Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 129 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 1 of 4 I
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
····•·····— —————— ······•-- ---—--——— -·--······- ----- ·-·····--— ------ -·--·-·—· ---- -···-·--- ----- X
I JULIE DILLON RIPLEY MILLER, :
: Case No.03—CV-1016 (RNC)(DFM) I
I Plaintiff, :
— against- : April 4, 2005 I
MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORPORATION, j at gy; I
’ tra
Defendant. : LE
I ~········ ·· ···················~······································ X ¤;>I3§§i —— I
2 °”° M stri I
I PLAINTIFF’S REPLY T0 COUNTERCLAIMS E3: `U
I Cj CD IR) ilrqnf I
I -4 q --
I Plaintiff, Julie Dillon Ripley Miller, by her attorneys, Begos & Horgan, LLP,?fbr hertreply to
I '"' G0
I Defendant’s Counterclaims ("Counterclaims”) answers as follows: i
I
I 1. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the I
allegations set forth in paragraph l of the Counterclaim. I
2. Admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Counterclaim.
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 Counterclaim.
_ 4. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 ofthe 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, ll, 12, 13, 14, 15 and I6 of the
Counterclaim, and begs leave to refer to the originals of the referenced documents for their true
terms. I
I
A fir I - ~ .7 s --er iei,— ?ei_#_ - — wee ee ~--·--raw =¤ -::·;·-;·-· ·· ··-·-- ·---·*-e-·--‘----;--‘-’-’-‘-’--‘
- - - - I - -4;- · r · ··. · r e··- ilu- 1-;-** ‘ - ‘--- --‘-_--"·‘--- *T¢¤';"i"' """""”""`*""""""”"""""""""""""

Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 129 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 2 of 4
7. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraph 17 of the Counterclaim. I
8. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the I
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 .
ll. Answering paragraph 23 of the Counterclaim, repeats each allegation set forth above.
Q l2. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Counterclaim.
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
13. Answering paragraph 27 of the Counterclaim, repeats each allegation set forth above.
14. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and the second paragraph
numbered "30” of the Counterclaim, and begs leave to refer to the originals of the referenced
documents for their true terms.
15. Denies each allegation set forth in paragraph 31 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.
2

Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 129 Filed O4/11/2005 Page 3 of 4 {
THIRD DEFENSE I
l 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. I
FOURTH DEFENSE i
The Counterclaims are barred by defenda1nt’ s unclean hands and! or failure to act in good faith. I
FIFTH DEFENSE l
The Counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by plaintiffs rights of setoff and
recoupment.
SIXTH DEFENSE i
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. l
EIGHTH DEFENSE l
MLCC’s attorneys’ fees are outrageous and unreasonable.
NINTH DEFENSE
Given MLCC’s misconduct, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, equitable subrogation is
not warranted to prevent injustice if the Note and Mortgage are found to be unenforceable. I
TENTH DEFENSE
The balance of the equities compels denial of equitable subrogation.

2 Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 129 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 4 of 4
I WI-IEREF ORE, plaintiff respectfully demands judgment awarding the relief requested in the
l Second Amended Complaint, dismissing the Counterclaims, and awarding such other relief as the
} Court deems fair.
PLAINTIFF
By:
Patrick W. Begos ( t19090) '
BEGOS & HORGAN, LLP
327 Riverside Avenue
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 226-9990
(203) 222-4833 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed via first class mail, postage prepaid, on
April 4, 2005, to:
Douglas C. Conroy, Esq.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP
1055 Washington Boulevard
Patrick W. Begos _M S