Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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
believes that the information contained therein is correct.
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
believes that the information contained therein is correct.
c cc 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
believes that the information contained therein is correct.
XII.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant
denies generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive, each and every allegation
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
contained in said Paragraph 13.
XIV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 14, cross-defendant Bennett is informed and
believes that the information contained therein is correct.
XV.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 15, of the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant
denies generally and specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive, each and every allegation
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
contained in said Paragraph 16.
c cc 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
believes that the information contained therein is correct.
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
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
admitted, cross-defendant denies each and every remaining allegation, generally and specifically, in
the conjunctive and disjunctive.
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
specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
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¶
purported Cause of Action the same as though fully set out herein at length.
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
every allegation contained in said Paragraph 38.
XXXIX.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 39, 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 39.
XL.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 40, 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 40.
XLI.c Answering the allegations of Paragraph 41, cross-defendant Bennett denies each
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¶
purported Cause of Action the same as though fully set out herein at length.
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.
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
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 48.
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
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
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
specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
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
specifically, in the conjunctive and disjunctive.
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
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
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
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
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)
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 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
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 cc c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
ccc
c cc c