Answer To Ud Complaint

1 2

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ. SBN 147715 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS 13240 Amargosa Road Victorville, California 92392

3 4

(760) 951-3663 Telephone (909) 382-9956 Facsimile

5 6 7

Attorneys for Defendant, ISCHMAEL O. WHITE,

8 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

11

PITTSBURG BRANCH

12 13

BLUE MOUNTAIN MORTGAGE LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,

Case No.: PS-09-1746

14

Plaintiff,

15 16 17 18 19

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ISCHMAEL O. WHITE, and DOES I through X, Inclusive

NOTICE OF NON-STIPULATION TO COMMISSIONER

Defendant(s).

20 21 22

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES HEREIN, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

23 24

Defendant Ischmael O. White hereby answers the complaint of Blue Mountain Mortgage LLC

25

and admits, denies and alleges as follows:

26 27 28

1 of 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

1

1. Defendant is without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the

2

allegation on paragraph 1 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such

3

lack of information and belief.

4

2.

5

Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 2 of the complaint.

6 3.

Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint.

8

4.

Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint.

9

5. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 5

7

10

of the complaint.

11 12

6. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint.

13

7. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the

14

allegation on paragraph 7 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such

15

lack of information and belief.

16

8. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the

17

allegation on paragraph 8 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such

18

lack of information and belief.

19 20

9. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the

21

allegation on paragraph 9 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such

22

lack of information and belief.

23 24

10. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 10 of the complaint.

25 26 27

11.

Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 11 of the complaint.

28

2 of 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 12 of the complaint. 13. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 13 of the complaint. 14. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 14 of the complaint. 15. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 15 of the complaint. 16. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 16

11 12 13 14 15 16

of the complaint. 17. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 17 of the complaint. 18. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the allegation on paragraph 18 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such

17 18

lack of information and belief.

19 20 21 22

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense Fails To State Sufficient Facts

23 24 25

19. Each purported cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a basis for relief against these answering Defendants.

26 27 28

3 of 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Second Affirmative Defense

1

Waiver

2 3 4 5 6

20. The claims being advanced by Plaintiffs are barred by virtue of the Plaintiff’s acts and/or omissions that amount to a waiver, including but, not limited to attempting to enforce a non-negotiable promissory note by way of an invalid non-judicial foreclosure sale.

7 8

Third Affirmative Defense

9

Estoppel

10

21. This answering defendant is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that

11 12

Plaintiffs have engaged in conduct and activities, and by reason of said activities and conduct are

13

estopped from asserting any claims for damages or seeking any other relief against this

14

answering Defendant.

15

Fourth Affirmative Defense

16

Failure To Mitigate Damages

17 18

22. Plaintiffs though under a duty to do so, have failed and neglected to mitigate

19

their damages and, therefore, cannot recover against these answering Defendants whether as

20

alleged or otherwise.

21

Fifth Affirmative Defense

22

Statute of Frauds

23 24

23. The present action is barred by application of the Statute of Frauds because the trustee

25

that conducted the non-judicial foreclosure sale of the defendants’ property, conducted the sale

26

without having possession of the alleged promissory note executed by these answering

27

defendants.

28

4 of 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Sixth Affirmative Defense

1

Statute of Limitations

2 3

24. The present action is barred by application of the applicable statute of limitations.

4 5

Seventh Affirmative Defense

6

Unclean Hands

7 8 9

25. By virtue of Plaintiff’s conduct, Plaintiffs are barred from recovery therein by the doctrine of unclean hands.

10

Eighth Affirmative Defense

11

Standing

12 13

26. This answering defendant alleges that the Plaintiff does not have standing because

14

Plaintiff’s standing is based solely upon an invalid Trustee’s Deed After Sale, which was based

15

upon the enforcement of a promissory note that was not negotiable pursuant to California

16

Commercial Code section 3203 et seq.

17

Ninth Affirmative Defense

18

Reservation of Defendants

19 20 21 22

27. Defendant hereby reserves all defenses unknown at the time of filing this response. Dated: September 11, 2009 _____________________________

23 24 25

Timothy L. McCandless, Esq. Attorney for Defendant, ISCHMAEL O. WHITE

26 27 28

5 of 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

1 2

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 4 5 6 7

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 13240 Amargosa Road, Victorville, California 92392, which is located in the county where the mailing described took place. On October 31, 2009, I served the foregoing document(s) described: DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

8

Which were served upon:

9

ATTORNEYS FOR BLUE MOUNTAIN MORTGAGE, LLC.

10 11

RICHARD HOBIN LAW OFFICE 1011 A Street Antioch, CA 94509

12 13

xx I deposited the foregoing documents in the United States Postal Service. Executed on: September 14, 2009, in Victorville, California.

14 15 16 17 18 19

(State) XXXX I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (Federal) ____ I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. _______ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s) above.

20 21 22

___________________________

23 24 25 26 27 28

6 of 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER