Answer To Verified X Action

c
Dwight A. Bennett

In Propria Persona
P.O. Box 540
Susanville, CA 96130
530-257-2555

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LASSEN

NORMAN W. ALLEN

LEAD CASE NO.: 45679
Plaintiff,

vs. (Consolidated with: 50324 & 46190)

SUMMIT FINANCIAL GROUP; DANA CAPITOL Unlimited Jurisdiction
CORP.; STEVE WEICH; ROD HOSILYK; DWIGHT A.
BENNETT; JUDITH A. ST. JOHN; WILSHIRE
CREDIT; CORPORATION; EVANS APPRAISAL
ANSWER TO VERIFIED
SERVICES.INC.; and DOES 1-10,
CROSS-COMPLAINT
Defendants,
Trial Date: None Set.

NORMAN W. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK
N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MLMI TRUST
SERIES 2005-HE3, AND DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

c cc c
Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

c
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as

Trustee for MLMI Trust Series 2005-
HE3 and BAC HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP, a Texas limited
Partnership, successor by merger to
Wilshire Credit Corporation,
Cross-Complainants,
Vs.

NORMAN W. ALLEN, DWIGHT A.
BENNETT, JUDITH A. ST. JOHN,
EVANS APPRAISAL SERVICES,
INC., and ROES 1-10

Cross-Defendants.

AND ALL OTHER CROSS-ACTIONS

COMES NOW the Cross-Defendant, Dwight A. Bennett, for himself alone and in answering the
allegations of the Cross-Complaint on file herein, affirms, denies, and alleges as follows:

I.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
believes that the information contained therein is correct.

II.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and


III.cAnswering the allegations of Paragraph 3, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and believes

that the information contained therein is correct.
IV.cAnswering the allegations of Paragraph 4, cross-defendant Bennett admits that each and
every allegation contained therein is correct.
V.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 5, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
VI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
c cc c

c
VII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that he has no

information or belief sufficient to allow him to answer and so denies each and every allegation

contained in said Paragraph 7.

VIII.cAnswering the allegations of Paragraph 8, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and believes

that the information contained therein is correct.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Declaratory Relief Against Allen, St. John. And Bennett)

IX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 9, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant
incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through VIII, of cross-complainants¶ purported Cause
of Action the same as though fully set out herein at length.

X.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 10, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant

denies generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive, each and every allegation

contained therein.

XI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 11, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
XII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant
contained therein.
XIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that he has no
information or belief sufficient to allow him to answer and so denies each and every allegation

XIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 14, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and


XV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 15, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant

contained therein.
XVI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that he
has no information or belief sufficient to allow him to answer and so denies each and every allegation
c cc c

c
XVII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 17, Cross-Defendant was informed and

believes that he and Norman Allen believed that the Improvements were subsequently located on the

14 acres rather than the 40 acres. Except as heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant denies each and

every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

XVIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 18, Cross-Defendant is informed and
believes, that at all times relevant, he and Norman Allen intended the Improvements to be part of the
14 acres. Except as heretofore admitted, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining
allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
XIX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 19, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
XX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 20, cross-defendant Bennett is informed

and believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XXI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 21, cross-defendant Bennett is informed

and believes that the mistaken belief that the Improvements were on the 14 acres reflects in part the

appraised value of the subject property in 2005, except as heretofore admitted, cross-defendant

denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and
disjunctive.
XXII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 22, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
XXIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 23, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
believes that a real controversy exists requiring a judicial determination of the respective rights, duties
and responsibilities of all parties to these transactions, including principle parties not herein named to
date. Defendant Bennett further provides notice to the court therein reserving the right, upon

discovery the of the identities of those yet unnamed parties to; set out complaints or cross-complaints

as required; and by leave of the Court to affect full remedy under the law. Except as heretofore

admitted, Cross-Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in

the conjunctive and disjunctive.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Rescission Against Allen)

c cc c

c
XXIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 24, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-

Defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through XXIV, of Cross-Complainants¶

purported Cause of Action the same as though fully set out herein at length.

XXV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 25, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and

XXVI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 26, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that he
has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer and so denies each and
every allegation contained in said Paragraph 26.
XXVII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 27, cross-defendant Bennett alleges
that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer and so denies each
and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 27.

XXVIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 28, cross-defendant Bennett alleges

that Option One Mortgage Inc., and Summit Financial Group Inc., induced the transaction that is

central to this controversy against Bennett¶s will. In so doing said parties and their agents are guilty of

³inexcusable negligence´. Option One Mortgage Inc. thus created a relationship of ³detrimental

reliance´ by their actions and Wells Fargo stands in the shoes of Wells Fargo. Except as heretofore
admitted, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(For reformation Against Allen, Bennett, and St. John)

XXIX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 29, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant

incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through XXVIII, of Cross-Complainants¶ purported

Cause of Action the same as though fully set out herein at length.

XXX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 30, Cross-Defendant Bennett alleges that he

has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer and so denies each and
XXXI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 31, Cross-Defendant Bennett is informed and

c cc c

c
XXXII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 32, Cross-Defendant is informed and

believes, that he at no time entered into contractual agreement with Wells Fargo Bank nor caused the

existence any alleged ³WFB Deed of Trust´ if such instrument exists. Where is the contract and note

that binds Bennett in privity and establishing his ³intended benefits´ or ³respective bargains´ for

reformation? Except as heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant denies each and every allegation,
generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
XXXIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 33, Cross-Defendant was informed and
believes, that he did not then nor does he now benefit from the sale by paying off the previously
Existing Mortgage with the sale proceeds as alleged and that the inverse is true. As to the allegation
set forth by Wells Fargo and BAC that ³Bennett [k]new the only way to receive enough money to pay
off the Existing Mortgage was to convey the Improvements along with the 14 acres´, answering this
allegation cross-defendant denies each and every allegation, generally and specifically, in the

conjunctive and disjunctive. As to the benefit or lack thereof to St. John as alleged, cross-defendant

Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer and

so denies each and every remaining allegation contained in said Paragraph 33, generally and

specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
XXXIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 34, reasserts the above stated claims of
negligence, misrepresentation, and detrimental reliance at the minimum against Option One Mortgage
and Summit and again asserting that if said Cross-Complainants¶ positions as alleged by each, are
true, Wells Fargo and BAC stand in the shoes of the parties named above to who they answer as
agents. Answering the same allegations herein Bennett further asserts that he in no manner has now
nor ever had any relationship of privity with Cross-Complainants of this action. At no time did he have
privity in contract, real or proposed, written or verbal, with Option One Mortgage or Wilshire. Wells

Fargo and BAC attempt herein to rewrite the rules of equity in forcing reformation upon a third party

under the claim of ³mutual mistake´ asserting ³respective bargains´ where none existed between

themselves and Bennett. Further answering the allegations of Paragraph 34, he asserts that he has

no true knowledge if Wells Fargo is the Beneficiary of the resultant Promissory Note and Deed of
Trust as claimed. If so then by investing even a cursory amount of due diligence as operators of a
mortgage business, Wells Fargo would have discovered that the legal description is included in the
mortgage and likely reveals the true nature of the parcel to mortgage lenders. Except as heretofore

c cc c

c
admitted, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in


XXXV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 35, Bennett reasserts the above stated

claims of negligence, misrepresentation, and detrimental reliance at the minimum against Option One

Mortgage and Wilshire. Additionally in answering these allegations, Bennett alleges that substantially
precedent to the entry of Wells and BAC as cross-complainants Wells Fargo as Beneficiary filed a
claim(s) with Chicago Title Insurance Company Inc., for recovery under the A.L.T.A. title insurance
policy purchased by Bennett for the protection of all parties to the sales transaction. Wells Fargo now
claiming inequitable enrichment against Bennett and others in its Cross-Action, makes no mention of
the insured position it enjoys at Bennett¶s expense. To the best of Bennett¶s knowledge, until named
as defendants by Allen, Wells Fargo and Wilshire (BAC) asserted that they held no direct economic
interest in these proceedings and as such were released or unnamed as Defendants. Except as

heretofore admitted, Cross-Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Equitable Subrogation Against Bennett and St. John)

