Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

an W Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 174 Filed 08/O4/2006 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
3%}f.ii§.`i3i}]}fZ$i£t`l{t§ijEi}`t§iiL]—Y;§ ``````````````````````` if
: Case No.03-CV-] 016 (WWE)
Plaintiff] :
I — against- April 4, 2005
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
----·----------------------------·--·------- ·-· —-------------- »····· ·-·-· X
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiff] Julie Dillon Ripley Miller, by her attorneys, Begos & Horgan, LLP, for her reply to
Defendanfs Counterclaims (as contained in Defendant’s Answer to Third Amended Complaint and
Counterclairn) ("Counterclaims") answers as follows:
_ h 1. Denies knowledge or infomation sufficient to fom a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph 1 ofthe Counterclaimss.
n 2. Admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Cotmterclaimss.
3. Denies knowledge or infomation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Counterclaims.
4. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 ofthe Counterclaims, 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 doctunents.
5. Denies knowledge or infomation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims.

1 1 oeiee $03-cv-01016-WWE Document 174 Filed oa/04/2006 Page 2 of 4
0 6. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 9, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 ofthe
Counterclaims, and begs leave to refer to the originals of the referenced documents for their true
terms.
7. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraph 17 ofthe Counterclaims.
8. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to fonn a belief as to the truth of the
allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims.
I FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
9. Answering paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims, repeats each allegation set forth above.
I 10. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 ofthe Counterclaims.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
1 1. Answering paragraph 23 ofthe Counterclaims, repeats each allegation set forth above.
_ 12. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Counterclaims.
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
13. Answering paragraph 27 of the Counterclairns, repeats each allegation set forth above.
14. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the
. Counterclaims, and begs leave to refer to the originals of the referenced documents for their true
terms.
FIRST DEFENSE
The Note and Mortgage were fraudulently procured, and are otherwise unenforceable, for the
reasons set forth in the Third Amended Complaint in this action.
2

I an I I I I llll if an Case 3:03-cv—(j1-O16-WWE Document 174 Filed 08/O4/2006 Page 3 of 4
SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiffs 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
Defendanfs improper and unlawful acts, including improperly converting plaintiffs assets.
FOURTH DEFENSE
The Counterclaims are barred by defendanfs unclean hands and/or failure to act in good faith.
FIFTH DEFENSE
The Counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by plaintiff s rights of setoff and
F recouprnent.
_ 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. § 49-1.
EIGI-ITH DEFENSE
· MLCC’s attorneys’ fees are outrageous and unreasonable.
NINTH DEFENSE
Given MLCC’s misconduct, as alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, equitable
subrogation is not warranted to prevent injustice if the Note and Mortgage are formd to be
unenforceable.
3

Case 3:03-cv—O1016-WWE Document 174 Filed 08/O4/2006 Page 4 of 4
TENTH DEFENSE
The balance of the equities compels denial of equitable subrogation.
WI-IEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully demands judgment awarding the relief requested in the
Third Amended Complaint, dismissing the Counterclaims, and awarding such other relief as the
Court deems fair.
PLAINTIFF
Christoph G. rown (ctl 8216)
BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP
327 Riverside Avenue
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 226-9990
(203) 222-4833 (fax)
.. . email: [email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on August 3, 2006, a copy ofthe foregoing was delivered via first class
mail to:
Douglas C. Conroy, Esq.
Paul, Hastings, J anofsky & Walker LLP
1055 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901-2217
Jonathan S. Bowman, Esq.
Cohen and Wolf
_ 1 115 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Clnistophed G. Brown
4