Answer to Verified x Action

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In Propria PersonaP.O. Box 540Susanville, CA 96130530-257-2555

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LASSEN

NORMAN W. ALLEN

Plaintiff,

vs.

SUMMIT FINANCIAL GROUP; DANA CAPITOL CORP.; STEVE WEICH; ROD HOSILYK; DWIGHT A. BENNETT; JUDITH A. ST. JOHN; WILSHIRE CREDIT; CORPORATION; EVANS APPRAISAL SERVICES.INC.; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants,

LEAD CASE NO.: 45679

(Consolidated with: 50324 & 46190)

Unlimited Jurisdiction

ANSWER TO VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT

Trial Date: None Set.

NORMAN W. ALLEN,

Plaintiff, vs.

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MLMI TRUST SERIES 2005-HE3, AND DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

1

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as

Trustee for MLMI Trust Series 2005-HE3 and BAC HOME LOANSSERVICING, LP, a Texas limitedPartnership, successor by merger to Wilshire Credit Corporation,

Cross-Complainants,

Vs.

NORMAN W. ALLEN, DWIGHT A. BENNETT, JUDITH A. ST. JOHN,EVANS APPRAISAL SERVICES,INC., and ROES 1-10

Cross-Defendants.AND ALL OTHER CROSS-ACTIONS

COMES NOW the Cross-Defendant, Dwight A. Bennett, for himself alone

and in answering the allegations of the Cross-Complaint on file herein,

affirms, denies, and alleges as follows:

I. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1, cross-defendant

Bennett is informed and believes that the information contained therein

is correct.

II. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2, cross-defendant


is correct.

III. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 3, cross-defendant


is correct.

2


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4, cross-defendant

Bennett admits that each and every allegation contained therein is

correct.

V. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 5, cross-defendant


is correct.

VI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, cross-defendant


is correct.

VII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-defendant

Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient to allow

him to answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in said

Paragraph 7.

VIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 8, cross-defendant


is correct.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Declaratory Relief Against Allen, St. John. And Bennett)

IX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 9, of the Cross-

Complaint, Cross-Defendant incorporates herein the answers to

Paragraphs I, through VIII, of cross-complainants’ purported Cause of

Action the same as though fully set out herein at length.

X. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 10, of the Cross-

Complaint, Cross-Defendant denies generally and specifically, in the

conjunctive and disjunctive, each and every allegation contained therein.

XI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 11, cross-defendant


is correct.

3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12, of the Cross-



XIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-defendant

Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient to allow

him to answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in said

Paragraph 13.

XIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 14, cross-defendant


is correct.

XV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 15, of the Cross-



XVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-

defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient

to allow him to answer and so denies each and every allegation

contained in said Paragraph 16.

XVII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 17, Cross-

Defendant was informed and believes that he and Norman Allen believed

that the Improvements were subsequently located on the 14 acres rather

than the 40 acres. Except as heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant

denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in

the conjunctive and disjunctive.

XVIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 18, Cross-

Defendant is informed and believes, that at all times relevant, he and

Norman Allen intended the Improvements to be part of the 14 acres.

Except as heretofore admitted, cross-defendant denies each and every

remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and

disjunctive.

4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 19, cross-defendant


is correct.

XX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 20, cross-

defendant Bennett is informed and believes that the information

contained therein is correct.

XXI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 21, cross-

defendant Bennett is informed and believes that the mistaken belief that

the Improvements were on the 14 acres reflects in part the appraised

value of the subject property in 2005, except as heretofore admitted,

cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally

and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

XXII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 22, cross-



XXIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 23, cross-

defendant Bennett is informed and believes that a real controversy

exists requiring a judicial determination of the respective rights, duties

and responsibilities of all parties to these transactions, including principle

parties not herein named to date. Defendant Bennett further provides

notice to the court therein reserving the right, upon discovery the of the

identities of those yet unnamed parties to; set out complaints or cross-

complaints as required; and by leave of the Court to affect full remedy

under the law. Except as heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant denies

each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the

conjunctive and disjunctive.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Rescission Against Allen)

5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XXIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 24, of the Cross-


Paragraphs I, through XXIV, of Cross-Complainants’ purported Cause of


XXV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 25, cross-



XXVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 26, cross-


at this time to allow him to answer and so denies each and every

allegation contained in said Paragraph 26.

XXVII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 27, cross-




XXVIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 28, cross-

defendant Bennett alleges that Option One Mortgage Inc., and Summit

Financial Group Inc., induced the transaction that is central to this

controversy against Bennett’s will. In so doing said parties and their

agents are guilty of “inexcusable negligence”. Option One Mortgage Inc.

thus created a relationship of “detrimental reliance” by their actions and

Wells Fargo stands in the shoes of Wells Fargo. Except as heretofore

admitted, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation,

generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(For reformation Against Allen, Bennett, and St. John)

XXIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 29, of the Cross-


6


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paragraphs I, through XXVIII, of Cross-Complainants’ purported Cause of


XXX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 30, Cross-

Defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient



XXXI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 31, Cross-

Defendant Bennett is informed and believes that the information


XXXII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 32, Cross-

Defendant is informed and believes, that he at no time entered into

contractual agreement with Wells Fargo Bank nor caused the existence

any alleged “WFB Deed of Trust” if such instrument exists. Where is the

contract and note that binds Bennett in privity and establishing his

“intended benefits” or “respective bargains” for reformation? Except as

heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant denies each and every allegation,

generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

XXXIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 33, Cross-

Defendant was informed and believes, that he did not then nor does he

now benefit from the sale by paying off the previously Existing Mortgage

with the sale proceeds as alleged and that the inverse is true. As to the

allegation set forth by Wells Fargo and BAC that “Bennett [k]new the

only way to receive enough money to pay off the Existing Mortgage was

to convey the Improvements along with the 14 acres”, answering this

allegation cross-defendant denies each and every allegation, generally

and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive. As to the benefit or

lack thereof to St. John as alleged, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that

he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to

answer and so denies each and every remaining allegation contained in

7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

said Paragraph 33, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and

disjunctive.

XXXIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 34, reasserts the

above stated claims of negligence, misrepresentation, and detrimental

reliance at the minimum against Option One Mortgage and Summit and

again asserting that if said Cross-Complainants’ positions as alleged by

each, are true, Wells Fargo and BAC stand in the shoes of the parties

named above to who they answer as agents. Answering the same

allegations herein Bennett further asserts that he in no manner has now

nor ever had any relationship of privity with Cross-Complainants of this

action. At no time did he have privity in contract, real or proposed,

written or verbal, with Option One Mortgage or Wilshire. Wells Fargo and

BAC attempt herein to rewrite the rules of equity in forcing reformation

upon a third party under the claim of “mutual mistake” asserting

“respective bargains” where none existed between themselves and

Bennett. Further answering the allegations of Paragraph 34, he asserts

that he has no true knowledge if Wells Fargo is the Beneficiary of the

resultant Promissory Note and Deed of Trust as claimed. If so then by

investing even a cursory amount of due diligence as operators of a

mortgage business, Wells Fargo would have discovered that the legal

description is included in the mortgage and likely reveals the true nature

of the parcel to mortgage lenders. Except as heretofore admitted, cross-

defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and

specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

XXXV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 35, Bennett

reasserts the above stated claims of negligence, misrepresentation, and

detrimental reliance at the minimum against Option One Mortgage and

Wilshire. Additionally in answering these allegations, Bennett alleges that

substantially precedent to the entry of Wells and BAC as cross-

complainants Wells Fargo as Beneficiary filed a claim(s) with Chicago

8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Title Insurance Company Inc., for recovery under the A.L.T.A. title

insurance policy purchased by Bennett for the protection of all parties to

the sales transaction. Wells Fargo now claiming inequitable enrichment

against Bennett and others in its Cross-Action, makes no mention of the

insured position it enjoys at Bennett’s expense. To the best of Bennett’s

knowledge, until named as defendants by Allen, Wells Fargo and Wilshire

(BAC) asserted that they held no direct economic interest in these

proceedings and as such were released or unnamed as Defendants.