XXXVI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 36, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-
Defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through XXXV, of Cross-Complainants¶
XXXVII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 37, of the cross-complaint, cross-

defendant alleges that Wells Fargo seeks subrogation in direct contradiction of the elements of the

doctrine of equity. If this is accomplished it would pave the road to compounded profits through

predatory lending practices. Notwithstanding the law forbidding subrogation when no agreement of the

parties is express or implied in debt equity, Wells Fargo and BAC seek forced subrogation in the face

of actions by their ³predecessors´ chargeable with fraud, culpable & inexcusable negligence, forced
reliance and more. Aside from the inequitable enrichment clearly available to Wells Fargo and BAC
through the aggregate of title insurance, foreclosure of the subject property, and subrogation of the
adjacent property, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and
c cc c

c
XXXVIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 38, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that

he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer and so denies each and


XXXIX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 39, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that

XL.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 40, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that
XLI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 41, cross-defendant Bennett denies each
and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 41.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For equitable Lien Against Allen, Bennett, and St. John)

XLII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 42, of the cross-complaint, cross-
defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through XLI, of cross-complainants¶
XLIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 43, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that
he has no information or belief regarding St. John¶s intentions or actions sufficient at this time to allow
him to answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 43.
XLIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 44, cross-defendant Bennett is informed

and believes that others enacted the process requiring conveyance of Improvements. Additionally in

answering these allegations, he is informed and believes the conveyance that ³paid off the Existing

Mortgage´, directly and/or incidentally was caused by frauds and the intentional negligence of others.

XLV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 45, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that

XLVI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 46, cross-defendant Bennett denies in part
the allegation contained in said Paragraph 46, in that the payoff of the existing mortgage was
substantially less than $437,000.00. Outrageous fees were charged for said credit including ³yield
c cc c

c
spread premiums´ and other ³garbage fees´ too extensive for this writing. The forced reliance as

stated above precipitated expenses, penalties, and other costs to Bennett in excess of $100,000.00 by

completion of the initial transaction, this from the direct actions of Summit, Option One, Dana Capitol,

and others. Further payments and costs in addition, both precedent and antecedent to that event. The

equity losses and other costs that continue to accrue for Bennett are equal to or greater than the
$437,000.00 claimed in this cross-action. In answering the allegations of Paragraph 46, beyond that
stated above cross-defendant Bennett alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this
time to allow him to answer more fully and so denies each and every other allegation contained in said
Paragraph 46.
XLVII.c Cross-complainants¶ statement in Paragraph 47 is not understandable or
inconclusive and as such, cross-defendant Bennett denies each and every allegation contained in said
Paragraph 47.

XLVIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 48, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that



XLIX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 49, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that
he has no information or belief that all parties of liability or actionable responsibility are yet unnamed in
this multi-case complex action. Answering further allegations herein, he has no belief that a court of
equity would uphold the claims of entitlement of lien asserted. He has no true understanding of what
positions Wells Fargo & BAC currently hold nor despite the claims ³their intended positions´. Certainty
these parties have already claimed numerous conflicting positions without providing any proof or
documentation whatsoever. Each vaguely asserted position is under terminology and ³title´ with
complex multiple meanings to the mortgage industry. These ³titles´ are not discernable without case

specific contractual clarity of which they offer none; as such, cross-defendant denies each and every

remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Mortgage Against Bennett, St. John, and Allen)

c c c c

c
L.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 50, of the cross-complaint, cross-

defendant incorporates herein the answers to Paragraphs I, through XLIX, of cross-complainants


LI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 51, cross-defendant Bennett alleges that

he has no information or belief of St. John¶s intentions now or at the time in question, sufficient at this
time to allow him to answer and so denies each and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 51
generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
LII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 52, cross-defendant is informed and
believes that it that the certificate of compliance that separated the two parcels and created the
controversy now at bar was undertaken after extensive misrepresentation by Steve Weich, Rod
Hosilyk, Summit Financial Group and their ³buddy and underwriter´ in preparation of refinancing the
subject property. Bennett and St. John were ³prequalified´. According to Summit Financial they were to

benefit dramatically by the low mortgage interest rates available. At all times prior to January 2005

Bennett was informed and believed that NO portion of the 54 acres was to be conveyed. Weich and

