Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

6,164 characters extracted

—

SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY Civil Action No. RSC-CV-2311 DEFENDANTS’ FULL ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 7(a), Defendant StevoHateLife (“Defendant”), by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby submits his response to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. PARTIES 1. Defendant is without knowledge or information to form sufficient belief as to the validity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant is without knowledge or information to form sufficient belief as to the validity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2. 3. Admitted. JURISDICTION & VENUE 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted/Denied. Defendant denies that any tortious actions took place at all. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. Paragraph 6 constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required from Defendant. To the extent that Paragraph 6 contains allegations that require GMUEY; and BIZZAARJADIN, Plaintiffs, v. STEVOHATELIFE, Defendant. a response, Defendant admits that no binding agreement was made by or between Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding Defendant’s residence. 7. Defendant is without knowledge or information to form sufficient belief as to the validity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7. 8. Defendant is without knowledge or information to form sufficient belief as to the validity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8. 9. Defendant is without knowledge or information to form sufficient belief as to the validity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9. 10.Defendant is without knowledge or information to form sufficient belief as to the validity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10. 11.Denied. CAUSES OF ACTION 12.All paragraphs under this heading are denied. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 13. Defendant sets forth his affirmative defenses. By setting forth these affirmative defenses, Defendant does not assume the burden of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action. First Affirmative Defense Failure to State a Claim 14. Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. a. The elements of fraud require that Plaintiffs show, inter alia, that Defendant intentionally deceived them to “secure unfair or unlawful gain.” 1 R. Stat. § 3108. Furthermore, Plaintiffs must show that the fraud was a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment” See Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1910). The allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint fail to establish that Defendant, in the course of the transaction, both: (1) had an intent to deceive them; and (2) executed his intention, committing civil fraud. Plaintiffs approached Defendant first—indeed, this fact is omitted from the Complaint. There cannot exist a fraudulent transaction in this case, especially when Defendant did not initially engage in the negotiations for his residency. Second Affirmative Defense Lack of Consideration 15. Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because the contract in controversy—and its terms—were hindered from execution because Plaintiffs failed to consider the terms of the agreement and adequately execute the contract in accordance with the same. a. “If there is a verbal understanding to which both parties have assented, and upon which both are acting, it is an 'agreement.’” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 198 (1992). However, “[t]here can be no contract without the mutual assent of the parties.” Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U.S. 29, 47 (1876). As Plaintiffs note in their Complaint, “the Defendant had the capacity necessary to accept this agreement” Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint. Furthermore, “an offer of a bargain by one person to another imposes no obligation upon the former, unless it is accepted by the latter upon the terms on which it was made.” Tilley v. County of Cook, 103 U.S. 155, 162 (1880). Throughout the course of the transaction, Defendant did not communicate a clearly outlined acceptance of the agreement and its terms, hindering the execution—or of that, existence—of a legally binding agreement regarding the sale of Defendant’s residency. 16. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract therefore fails and should be dismissed by this Court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Third Affirmative Defense Assumption of Risk 17. Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because Plaintiffs willingly and voluntarily initiated correspondence by and between Defendant without real estate professionals or legal counsel, subjecting them to a degree of risk for fraudulent transactions. a. An implied assumption of risk requires that Defendant show that “[Plaintiffs], with knowledge and appreciation that they are at risk, [are foreclosed] from recovering against a tortfeasor for any harm within that risk.” See Legal Information Institute, Wex. (“Assumption of risk”). Plaintiffs, by engaging in an unofficial and informal business negotiation with Defendant in the absence of legal counsel and/or real estate professionals, subjected themselves to the inherent risk of fraudulent activites by failing to pursue other viable alternatives for purchasing the home. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages. 18.Plaintiff’s First and Second Cause of Action therefore fails and should be dismissed by this Court for implied assumption of risk. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court: a. Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice and enter judgment in Defendant’s favor; b. Award Defendant all attorneys’ fees, costs, and interests incurred and associated with the above-entitled matter; and c. Grant such and further relief deemed necessary to effectuate dismissal and repayment of fees by this Court. Dated: February 16, 2024 Palmer, Ridgeway. Respectfully Submitted. /s/ S. Stickza Stickza, Esq. Counsel of Record Cohn, Cicero, & Goodrich LLC Suite 1B, Palmer Suites Palmer, RW 27841 (111) 222-3333 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant

Answer_to_Complaint_-_StevoHateLife.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record