Except as heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant denies each and every

remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and

disjunctive.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Equitable Subrogation Against Bennett and St. John)

XXXVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 36, of the Cross-


Paragraphs I, through XXXV, of Cross-Complainants’ purported Cause of


XXXVII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 37, of the cross-

complaint, cross-defendant alleges that Wells Fargo seeks subrogation in

direct contradiction of the elements of the doctrine of equity. If this is

accomplished it would pave the road to compounded profits through

predatory lending practices. Notwithstanding the law forbidding

subrogation when no agreement of the parties is express or implied in

debt equity, Wells Fargo and BAC seek forced subrogation in the face of

actions by their “predecessors” chargeable with fraud, culpable &

inexcusable negligence, forced reliance and more. Aside from the

inequitable enrichment clearly available to Wells Fargo and BAC through

the aggregate of title insurance, foreclosure of the subject property, and

9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

subrogation of the adjacent property, cross-defendant denies each and

every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive

and disjunctive.

XXXVIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 38, cross-




XXXIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 39, cross-




XL. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 40, cross-




XLI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 41, cross-

defendant Bennett denies each and every allegation contained in said

Paragraph 41.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For equitable Lien Against Allen, Bennett, and St. John)

XLII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 42, of the cross-

complaint, cross-defendant incorporates herein the answers to

Paragraphs I, through XLI, of cross-complainants’ purported Cause of


XLIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 43, cross-

defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief regarding

St. John’s intentions or actions sufficient at this time to allow him to

10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in said

Paragraph 43.

XLIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 44, cross-

defendant Bennett is informed and believes that others enacted the

process requiring conveyance of Improvements. Additionally in answering

these allegations, he is informed and believes the conveyance that “paid

off the Existing Mortgage”, directly and/or incidentally was caused by

frauds and the intentional negligence of others.

XLV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 45, cross-




XLVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 46, cross-

defendant Bennett denies in part the allegation contained in said

Paragraph 46, in that the payoff of the existing mortgage was

substantially less than $437,000.00. Outrageous fees were charged for

said credit including “yield spread premiums” and other “garbage fees”

too extensive for this writing. The forced reliance as stated above

precipitated expenses, penalties, and other costs to Bennett in excess of

$100,000.00 by completion of the initial transaction, this from the direct

actions of Summit, Option One, Dana Capitol, and others. Further

payments and costs in addition, both precedent and antecedent to that

event. The equity losses and other costs that continue to accrue for

Bennett are equal to or greater than the $437,000.00 claimed in this

cross-action. In answering the allegations of Paragraph 46, beyond that

stated above cross-defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information

or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer more fully and so

denies each and every other allegation contained in said Paragraph 46.

11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XLVII. Cross-complainants’ statement in Paragraph 47 is not

understandable or inconclusive and as such, cross-defendant Bennett

denies each and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 47.

XLVIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 48, cross-




XLIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 49, cross-

defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief that all

parties of liability or actionable responsibility are yet unnamed in this

multi-case complex action. Answering further allegations herein, he has

no belief that a court of equity would uphold the claims of entitlement of

lien asserted. He has no true understanding of what positions Wells Fargo

& BAC currently hold nor despite the claims “their intended positions”.

Certainty these parties have already claimed numerous conflicting

positions without providing any proof or documentation whatsoever. Each

vaguely asserted position is under terminology and “title” with complex

multiple meanings to the mortgage industry. These “titles” are not

discernable without case specific contractual clarity of which they offer

none; as such, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining

allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Mortgage Against Bennett, St. John, and Allen)

12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

L. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 50, of the cross-

complaint, cross-defendant incorporates herein the answers to

Paragraphs I, through XLIX, of cross-complainants purported Cause of


LI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 51, cross-

defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief of St.

John’s intentions now or at the time in question, sufficient at this time to

allow him to answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in

said Paragraph 51 generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and

disjunctive.

LII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 52, cross-

defendant is informed and believes that it that the certificate of

compliance that separated the two parcels and created the controversy

now at bar was undertaken after extensive misrepresentation by Steve

Weich, Rod Hosilyk, Summit Financial Group and their “buddy and

underwriter” in preparation of refinancing the subject property. Bennett

and St. John were “prequalified”. According to Summit Financial they

were to benefit dramatically by the low mortgage interest rates available.

At all times prior to January 2005 Bennett was informed and believed that

NO portion of the 54 acres was to be conveyed. Weich and Hosliyk

repeatedly claimed prior to the events in question to have “discovered”

that the 54 acre ranch was composed of two old parcels. “Their

underwriter” who was represented to be “one of best in the business”

agreed and allegedly advised them after studying an earlier title report,

that the optimum loan conditions would be achieved by refinancing the

smaller parcel that, they asserted after their onsite inspections, held the

Improvements. Bennett & St. John had good credit ratings with low

income to debt ratios and anticipated refinancing the ranch. On or about

October 1, 2004 St. John ceased sending in the monthly mortgage

payments upon the “advice of Summit and ‘their underwriter” that was

13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

later revealed as an employee of Option One Mortgage. In early January

2005, St. John drained the community bank accounts (5) and removed

herself from the couple’s home; Bennett learned the property was 90

plus days in arrears. The “lenders” and St. John quickly substituted Allen

as buyer to “save the ranch”. Beyond that stated above cross-defendant,

Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time

to allow him to answer more fully and so denies each and every other


LIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 53, cross-

defendant is informed and believes the note executed by Allen was with

Option One Mortgage Corporation. Contrary to claims by Summit

Financial, the loan packages for Bennett, St. John, and Allen were not

submitted to any lender other than Option One. Beyond that stated

above cross-defendant, Bennett alleges that he has no information or

belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer more fully and so

denies each and every other allegation contained in said Paragraph 53.

LIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 54, cross-

defendant is informed and believes that standard procedure for

conveyance of real estate often necessitates retirement of the existing

deed of trust. The “Option One Note” executed by Allen with Wells Fargo

Bank N.A. as Trustee, and serviced by Wilshire was “deposited” into the

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Instruments investment scheme 2005 HE-3.

Option One Mortgage Corporation “paid off” the Existing Mortgage.

Cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally

and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

LV. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 54, Bennett again

asserts inexcusable negligence on the part of Option One Mortgage and

is informed and believes that little credence will be found in the so called,

“WFB Deed of Trust” or in Trustee Wells Fargo’s standing in the courts as

14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Beneficiary”. As such, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining

allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

LVI. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 55, cross-

defendant is informed and believes that Wells Fargo and BAC are acting

as agents for the true beneficiary. Until proof of proper endorsement to

the original Note and Deed establishes legal ownership, some parties of

interest in equity remain unknown. Bennett believes “WFB’s” & BAC’s

asserted claims of security interest as “beneficiaries” to be meritless. If

cross-complainants’ lack of standing, as alleged above and confirmed in

the belatedly “verified” Answers to Complaints submitted by the same,

then there is no “Equitable Mortgage” here to which they would be

parties. Beyond that stated above cross-defendant, Bennett alleges that

he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to

answer more fully and as such denies the allegations spoken to each and

every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive

and disjunctive.

SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

LVII. This Answering Cross-Defendant offers no answer to the

Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action in that there are no allegations

against him therein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

This answer ing Cross-Defendant alleges that the

Cross-Complaint, and each and every Cause of Action therein fails to state a

Cause of Action against this Answering Cross-Defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Unclean Hands)

These answering cross-defendants allege that to the extent the Cross-

complainants seek equitable relief, Cross-complainants' inequitable conduct

constitutes unclean hands and therefore bars the granting of relief to Cross-

complainants herein.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Contributory Negligence)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon

alleges that the Cross-Complainants proximately caused the damages

referred to in the Cross-Complaint by Cross-Complainants, and/or others

affiliated in any manner with Cross-Complainants. In that at all times

relevant herein, Cross-Complainants, failed to exercise for their own

protection the proper care and precautions which prudent persons under the

same and similar circumstances would have exercised. That if this answering

Cross-Defendant committed any wrongful act at all (which supposition is

made for the purpose of his defense without admitting such to be a fact), the

aforesaid conduct of Cross-Complainants and/or entities or persons

associated in any manner with the Cross-Complainants contributed to the

happenings of Cross-Complainants’ alleged damages.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Offset)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that he has suffered damage by

reason of Cross-Complainants’ conduct; that he has the right of offset if any

amount of money is owed to Cross-Complainants or due Cross-Complainants

by way of damage.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Apportionment)


alleges that the matters complained of in the Cross-Complainant were

proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of a third

party or parties or Cross-Complainants. Accordingly, the liability of the Cross-

Complainants and responsible parties, named or unnamed, should be

apportioned according to their respective degrees of fault or other legal

responsibility, and the liability, if any, of these answering Cross-Defendant

should be reduced accordingly.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Assumption of the Risk)


alleges that if there presently exists or ever existed, any or all of the alleged

rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants assert by way of their

Cross-Complaint, said claims or obligations are unenforceable because

Cross-Complainants assumed the risk involved in the transaction.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)



rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by way of its

Cross-Complaint each and every cause of action in the Cross-Complaint is

barred by the applicable sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Standing)

17


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cross-Complainants lack standing: Wells Fargo Bank and BAC are not the

true owners of the claim sued upon, are not the real parties in interest and

are not shown to be authorized to bring this Cross-Action.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(In Pari Delicto)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complainants

herein and each and every purported Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint

are barred because Cross-Complainants have engaged in acts and courses of

conduct which rendered them in pari delicto.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Equitable Estoppel)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complainants

herein, and each and every Cause of Action contained in the Cross-Complaint

are barred by reason of acts, omissions, representations and courses of

conduct by Cross-Complainants by which Cross-Defendant was led to rely to

their detriment, thereby barring, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel,

any Causes of Action asserted by the Cross-Complainants.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Condition Precedent)

This answering Cross-Defendant allege that performance by these Cross-

Complainants of certain acts were contingent upon receipt of specific

instructions or otherwise properly directed any action which supposedly were

to be undertaken by these Cross-Complainants, thus Cross-Complainants

18


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

authority, direction and cooperation was a condition precedent to any

alleged-obligation-by-these Cross-Complainants to perform such acts.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Frauds)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint is barred

by the provisions of Section 1624 of the Civil Code, i.e., the Statute of

Frauds.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure of Consideration)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complainants herein

and each and every purported Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint are

barred as a result of a failure of consideration.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Mutual Mistake)



rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by way of their

Cross-Complaint, said claims or obligations are unenforceable by reason of

mutual mistake.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Agreement is Not Fully Integrated)



rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by way of their

19


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cross-Complaint said claims or obligations are unenforceable because the

written agreement (if any) is not fully integrated.

WHEREFORE, cross-defendant Bennett prays that cross-complainants take

nothing by their cross-complaint and that cross-defendant have judgment

against cross-complainants and recover costs of suit herein incurred, and

such other relief as the court may deem proper.

DATED: November 10, 2010

_________________________________

Dwight A. Bennett, In Pro Per

VERIFICATION

I, Dwight A. Bennett, am a Cross-Defendant in the above-entitled action. I

have read the foregoing; Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint and know the

contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those

matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those

matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and

that this declaration was executed at Susanville, California.

20


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: November 10, 2010

___________________________________

Dwight A. Bennett, In Pro Per

.

21


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23


Date post:	22-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	zorrodel-toro
View:	53 times
Download:	1 times

Answer to Verified x Action

Documents