Hosliyk repeatedly claimed prior to the events in question to have ³discovered´ that the 54 acre ranch

was composed of two old parcels. ³Their underwriter´ who was represented to be ³one of best in the
business´ agreed and allegedly advised them after studying an earlier title report, that the optimum
loan conditions would be achieved by refinancing the smaller parcel that, they asserted after their
onsite inspections, held the Improvements. Bennett & St. John had good credit ratings with low
income to debt ratios and anticipated refinancing the ranch. On or about October 1, 2004 St. John
ceased sending in the monthly mortgage payments upon the ³advice of Summit and µtheir underwriter´
that was later revealed as an employee of Option One Mortgage. In early January 2005, St. John
drained the community bank accounts (5) and removed herself from the couple¶s home; Bennett

learned the property was 90 plus days in arrears. The ³lenders´ and St. John quickly substituted Allen

as buyer to ³save the ranch´. Beyond that stated above cross-defendant, Bennett alleges that he has

no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer more fully and so denies each and

every other allegation contained in said Paragraph 52.
LIII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 53, cross-defendant is informed and
believes the note executed by Allen was with Option One Mortgage Corporation. Contrary to claims by
Summit Financial, the loan packages for Bennett, St. John, and Allen were not submitted to any lender
other than Option One. Beyond that stated above cross-defendant, Bennett alleges that he has no
c c
c c

c
information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer more fully and so denies each and

every other allegation contained in said Paragraph 53.

LIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 54, cross-defendant is informed and

believes that standard procedure for conveyance of real estate often necessitates retirement of the

existing deed of trust. The ³Option One Note´ executed by Allen with Wells Fargo Bank N.A. as
Trustee, and serviced by Wilshire was ³deposited´ into the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Instruments
investment scheme 2005 HE-3. Option One Mortgage Corporation ³paid off´ the Existing Mortgage.
Cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in the
conjunctive and disjunctive.
LV.c Answering the allegations in Paragraph 54, Bennett again asserts inexcusable
negligence on the part of Option One Mortgage and is informed and believes that little credence will
be found in the so called, ³WFB Deed of Trust´ or in Trustee Wells Fargo¶s standing in the courts as

³Beneficiary´. As such, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and


LVI.c Answering the allegations in Paragraph 55, cross-defendant is informed and

believes that Wells Fargo and BAC are acting as agents for the true beneficiary. Until proof of proper
endorsement to the original Note and Deed establishes legal ownership, some parties of interest in
equity remain unknown. Bennett believes ³WFB¶s´ & BAC¶s asserted claims of security interest as
³beneficiaries´ to be meritless. If cross-complainants¶ lack of standing, as alleged above and confirmed
in the belatedly ³verified´ Answers to Complaints submitted by the same, then there is no ³Equitable
Mortgage´ here to which they would be parties. Beyond that stated above cross-defendant, Bennett
alleges that he has no information or belief sufficient at this time to allow him to answer more fully and
as such denies the allegations spoken to each and every remaining allegation, generally and


SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION

LVII.c This Answering Cross-Defendant offers no answer to the Seventh and Eighth

Causes of Action in that there are no allegations against him therein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

c cc c

c
First Affirmative Defense

(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
This answer c cc cing Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint, and
each and every Cause of Action therein fails to state a Cause of Action against this Answering Cross-
Defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands)

These answering cross-defendants allege that to the extent the Cross-complainants seek equitable
relief, Cross-complainants' inequitable conduct constitutes unclean hands and therefore bars the granting
of relief to Cross-complainants herein.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Contributory Negligence)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Cross-

Complainants proximately caused the damages referred to in the Cross-Complaint by Cross-Complainants,

and/or others affiliated in any manner with Cross-Complainants. In that at all times relevant herein, Cross-

Complainants, failed to exercise for their own protection the proper care and precautions which prudent

persons under the same and similar circumstances would have exercised. That if this answering Cross-
Defendant committed any wrongful act at all (which supposition is made for the purpose of his defense
without admitting such to be a fact), the aforesaid conduct of Cross-Complainants and/or entities or
persons associated in any manner with the Cross-Complainants contributed to the happenings of Cross-
Complainants¶ alleged damages.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Offset)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that he has suffered damage by reason of Cross-Complainants¶

conduct; that he has the right of offset if any amount of money is owed to Cross-Complainants or due

