Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
16Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jp Morgan Chase Amended Counterclaim

Jp Morgan Chase Amended Counterclaim

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,327|Likes:
Published by laurentratar
FRAUD, WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, SLANDER OF TITLE, CIVIL CONSPIRACY, RICO
FRAUD, WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, SLANDER OF TITLE, CIVIL CONSPIRACY, RICO

More info:

Published by: laurentratar on Mar 25, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Defendants Answer and Amended Counterclaim
 – 
page 1 of 104
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEJUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COUNTY, ILLINOIS
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL )ASSOCIATION )Plaintiffs, ))v. )) Case No.)Pro-Se Defendants ))COUNTERCLAIM ))))v. ))JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA )CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALWASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NA )Counter-Defendants )
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER 
TO COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OFMORTGAGE,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
AND COUNTERCLAIM
 
COMES NOW
Defendants and Counterclaimants __________________________
,
(collectively
―Owners‖)
, proceeding
 pro se
hereby answer the Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage brought byJP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA (hereinafter
―C
hase
) as partial successor in interest toWASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
(hereinafter ―
WAMU
‖) and
set forth their affirmative defenses and counterclaim as follows:
 
In regards to a Owners acting as in the capacity of a Pro Se Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff,
theSupreme Court ruled that substance governs over form or technicality. See
 Platsky v. CIA; Haines v. Kerner; Louisville,
404 U.S. 519 (1972);
 
 N.R. v. Schmidt 
, 177 U.S. 230 (1900).
 
With regard to the standard held for Pro Se litigants
it is maintained that in
 Bell Atlantic Corp.v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal
heightened pleading standards only apply to learned counsel.
 
Defendants Answer and Amended Counterclaim
 – 
page 2 of 104
Moreover,
 Ashcroft & Twombly
overruled
Conley v. Gibson
. The issues within
 Bell AtlanticCorp. v. Twombly
and
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
address the heightened pleading standards of learnedcounsel. In
Kerns v. United States
, the case addresses pro se litigants specifically. Kerns alsoaddresses Conley v Gibson, and Kerns v. United States has not been overturned.
AMENDED ANSWER
1.
 
Plaintiff files this complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15/-1101 et. seq., to foreclosethe mortgage, trust deed or other conveyance in the nature of a mortgage (hereinafter called
―Mortgage‖)
hereinafter described and joins the following persons as defendants:______________________________________Unknown Owners And Non-Record ClaimantsANSWER: Owners admit that Chase brings this action to foreclose on a Mortgage, but deniesthat Chase has the right to bring an action under the Mortgage.
 
Owners
are without sufficientinformation to admit or deny as to the remaining information in Paragraph 1.
2.
 
Plaintiff has heretofore elected to declare the whole of the principal sum remainingunpaid together with interest thereon to become immediately due and payable and by the filingof this complaint Plaintiff has confirmed said election.ANSWER: Owners admit that Chase claims that it has made an election with regardto the Mortgage signed by Owners, but denies that Chase has the right to bring anaction under the Mortgage.
 
3.
 
Attached as ―EXHIBIT A‖ is a true copy of the Mortgage. Attached as ‖EXHIBIT B‖ is
a true copy of the Note secured thereby.ANSWER: Owners lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of theallegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint especially as the Mortgage islabeled unofficial copy and therefore, Owners deny the allegations. Owners admit thatthe documents attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Complaint
 purport
to be theMortgage and the Note and
demand
that originals of the Mortgage and Note be produced.
 
Defendants Answer and Amended Counterclaim
 – 
page 3 of 104
4.
 
Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint,
Information concerning said mortgage:OWNERS
answer as follows:
a)
 
Nature of the Instrument: MortgageANSWER: Owners admit.b)
 
Date of the Mortgage: __________________ANSWER: Owners admit.c)
 
Name or Names of the Mortgagors: __________________________ANSWER: Owners admit, but affirmatively state that ownership by Owners inthe Mortgage is not stated as stated on record title for the Mortgaged Premises.d)
 
Names of the mortgagee, trustee or grantee in the Mortgage: Washington MutualBank, FAANSWER: Owners deny.e)
 
Date and place of recording: Mortgage Date and Place of recording:__________________________
County Recorder‘s Office.
 ANSWER: Owners admit, and affirmatively state that there were subsequentrecordings which sold the Mortgage so that Chase does not have the right to proceedagainst Owners.f)
 
Identification of recording: Mortgage: __________________________ANSWER: Owners admit that the document identified in Section 4e) wasrecorded as dated.g)
 
Interest subject to the mortgage: Fee simpleANSWER: Owners admit that they are fee simple owners of the mortgagedpremises and deny that CHASE has the right to proceed against them.

Activity (16)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
jjandbobscribd liked this
Amy K Smith liked this
saturday3 liked this
Brenda Reed liked this
Ren liked this
gobomus liked this
packagingwiz liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->