verified answer to wells fargo bank cross-action

8/3/2019 Verified Answer to Wells Fargo Bank Cross-Action

1/25

- 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

Dwight A. Bennett

In Propria Persona

P.O. Box 540

Susanville, CA 96130

530-257-2555

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; JUDITHA. 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.


2/25

- 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

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.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as

Trustee for MLMI Trust Series 2005-

HE3 and BAC HOME LOANS

SERVICING, LP, a Texas limited

Partnership, 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


3/25

- 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

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 isinformed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

II. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2, cross-defendant Bennett isinformed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

III.Answering the allegations of Paragraph 3, cross-defendant Bennett isinformed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

IV.Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4, cross-defendant Bennett admitsthat each and every allegation contained therein is correct.

V. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 5, cross-defendant Bennettis informed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

VI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, cross-defendant Bennettis informed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

VII.Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-defendant Bennett allegesthat 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 Bennett isinformed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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


4/25

- 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

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 Bennett isinformed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12, of the Cross-Complaint,Cross-Defendant denies generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and


XIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 13, cross-defendant Bennettalleges 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 Bennettis informed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 15, of the Cross-Complaint,Cross-Defendant denies generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and


XVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 16, cross-defendantBennett 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 wasinformed and believes that he and Norman Allen believed that the Improvements


5/25

- 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

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-Defendantis 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.

XIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 19, cross-defendantBennett is informed and believes that the information contained therein 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-defendantBennett 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-defendantBennett is informed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XXIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 23, cross-defendantBennett 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


6/25

- 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

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)

XXIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 24, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I,

through XXIV, of Cross-Complainants purported Cause of Action the same as

though fully set out herein at length.

XXV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 25, cross-defendantBennett is informed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XXVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 26, 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 allegation contained

in said Paragraph 26.

XXVII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 27, cross-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow

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

Paragraph 27.

XXVIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 28, cross-defendantBennett alleges that Option One Mortgage Inc., and Summit Financial Group Inc.,


7/25

- 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

induced the transaction that is central to this controversy against Bennetts 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,


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

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

XXIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 29, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I,

through XXVIII, of Cross-Complainants purported Cause of Action the same as


XXX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 30, Cross-Defendant Bennettalleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to

answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 30.

XXXI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 31, Cross-DefendantBennett is informed and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XXXII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 32, Cross-Defendant isinformed and believes, that he at no time entered into contractual agreement with

Wells Fargo Bank nor caused the existence of 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


8/25

- 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

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 wasinformed 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 said Paragraph 33,


XXXIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 34, reasserts the abovestated 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


9/25

- 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

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 theabove 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 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

Bennetts expense. To the best of Bennetts 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


10/25

- 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

(For Equitable Subrogation Against Bennett and St. John)

XXXVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 36, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I,

through XXXV, of Cross-Complainants purported Cause of Action the same as


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 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-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow


Paragraph 38.

XXXIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 39, cross-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow


Paragraph 39.


11/25

- 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

XL. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 40, cross-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow


Paragraph 40.

XLI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 41, cross-defendantBennett 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


herein at length.

XLIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 43, cross-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief regarding St. Johns intentions

or actions sufficient at this time to allow him to answer and so denies each and

every allegation contained in said Paragraph 43.

XLIV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 44, cross-defendantBennett 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 paidoff the Existing Mortgage,

directly and/or incidentally was caused by frauds and the intentional negligence of

others.


12/25

- 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

XLV. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 45, cross-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow


Paragraph 45.

XLVI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 46, cross-defendantBennett 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.

XLVII. Cross-complainants statement in Paragraph 47 is notunderstandable 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-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow


13/25

- 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


Paragraph 48.

XLIX. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 49, cross-defendantBennett 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)

L. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 50, of the cross-complaint,cross-defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through XLIX, of


herein at length.

LI. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 51, cross-defendantBennett alleges that he has no information or belief of St. Johns intentions now


14/25

- 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

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


LII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 52, cross-defendant isinformed 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 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 couples 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-


15/25

- 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

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 52.

LIII. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 53, cross-defendant isinformed 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 isinformed 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 assertsinexcusable 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 Fargos standing in the courts as Beneficiary. As such,

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



16/25

- 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

LVI. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 55, cross-defendant isinformed 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 WFBs & BACs 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,


SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

LVII. This Answering Cross-Defendant offers no answer to theSeventh 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 answering 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.


17/25

- 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

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(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.


18/25

- 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

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Apportionment)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon 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)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon 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)



obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by way of its Cross-Complaint each and


19/25

- 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

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)

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


20/25

- 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

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 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.


21/25

- 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

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Mutual Mistake)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

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



obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by way of their 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

_________________________________


22/25

- 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

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.

DATED: November 10, 2010

___________________________________

Dwight A. Bennett, In Pro Per


23/25

- 23 -


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

.


24/25

- 24 -


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


25/25

- 25 -

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

verified answer to wells fargo bank cross-action

Documents