Cross-Complainants by way of damage.

c cc c

c
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Apportionment)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the matters complained
of in the Cross-Complainant were proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of a

third party or parties or Cross-Complainants. Accordingly, the liability of the Cross-Complainants and

responsible parties, named or unnamed, should be apportioned according to their respective degrees of

fault or other legal responsibility, and the liability, if any, of these answering Cross-Defendant should be

reduced accordingly.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Assumption of the Risk)

This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if there presently exists
or ever existed, any or all of the alleged rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants assert by
way of their Cross-Complaint, said claims or obligations are unenforceable because Cross-Complainants
assumed the risk involved in the transaction.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

or ever existed, any or all of the alleged rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by
way of its Cross-Complaint each and every cause of action in the Cross-Complaint is barred by the
applicable sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Standing)

Cross-Complainants lack standing: Wells Fargo Bank and BAC are not the true owners of the claim sued
upon, are not the real parties in interest and are not shown to be authorized to bring this Cross-Action.

c cc c

c
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(In Pari Delicto)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complainants herein and each and every
purported Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint are barred because Cross-Complainants have engaged

in acts and courses of conduct which rendered them in pari delicto.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Equitable Estoppel)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complainants herein, and each and every
Cause of Action contained in the Cross-Complaint are barred by reason of acts, omissions, representations
and courses of conduct by Cross-Complainants by which Cross-Defendant was led to rely to their
detriment, thereby barring, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, any Causes of Action asserted by the
Cross-Complainants.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Condition Precedent)

This answering Cross-Defendant allege that performance by these Cross-Complainants of certain acts
were contingent upon receipt of specific instructions or otherwise properly directed any action which
supposedly were to be undertaken by these Cross-Complainants, thus Cross-Complainants authority,

direction and cooperation was a condition precedent to any alleged-obligation-by-these Cross-

Complainants to perform such acts.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Frauds)

c cc c

c
This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complaint is barred by the provisions of Section

1624 of the Civil Code, i.e., the Statute of Frauds.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure of Consideration)

This answering Cross-Defendant alleges that the Cross-Complainants herein and each and every
purported Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint are barred as a result of a failure of consideration.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Mutual Mistake)
This answering Cross-Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if there presently
exists or ever existed, any or all of the alleged rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants seek
by way of their Cross-Complaint, said claims or obligations are unenforceable by reason of mutual mistake.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Agreement is Not Fully Integrated)

or ever existed, any or all of the alleged rights, claims or obligations which Cross-Complainants seek by

way of their Cross-Complaint said claims or obligations are unenforceable because the written agreement

(if any) is not fully integrated.

WHEREFORE, cross-defendant Bennett prays that cross-complainants take nothing by their cross-
complaint and that cross-defendant have judgment against cross-complainants and recover costs of suit
herein incurred, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.

DATED: November 10, 2010 _________________________________

Dwight A. Bennett, In Pro Per

c cc c

c

VERIFICATION

I, Dwight A. Bennett, am a Cross-Defendant in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing; Answer
to Verified Cross-Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except
as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it
to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was

executed at Susanville, California.

DATED: November 10, 2010 ___________________________________

Dwight A. Bennett, In Pro Per

c

c

c

c

c

c cc c

c
c

c

c
c

c cc c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

ccc

c cc c

Answer To Verified X Action

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer To Verified X Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

c

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as

 VI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and

 believes that the information contained therein is correct.

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

 XX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 20, cross-defendant Bennett is informed

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

XXIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 24, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-

 and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 27.

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

XXXII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 32, Cross-Defendant is informed and

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

XXXVII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 37, of the cross-complaint, cross-

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

 and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 41.

XLIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 44, cross-defendant Bennett is informed

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

L.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 50, of the cross-complaint, cross-

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

First Affirmative Defense

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

 (Assumption of the Risk)

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

Answer to Verified Cross-Complaint

You might also like

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as

VI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and

believes that the information contained therein is correct.

XX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 20, cross-defendant Bennett is informed

and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 27.

and every allegation contained in said Paragraph 41.

(Assumption of the Risk)