured or unsecured loan or extension of credit, requiring the applicant to procure life or health insurance against any one risk which exceeds the amount of the loan. In connection with a loan secured by both real and personal property, requiring credit property insurance, as defined in G.S. 58-57-90, on the personal property. For the purposes of this subsection, "amount of loan" shall be deemed to be the amount of the principal and accrued interest to be paid by the debtor including other allowable charges.PennsylvaniaHere is a paper written by our Pennsylvania association on this issue relative to PA laws.Rhode IslandCHAPTER 27-5 - Fire Insurance Policies and Reserves - SECTION 27-5-3.2§ 27-5-3.2 Property insurance. No person, bank, or lending institution doing business in this state, whether acting under state or federal authority, which includes but is not limited to (1) a bank, savings bank, or trust company, as defined in this title, its affiliates or subsidiaries, (2) a bank holding company, as defined in 12 U.S.C. § 1841, its affiliates or subsidiaries, (3) mortgage companies, and (4) any other individual, corporation, partnership, or association authorized to take deposits and/or to make loans of money under the provisions of chapters 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25.2, and 25.3 of title 19, making a mortgage loan, shall, as a condition of the mortgage or as a term of the mortgage deed, require that the mortgagor carry property insurance on the property which is the subject of the mortgage in excess of the replacement cost of any buildings or appurtenances subject to the mortgage; provided, that if a mortgage is sold, transferred, conveyed, or assigned, it shall be the responsibility of the holder of the mortgage to notify the insurance producer issuing the property insurance policy in writing of that sale, transfer, conveyance, or assignment. This notice shall be made in writing and shall be sent to the insurance producer within thirty (30) days of the sale, transfer, conveyance, or assignment by registered mail. In the event that the holder of a mortgage shall fail to notify the insurance producer who issued the property insurance policy that is in force, in writing, of that sale, transfer, conveyance, or assignment within thirty (30) days, the holder shall indemnify and hold the insurance producer harmless.VirginiaThe question posed was if a bank could force the consumer to have an insurance policy with the insured amount being the loan value even if this exceeds the value of the building. Under Virginia Banking code banks are not allowed to do this. The statutes does not reference personal or business loan so we would assume it applies to both.VA Code- 6.1-2.6:1. Fire insurance coverage under certain loans not to exceed replacement value of improvements.A. No lender shall require a borrower, as a condition to receiving or maintaining a loan secured by any mortgage or deed of trust, to provide or purchase property insurance coverage against risks to any improvements on any real property in an amount exceeding the replacement value of the improvements on the real property.In this section, 'property insurance coverage' means insurance against losses or damages caused by perils that commonly are covered in insurance policies described with terms similar to 'standard fire' or 'standard fire with extended coverage.'In determining the replacement value of the improvements on any real property, the lender may:1. Accept the value placed on the improvements by the insurer; or2. Use the value placed on the improvements that is determined by the lender's appraisal of the real property.B. A violation of this section shall not affect the validity of the mortgage or deed of trust securing the loan."Wisconsin632.07  Prohibiting requiring property insurance in excess of replacement value. A lender may not require a borrower, as a condition of receiving or maintaining a loan secured by real property, to insure the property against risks to improvements on the real property in an amount that exceeds the replacement value or market value of the improvements, whichever is greater.For an example of a related article regarding flood insurance prohibitions on this practice, "Flood Insurance Mandatory Purchase Guidelines".Last Updated: May 17, 2014Source:https://www.independentagent.com/Education/VU/Education/VU/Insurance/Personal-Lines/Homeowners/Conditions/WilsonMortgageAmount.aspx

Black Bear Ranch - WikipediaThe commune's legal ownership was held by one resident, Richard Marley, until in 1987 it was transferred to the Black Bear Family Trust, which limits development of the property and established trustees to oversee various specified duties.http://blackbearranch.org/about/black-bear-family-trust-document/JUNE 21, 1987 BLACK BEAR FAMILY TRUST1. Recitals of Common Understandings. In 1968 a group of people, desiring to establish a cooperative living situation in a forest setting, raised money from various sources and made a down payment on a piece of land (described below, and commonly known as Black Bear Ranch). The title, for convenience sake, and not to establish any particular ownership prerogratives, was placed in the name of one of their number–Richard Marley–who, along with others in the group, is named in this document among the settlors of this trust. Over the years many other people in addition to those who originally established Black Bear Ranch came to live on the land for various periods of time. Children were born there. These people, many feeling strong ties to the land and the people they lived with on the land, have come to form the Black Bear