Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

ii’ii"i°“‘ 019Ch%eF{S}iO3—cv-01016-WWE Document 122 Filed O2/11/2005 Page 1 er muuzxoss
li p '
O3 LO rs fer D
' i P I. H .
sPé`¢lUl HGSUHQS 1i§'5w3?1Ii§131“i£.'.lll§`{¤”i i§}.iZ$1ELE·1 1
;,·jAiT¤RNEY5 islsphsne 203 961 7400 - fsssimlle 203 359 3 1 · wwupaulhastIngs.¤nm
>‘ . c
1 as
an O ‘;· `T" `·
01 ._ {[1;, .,
S T .1
3 (202.) 961-7498 . _ - `-_ .- {
_ pg thomasf1:[email protected] Y_>`_ _ Â¥1_[_,~\ .
HE % ;·h.·1.i DJ`;) 'U ii
1 s 1; December 15, 2004 :,.,~_;‘,C, 1§$13,01·@z1
set` to · is i
LH 8 vm AC AND LHIQIE r—¤ ud _ ,
Ei G; I-Ion. Donna F. Martinez
_ Q E United dtates Magisuutejudge
- Q S 450 Main Sitcet
U up Hartford, CT 06103
O c
C ii Re: julie Dillon Ripley Miller v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation (" CCI") 1
g ei No 3:03-CV—1016 (RNC,) (Di—`M)
E -*3
i s
§ ug Your Honor:
c
2 Z4 Pursuant to the Courth scheduling order, wc have conferred with opposin counsel
E ,,, conce1.·nin_g_- the above-referencecl subject. We have not succeeded in resol ` g any
la Q differences with respect to the parties anticipated summary judgment inoii ns.
M 4:
2 Therefore, this will constitute our renewed request to the Court for a pre- ' g coiiference
¤> coucemin Defendants summm. `ud ent motion which will encom ass lV.lLCC's
_,, te S 'Yl Bm _ P
g. 3 afnrmative claims of foreclosure and a claim under the Note as well as its efenses to the
o N \ various claims made by plaintiff of knowledge, rat`cation, estoppel or wai er, contractual
E U; bar, and st:-itue of limitations as to certain of the claims ruadc
cv N l
in g · At issue in this litigation is the validity of a $7,500,UOO mortgage loan by D fendant to
ii g 1 Plairiiiff closed on or about December 7, 1999 pursuant to a power of atto ey. The loan
is 2 ttansacuon included a pledge of securities. Plaintiff claims that the power f attorney
E 8 \ ("l’OA") was defective in various respects, while not disputing the loan w s in fact made. l
in O
fi E . MLCC will prove that the POA was valid, and alternatively that Plaintiff o erwise ratified
U1 M ci or is haired by the principles of waiver and estoppel &om asseriing the in 'dity of the
E o S transaction. There are also statute of limitations issues. Plaintiffls defense atc similarly
3 g "¤ subjcctto sumrnaryjudgment.
(D
in QC ~ Further Plaintiff has defaulted on her note and mor e secutin M.LCC’ interest b her _
fl-- 1 @*-3 3 Y
1% ii failure to a ro et taxes on the to crt at issue and her failure to pay her mo a i
O. G P Y P P PY P P Y **3 3**
as e - A j fgjpayinents when due. Plainiiff also failed to cure these defaults upon prop noiice.
Q o ld ,, 0P`iMlg.CC is therefore eniitlecl to srunmary juclgztnent for foreclosure as well.
s g tp 1,0 pz; gw
M Q, . Q- IMM Vi:
Q'} O £..C1¤':;iiZ
iii 5 li--KU ""‘“ !Q.Q`..T0
`°" '"' .
E 2 ii _f
H *’ is ii? *75 i
- **>$**0¥‘i1?· ata n 9 .9 9. _ _-,i_- 9 -i-i-i-i'i'i`i`i‘
, __ .... . Q Q i_,, Q .l,i P 0, ,,,,,i 0 Q f j ’ 0 * *
P ?**¥i*¥*0¥ii‘ e-`e i Z; 9 n .-.. .-., _ _i_-_i n i-i-i-i'i'i`i`i‘i
,, .... . .. i... [ .i.i.i pf ppppl 0 0 , ii,, 0 [ 0 0 *

. I
1 12/15/#2004 18:13 FAX _
1 1 - , Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 122 Fneen 02/1 1/2005 Page of 2@ °°°”°°5 1
Pau|H¤stir1gs 1
HFIURNEY5 I

Hon. Donna F. Martinez I
United States Magsttatejudge
December 15, 2004
Page 2
The parties zzcmductcd a pre-Bling conference with Your I·Ic:·rmr pzseviousl and have
enclosed the prim: letter xequesting said conference, but we axe resubmi ` this letter to _
ensure l\/.[LCC`.”s right to Elc Summary judgment.
Very tJ.‘u.ly yours, 1
Thomas P. Friedman 1
for PA LIL, I-1'.ASTINGS,]ANO]?SI cc: Patrick W. Bcgos, Esq. {C0u.nsel for I·‘1a.intiff;via facsimile)
Douglas C. Cumby, ESQ,.
s1*M;z¤;1a·11.s 1
1
1