Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

¥i’Wg°“‘ ‘19Ch%eF{SiiO3—cv-01016-WWE Document 121 Filed O2/11/2005 Page 1 er nuuzxsss
li ( '
0% LO ro rar L
' i P ll H .
gPau| HG$l“mg.S 1iis 111§311IP.'1i1311“i£.'11ill'§.`{.1“f ¥§}.1’il$1iLE·1 1
;··jA1T¤RNEY5 islsphsns 203 961 7400 - fsssimlls 203 359 3 1 · mmpsulhastlngscnm
>‘ . c
E 1 1 as ,
ua C] `L~ `T" `·
01 ._ i.'»;_. .r
Q 500 T .1
8 (203) 961-7498 1 . · it 10 ij.
_ pj [email protected] Y_>`_ _ "" ( $1 _`.`, ~\ .
HE E ;·h.·1.i IILJ`;) A0 li
1 1. Q December 15, 2004 =‘-1·.:le» @313-¤<‘@21
se.‘“ .2.. · s (
.,, g LH1QI·E r—¤ u-! . .
Ei G; I-Ion. Donna F. Martinez
_ Q E United dtates Mngisuutejudge
- Q S 450 Main Street
U up Hartford, CT 06103
O c
C 8 Re: julie Dillon Ripley Miller v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation (" CCI") 1
5 e1 No 3:03-CV—1016 (RNC,) (DEM)
g E1
<¤ Z'
§ ug Your I-Ionor:
c
2 if Pursuant to the Courth scheduling order, we have conferred with opposin counsel
»1 U concerning the above-referenceci subject. We have not succeeded in resol ` g any
.c E, . . . . . _ . .
4.: O differences with respect to the partnes anticipated summary judgment rnou us.
W, rz
2 Therefore, this will constitute our renewed request to the Court for a pre- ' g COIIJECICHCE
pl LO concerning Defendants surumaizy judgment motion which will encompass lVLl`..CC’s
g. 3 afdrmative 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 statue of limitations as to certain of the claims made
cv N l
U) g · At issue in this litigation is the validity of a $7,500,UOO mortgage loan by D fendant to
E E 1 Plaintiff closed on or about December 7, 1999 pursuant to a power of atto ey. The loan
is 2 transacdon 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
ir: O
fi E . MLCC will prove that the POA was valid, and alternatively that Plaintiff o erwise ratified
U1 M ei or is barred 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. Plainiiffls defense are similarly
3 S "¤ subject to summary judgment.
(D
5 CC t Further, Plaintiff has defaulted on her note and mortgage securing l\fI.LCC’ interest by her _
scifi; ii failure to pay property taxes on the property at issue and her failure to pay her mortgage i
e1 gh » Ei j fgjpayinents when due. Plaindff also failed to cure these defaults upon prop noiiee.
E tp) ii lb is therefore entitled to srurunary judgment for foreclosure as well.
g g ....... ici; ·¤~>
PM Q, —-TU Q- IMM F.;)
Qi O ~:..:11#*EQ;
iii 5 li--KU ""‘“ !Q.Q`..?
`°" '"' .
.2 .2 p _z L _f
H *’ is if * if i
- ‘*>i0*¥*‘i;?· rr to n D 9 . D. . _-,i_- D -i-i-i'i'i'i`i‘i‘
j __ .... . [ Q i_,. Q .i.l 9 (pf ppppji 0 f if 0 ' 0 * *
e ?"*¥¥0¥*0¥ii‘ t-`t i = 2;; D n .-.. .-.- _ _i_-_i n i-i-i-i'i'i`i`i‘i
,, .... . .. i... [ .i.l.i pf ppppl 0 0 ( ifjj 0 f 0 0

. I
1 12/15/#2004 18:13 FAX _
1 1 - , Case 3:03-cv-01016-WWE Document 121 Fneen O2/11/2005 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