community. The purchase and financial maintenance of the land has always been understood to be a collective obligation which resulted in collective ownership.2. Declaration and Acknowledgement of Trust. Settlors and beneficiaries are people who have been involved with the Black Bear community and whose continuous understanding has been and is that the property was to be managed cooperatively with mutual responsibilities and obligations toward each other and toward the land. The “settlors” in this instrument are the individuals named in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.The above mentioned settlors declare that they have set aside all that real property situated in Siskiyou County, State of California, known as Black Bear Ranch and described as follows:Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter and the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 13, the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, the East half of the West half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 23 and the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, and the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, in Township 39 North of Range 12 West of the Mount Diablo Meridian, California Being the Same property contained in the Patent from the United States of America to John Daggett dated January 19, 1920, recorded March 4, 1920 in Liber 14, Patents, page 344.The settlors declare that the initial trustees of this instrument shall be Shem Korngold, Richard L. Marley, Fran Forim, Geba Greenberg, Gail Ericson and Eva Bess Pumpian-Mindlin. The trustees declare that the settlors have transferred and delivered to them, without consideration, the real property known as Black Bear Ranch described above.3. Purpose of Trust. The purposes of this trust are: To continue Black Bear Ranch in the spirit embodied in Paragraph 1, as a vital forest community. To preserve Black Bear Ranch in ecological harmony. Black Bear Ranch is to be managed harmoniously with nature, and with a view to preserving the water, soil, wildlife, and forest resources and ecological balance as thoroughly as practicable. Toward these ends the settlors desire that the trustees and beneficiaries act as stewards of the land with the greatest sensitivity to, and nurturing of, the forest community at Black Bear Ranch. Beneficiaries may visit or reside at Black Bear Ranch at times and under rules established under this trust in accordance with the goals and purposes laid out in this instrument.4. Trust Irrevocable. This trust is irrevocable and shall not be subject to amendment, alteration, or change by the settlors. It may be amended, altered or changed by the beneficiaries only pursuant to the procedures specified in Paragraphs 16 and 17.5. Management of Property. The trustees are authorized to retain, purchase, or otherwise acquire unproductive real property. It is the specific intent of the settlor that the trustees shall not be required to manage the trust property so as to provide monetary income, but instead, the management goals specified in Paragraph 3 shall be followed. The trustees shall incur no liability to the beneficiaries for any failure to manage the trust property so as to produce income, provided the management goals in Paragraph 3 are being observed.6. Authority of Trustees to Act. Any action taken by the trustees unanimously shall be binding on the trust estate and may be relied upon by third parties dealing with the trustees.7. Powers of Trustees. The trustees shall have the following powers:a. To manage, control, grant options on, repair or improve the trust property.b. To convey, sell, exchange, partition or divide the property only in the event that the purposes of the trust cannot be fulfilled on the land.c. To lease the trust property for any purpose, provided, however that the trustees shall not have the power to execute any lease of trust property extending beyond the term of this trust.d. To loan or advance the trustee’s own funds to the trust for any trust purpose, with interest at current rates; to receive security for such loans in the form of a mortgage, pledge, deed of trust, or other encumbrance of any assets of the trust; and to sell property to the trust at a price not less than its fair market value as determined by an independent appraisal.e. To borrow money and to encumber the trust property by mortgage, deed of trust, pledge, or otherwise.f. To commence or defend such litigation with respect to the trust or any property of the trust estate as they may deem advisable, and to compromise or otherwise adjust any claims or litigation against or in favor of the trust.g. To carry insurance, if determined by the trustees in their absolute discretion to be economically feasible, of such kinds and in such amounts as they deem advisable, to protect the trust estate and the trustees personally against any hazard.h. To pay all taxes due on the trust property.8. No bond or Monetary Fees Required. No bond shall be required of any person named in this instrument as trustee, or of any person appointed as successor trustee in the manner specified here, for faithful performance of his or her duties as trustee. The trustees shall not be entitled to monetary compensation.9. Accountings. The trustees shall not be required to render any accounting pursuant to Probate Code Section 1138.1. However, a written account shall be rendered to the beneficiaries if requested by a vote pursuant to Paragraph 17. Thereafter, the trustees shall account to the adult beneficiaries and the written approval of the adult beneficiaries shall bind minor and contingent remaindermen.10. Exculpatory