You are on page 1of 6

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ.

SBN 147715
1
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
2 13240 Amargosa Road
Victorville, California 92392
3
(760) 951-3663 Telephone
4
(909) 382-9956 Facsimile
5

6 Attorneys for Defendant,


7
ISCHMAEL O. WHITE,

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
11 PITTSBURG BRANCH
12

13 BLUE MOUNTAIN MORTGAGE LLC, a Case No.: PS-09-1746


California Limited Liability Company,
14
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL
15
DETAINER COMPLAINT
16 vs.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
17 ISCHMAEL O. WHITE,
NOTICE OF NON-STIPULATION TO
18
and DOES I through X, Inclusive COMMISSIONER
19
Defendant(s).
20

21 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES HEREIN, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS


22 OF RECORD:
23

24 Defendant Ischmael O. White hereby answers the complaint of Blue Mountain Mortgage LLC

25 and admits, denies and alleges as follows:


26

27

28

1 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER


1. Defendant is without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the
1

2 allegation on paragraph 1 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such

3 lack of information and belief.


4
2. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 2
5
of the complaint.
6

7
3. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the complaint.

8 4. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint.


9 5. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 5
10
of the complaint.
11
6. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the complaint.
12

13 7. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the

14 allegation on paragraph 7 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such
15
lack of information and belief.
16
8. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the
17
allegation on paragraph 8 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such
18

19 lack of information and belief.

20 9. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the
21
allegation on paragraph 9 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such
22
lack of information and belief.
23

24
10. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 10

25 of the complaint.
26 11. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 11
27
of the complaint.
28

2 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER


12. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 12
1

2 of the complaint.

3 13. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 13
4
of the complaint.
5
14. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 14
6

7
of the complaint.

8 15. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 15
9 of the complaint.
10
16. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 16
11
of the complaint.
12

13 17. Defendant generally and specifically denies each and every allegation in paragraph 17

14 of the complaint.
15
18. Defendants are without information and belief sufficient to permit an answer of the
16
allegation on paragraph 18 of the complaint, and deny said allegations based on such
17
lack of information and belief.
18

19

20 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
21
First Affirmative Defense
22
Fails To State Sufficient Facts
23

24
19. Each purported cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a basis for

25 relief against these answering Defendants.


26

27

28

3 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER


Second Affirmative Defense
1

2 Waiver

3 20. The claims being advanced by Plaintiffs are barred by virtue of the Plaintiff’s acts
4
and/or omissions that amount to a waiver, including but, not limited to attempting to enforce a
5
non-negotiable promissory note by way of an invalid non-judicial foreclosure sale.
6

8 Third Affirmative Defense


9 Estoppel
10
21. This answering defendant is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that
11
Plaintiffs have engaged in conduct and activities, and by reason of said activities and conduct are
12

13 estopped from asserting any claims for damages or seeking any other relief against this

14 answering Defendant.
15
Fourth Affirmative Defense
16
Failure To Mitigate Damages
17
22. Plaintiffs though under a duty to do so, have failed and neglected to mitigate
18

19 their damages and, therefore, cannot recover against these answering Defendants whether as

20 alleged or otherwise.
21
Fifth Affirmative Defense
22
Statute of Frauds
23

24
23. The present action is barred by application of the Statute of Frauds because the trustee

25 that conducted the non-judicial foreclosure sale of the defendants’ property, conducted the sale
26 without having possession of the alleged promissory note executed by these answering
27
defendants.
28

4 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER


Sixth Affirmative Defense
1

2 Statute of Limitations

3 24. The present action is barred by application of the applicable statute of limitations.
4

5
Seventh Affirmative Defense
6

7
Unclean Hands

8 25. By virtue of Plaintiff’s conduct, Plaintiffs are barred from recovery therein by
9 the doctrine of unclean hands.
10
Eighth Affirmative Defense
11
Standing
12

13 26. This answering defendant alleges that the Plaintiff does not have standing because

14 Plaintiff’s standing is based solely upon an invalid Trustee’s Deed After Sale, which was based
15
upon the enforcement of a promissory note that was not negotiable pursuant to California
16
Commercial Code section 3203 et seq.
17
Ninth Affirmative Defense
18

19 Reservation of Defendants

20 27. Defendant hereby reserves all defenses unknown at the time of filing this response.
21
Dated: September 11, 2009
22
_____________________________
23

24
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant,
25 ISCHMAEL O. WHITE
26

27

28

5 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER


1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 13240
4
Amargosa Road, Victorville, California 92392, which is located in the county where the mailing
5 described took place.

6 On October 31, 2009, I served the foregoing document(s) described: DEFENDANT’S


ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
7

8 Which were served upon:

9 ATTORNEYS FOR BLUE MOUNTAIN MORTGAGE, LLC.


10
RICHARD HOBIN LAW OFFICE
11 1011 A Street
Antioch, CA 94509
12
xx I deposited the foregoing documents in the United States Postal Service. Executed on:
13
September 14, 2009, in Victorville, California.
14

15 (State) XXXX I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
16
the above is true and correct.

17 (Federal) ____ I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at
whose direction the service was made.
18

19
_______ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
addressee(s) above.
20

21

22
___________________________
23

24

25

26

27

28

6 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________

ANSWER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER