Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

ase 3:03-cv-01009-SRU Document 102 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 1 013 l
ZEH5 AUG 22 F-) 2=`58
UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUl;?q.?..l§l.lf.*;§Tl ‘
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT " " l " ii"` " " ' `l`
JOSEPH ATTIAS & HAIM ATTIAS : CIVIL NO. 3:03 CV 01009 (SRU)
Plaintiffs : !
PATRONS MUTUAL INSURANCE : l
COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT : |
Defendant : August 19, 2005
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
DEFENDANT’S SUBSTITUTED COUNTERCLAIM DATED AUGUST 1, 2005
I. Paragraph I is admitted.
2. Paragraph 2 is denied.
3. Paragraph 3 is denied.
1
4. Paragraph 4 is admitted.
5. The plaintiffs have no or inadequate knowledge of the facts contained in paragraph 5 and therefore
leave the defendant to it proof. I
6. In so far as the allegations in paragraph 6 alleges that the defendant paid the plaintiffs’ mortgage l
’ bank $114,000 it admitted. As to the remaining allegations regarding the basis on which said payment was l
made, the plaintiffs have insufficient infomation on which to form a belief and therefore leave the
defendant to its proof.
7. In so far as paragraph 7 alleges that the defendant made a payment of $20,000 to the plaintiff is
admitted. The remaining allegations are denied.
8. Paragraph 8 is denied.
9. Paragraph 9 is denied. l

ig Le -- I .. I .. I __ I __ gg __ gg __ gg __ _ 0 _ 0 lllllllllllln it
e..e

ase 3:03-cv-01009-SRU Document 102 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 2 of 3 I
I
l
BY WAY OF FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I
The defendant’s counterclaim fails to state a legal claim on which relief can be granted. I
l
BY WAY OF SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I
l
The defendant’s claim of breach of contract is barred by the limitations period set forth within the I
subject contract. I
BY WAY OF THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I
The defendant’s claim for subrogation fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted in that
the defendant did not obtain an assignment from the mortgagee.
BY WAY OF FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE _
The defendanfs claim for uniust enrichment fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted as
a matter of law.
I
BY WAY OF FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The defendanfs claim for subrogation is invalid as a matter of law in that the mortgagee has
released the plaintiffs from the subject mortgage prior to the commencement by the defendant of this I
I
counterclaim. I
l
2

i
ase 3:03-cv-01009-SRU Document 102 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 3 of 3
THE PLAINTIFFS, _
./.- »~-·— .-#"’ - . ’
/J _· ·‘`'` ` .»*” y
BY IM K- ` _ I- l _,··~·*""""‘*·—·~._\\
“heryl “ n r ‘
Farve » ffernan
284 é • Dixwell Avenue
Hamden, Connecticut 06518
Telephone: 203—288—8266
` Facsimile: 203-288-4702
Fed Bar No.:CT 06473
I
CERTIFICATION X
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid this 19th
day of August 2005, to:
Joel Rottner, Esq. g
Skelley Rottner P.C.
PO Box 340890
Hartford, CT 06134-0890 - ·
4 Iheryl l I
i
i
3 I