Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 92 Filed O4/27/2004 Paget of 4 T r

i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT B H)
DISTRICT OP CONNECTICUT
3i}ii]é`§$iijZ5i£{§ri$EE§E`iZi{L`i]i§,E, ```````'`````` ` ```````" ii all rss 2 i A ri sq i
: Case No.O3—CV-1016 (RNC)(DFM)
Plaintiff, : ji FZ, ii is-ii »
—-against- April 26, 2004 in M: U all
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
..-•..-....-..-......».·...•..-.--.......-»-----. -----------------.--...-.. - ........ -i ........ ..X
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiff, Julie Dillon Ripley Miller, by her attorneys, Begos & Horgan, LLP, for her reply to
Defenclant’s Counterclaims ("Counterclaims") answers as follows:
I. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph l of the Counterclaim.
2. Admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Counterclaim.
3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Counterclaim.
4. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Counterclaim, and begs
leave to refer to the originals ofthe referenced documents for their true terms. Plaintiff specifically
denies that any attorney-in-fact had authority to execute the identified documents.
5. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Counterclaim.
6. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, I5 and 16 of the
Counterclaim, and begs leave to refer to the originals of the referenced documents for their true
terms.

EEE-- fT"`”`”" rr —¥f QQTQQ gr, ____ pa___ pig an- nn vp l pv--Al g


X Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 92 Filed O4/27/2004 Page 2 of 4
7. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraph 17 of the Counterclaim.
8. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Counterclaim.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
9. Answering paragraph 19 of the Counterclaim, repeats each allegation set forth above.
10. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the Counterclaim.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
11. Answering paragraph 23 ofthe Counterclaim, repeats each allegation set forth above.
12. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Counterclaim.
FIRST DEFENSE
The Note and Mortgage were fraudulently procured, and are otherwise unenforceable, for the
reasons set forth in plaintiffs complaint in this action.
SECOND DEFENSE .
Plaintiff’ s alleged attorney-in-fact did not have authority to enter into the Note and Mortgage
or any other documents that he purportedly signed. `
THIRD DEFENSE
To the extent the Note and/or Mortgage are enforceable, any default was caused by
Defendant’s improper and unlawful acts, including improperly converting plaintiff` s assets.
FOURTH DEFENSE
The Counterclaims are barred by defendant’ s unclean hands and/or failure to act in good faith.

_ Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 92 Filed O4/27/2004 Page 3 of 4 {
FIFTH DEFENSE
The Counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by plaintiff s rights of setoff and
recoupment.
SIXTH DEFENSE
The Note and Mortgage were, and are, unconscionable, and are therefore unenforceable.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
The Second Counterclaim is barred by C.G.S.A. § 49-l.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
MLCC’s attorneys’ fees are outrageous and unreasonable.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully demands judgment awarding the relief requested in the
Second Amended Complaint, dismissing the Counterclaims, and awarding such other relief as the
Court deems fair.
PLAINTIFF
By: {
Patr ck W. Begos (ctl9090)
BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP
327 Riverside Avenue l
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 226-9990
(203) 222-4833 (fax)
3

l
i

A Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 92 Filed O4/27/2004 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed via first class mail, postage prepaid, on
April 26, 2004 to:
Thomas P. Friedman, Esq.
Paul, Hastings, J anofsky & Walker, LLP
1055 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901-2217
Q Patrick W. Begos
E
“ i