provisions. No trustee acting under this instrument shall be liable to any beneficiary or to anyone claiming an interest in the property under or through a beneficiary for the trustee’s acts or failure to act, except for willful misconduct or gross negligence. No trustee shall be liable or responsible for any act, omission, or default of any other trustee. No successor trustee shall be liable for any act, omission, or default of a predecessor trustee.11. Substitution and Replacement of Trustees. Upon the death, resignation or removal of any trustee, the beneficiaries may designate any adult as a successor trustee by vote pursuant to Paragraph 17. The beneficiaries may also remove any trustee and designate any adult as successor trustee by vote pursuant to Paragraph 17. After a vote for removal, the trustee removed shall be notified in writing delivered personally or by ordinary mail. A successor trustee designated by the beneficiaries may begin to act as trustee after depositing a written acceptance at Black Bear Ranch or mailing the same to the current address of the remaining trustees.12. Names of Beneficiaries. The initial beneficiaries of this trust shall be the individuals named in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The trustees shall be entitled to rely on the addresses statedherein unless and until they receive written notice of change of address.13. Beneficiaries’ Interests Not Transferrable. No interest in the trust property shall be anticipated, assigned, encumbered, or subjected to creditors’ claims. Beneficial interest in the trust property is indivisible. No individual may hold more than one beneficial interest in the trust property. A single beneficial interest in the trust property may be transferred only by inheritance. Any beneficiary may make a testamentary gift of his or her entire beneficial interest in the trust property by instructing that the trustees be notified under the terms of his or her will. Such notification must include the name and current address of the new trust beneficiary, and, if a minor, the date of birth. The new beneficiary must be a single individual. In the event of the intestate death of a beneficiary, his or her oldest living child (including one who has been legally adopted) shall become a beneficiary with all rights and obligations associated with beneficial interest in the trust property as though such new beneficiary were added as described in Paragraphs 15 and 17, provided, however that such new beneficiary must notify a trustee in writing of his or her current address, and, if a minor, date of birth, within one year of his or her parent’s death. The new beneficiary shall become a beneficiary immediately upon such notification. In the event that the oldest child is already a beneficiary, the beneficial interest shall pass to the next oldest child, continuing to pass in order of seniority to all living children. In the event that a beneficiary dies intestate without living children who can accept the beneficial interest, his or her beneficial interest will cease to exist and the number of beneficiaries shall be reduced by one.All testamentary transfers under this paragraph of beneficial interest in the trust property shall be restricted to spouses, children, grandchildren or siblings of beneficiaries first named in this original instrument. Children, grandchildren and siblings include those legally adopted.14. Renunciation of Beneficial Interest.a. Beneficiaries may renounce their interests in the trust property in two ways.b. Any beneficiary may renounce his or her interest in the trust property by delivering a written notice to that effect to any of the trustees.c. In the event that two consecutive votes shall have occurred during which one or more beneficiaries shall have failed to respond with any vote in person or by proxy, the trustees shall send, by certified mail, an address confirmation request to such beneficiary or beneficiaries. Should such beneficiary or beneficiaries fail to respond within one year of the date of such mailing with written notification of current address, such beneficiary or beneficiaries shall be conclusively presumed to have renounced his, her or their beneficial interest or interests under this trust.d. After a renunciation pursuant to this paragraph, a former beneficiary shall have no further beneficial or legal interest in the trust property and shall not be entitled to vote under Paragraph 17. Any beneficiary who shall have renounced his or her interest may subsequently be appointed as an additional beneficiary pursuant to the procedures specified in paragraphs 15 and 17.15. Additional Beneficiaries. Beneficiaries may be added in three ways.a. The beneficiaries at any given time may appoint additional beneficiaries other than themselves, their estates, their creditors, or the creditors of their estates, by vote under the procedures of Paragraph 17. The trustees shall be notified in writing of the names and addresses of any additional beneficiaries so appointed, and, if they are minors, of their dates of birth.b. All those people who, from the date of creation of this trust until its termination, shall have resided at Black Bear Ranch and slept no less than 270 nights in any twelve month period on the property described herein as Black Bear Ranch shall be beneficiaries of this trust, provided, however, that new beneficiaries must declare in writing to a trustee in writing under penalty of perjury that they have fulfilled the above-mentioned residency requirement, and must notify a trustee in writing of their current addresses, and, if minors, of their dates of birth, within one year of such residency.c. Testamentary transfers under Paragraph 13.d. Such new beneficiaries shall become beneficiaries on the date of written notification to the trustees. Thereafter, such additional beneficiaries shall have all the same rights, privileges, and duties an the beneficiaries named in Paragraph 12, including the right to vote pursuant to the procedures of Paragraph 17.16. Amendment or Termination of Trust by Beneficiaries. This trust may be amended, altered, changed or terminated by the beneficiaries by a vote held under the procedures set out in Paragraph 17. After such a vote, the trustees shall be notified in writing of any amendment, alteration or change adopted, and shall thereafter administer the trust in accordance with the adopted amendments, alterations or changes. If the trust in terminated by a vote pursuant to Paragraph 17, the trustees, after receiving written notification, shall convey the trust assets to the beneficiaries, in fee, an tenants in common. It would be in accordance with the purpose of this instrument for the beneficiaries, according to procedures established in Paragraphs 4 and 17(e), to modify or terminate this trust in favor of an agreement by which Black Bear Ranch becomes an asset of a non-profit corporation or other entity which may better carry out the goals and purposes established in Paragraph 3 of this instrument.17. Voting Procedures. Under this instrument the beneficiaries are entitled to vote on several kinds of decisions: requesting an accounting from the trustees under Paragraph 9, removing and replacing trustees under Paragraph 11, naming additional beneficiaries under Paragraph 15, and amending or terminating the trust under Paragraph 16.a. Any group constituting one-tenth of the living beneficiaries 18 years of age or older may call for a vote by requesting any trustee in writing to hold an election.b. Thereafter, the trustees shall give notice that a vote shall be held at Black Bear Ranch by posting a written notice prominently at Black Bear Ranch and mailing such notice by ordinary mail to the last known addresses of those beneficiaries 18 years of age or older not then residing at Black Bear Ranch. Such notice shall be posted and mailed no later than 90 days before a scheduled vote and shall include the current address of each of the trustees.c. At the time mentioned in the notice, the vote shall take place. All beneficiaries 18 years of age or older shall be eligible to vote in person. Such beneficiaries may also vote by written proxy delivered or mailed to any trustee at his or her current address other than one subject to a removal vote under Paragraph 11, provided such proxy is received by the trustee not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the scheduled vote.d. In order for a vote to be valid, those voting in person or by proxy must constitute at least one-fourth of the number of living beneficiaries 18 years of age or older who voted in the most recent previous vote (the first vote shall have as its quorum at least one fourth of all living adult beneficiaries), provided, however, that an election to designate a successor to a trustee who has died or resigned shall not require any specific quorum. A vote to abstain shall be deemed a vote.e. A vote for the removal of one or more trustees, or for the naming of additional beneficiary or beneficiaries, or for requesting an accounting, or for the amendment or termination of this trust, shall succeed only by unanimous vote of those voting in person and by proxy, provided, however, that no trustee shall be entitled to vote in a Paragraph 17e election.f. A vote for the election of a successor trustee shall be decided by simple plurality: the individual who receives the most votes shall become the successor trustee upon his or her acceptance.18. Termination of Trust. This trust shall terminate 60 years from the date of this instrument, or at such time as there is only one remaining living beneficiary, which ever shall first occur. Upon such termination, the entire trust estate shall be conveyed to the surviving beneficiary or beneficiaries as tenants in common, free from trust.19. Law Governing; Severability provision. This trust has been accepted by the trustees and will be administered in the State of California, and its validity, construction and all rights under it shall be governed by the laws of that state. If any provision of this instrument shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue to be effective.20. No-Contest Clause and Elimination of Rights Under Probate Code Section 1138-1. If any beneficiary or trustee under this trust, singly or in conjunction with any other person or persons, shall contest in any court the validity of this trust or shall seek to obtain an adjudication inany proceeding in any court that this trust or any of its provisions are invalid or seek otherwise to nullify or set aside this trust or any of its provisions, then the right of that person to take, which is given to him or her by this trust, shall be determined as it would have been determined had the person predeceased execution of this declaration of trust without surviving issue, and such person shall no longer be a beneficiary or trustee.The trustees are hereby authorized to defend any contest or other attack of any nature on this trust or any of its provisions.No trustee, beneficiary, or remainderman shall have authority to petition the court under Probate Code Section 1138-1.Executed at Black Bear Ranch, Siskiyou County, California on June 21, 1987.TRUSTEES:/s/ Shem KorngoldFran ForimGail EricsonRichard L. MarleyGeba GreenbergEva Bess Pumpian-Mindlin