1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Amrit Singh 13809 Windrose Avenue Corona, CA 92880 Cell: 951-230-5212

Defendant In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE MORENO VALLEY COURT
)

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ELLINGTON TRUST SERIES 2007-1, Plaintiff, v. AMRIT SINGH AND DOES 1 THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE, Defendant,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. MVC 1103318 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

(UNLAWFUL DETAINER)

Defendant, as ordered by this Court on August 2, 2011, in answer to the complaint on file, states as follows:
1.

This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief, Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint on file.

2.

This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief, Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of

Page 1 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3.

paragraph 4 of the complaint on file. This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint on file. This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint on file. This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of paragraph 7 of the complaint on file. This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of paragraph 8 of the complaint on file. This answering Defendant does not have any information and/or belief to enable him to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the complaint on file and based on the lack of information and belief Defendant does hereby generally deny the allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint on file. This answering Defendant generally denies and specifically denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the complaint on file.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The complaint and each of its causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action because: 1) lack of proper notice in the Notice of Default;
Page 2 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2) plaintiff had no authority to sell the property; 3) lack of proper verification of the complaint; 4) lack of standing; 5) misjoinder of parties; 6) Rescission under TILA; 7) False/fraudulent Good Faith Estimate under TILA; 8) Lack of valid trustee sale.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NOVATION.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WAIVER, ESTOPPEL AND CONSENT.

FORTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE UNCLEAN HANDS.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WILLFUL MISCONDUCT.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SETTLEMENT.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ABANDONMENT OF CONTRACT.

EIGTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DOCTRINE OF WAIVER.

Page 3 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ESTOPPEL.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ONE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MATERIAL ALTERATION OF CONTRACT.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE DATE.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MISTAKE OF FACT.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MISTAKE OF LAW.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FIDUCIARY RELATIONS, UNCLEAN HANDS.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DOCTRINE OF MODIFIED CONTRACT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1697 & 1698 AND CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE SECTIONS 2209 & 3117. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FRAUD.

Page 4 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

NINTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RELEASE, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1541.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ILLUSORY PROMISE.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE UNCONSCIONABILITY

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CONTRADICTORY, ILLUSORY, AMBIGUOUS AND UNINTELLIGIBLE CONTRACT PROVISIONS AS TO THE ACCELERATION PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO BE IN THE DEED OF TRUST AS COMPARED TO THE NOTE.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RESTITUTION

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE LACK OF STANDING/REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.

Page 5 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Prior to Plaintiff obtaining the note, it was sold to multiple parties and Plaintiff cant specify the actual parties to whom that note was sold. The note was lost or destroyed by those other parties and was not returned to Plaintiff or its predecessors in interest. No Plaintiff has standing to foreclose because the note is a negotiable instrument and only the bearer/holder of the note is the entity with the right to enforce it. The mortgage and Deed of Trust were consideration for the note. Without the note, there is no consideration for the mortgage and Deed of Trust, and those instruments failed and the Plaintiff(s) had no right to foreclose on a property to which there was no note, no mortgage and no deed of trust. The Plaintiff(s) had no right to enforce the note, mortgage or deed of trust or to foreclose upon this property.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DOCTRINE OF DESTRUCTION OR CANCELATION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT AS PROVIDED IN CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1699 AND 1700.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ABANDONED PROPERTY THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE WERE BIFURCATED THE PROPERTY ESCHEATS TO THE STATE.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PREDECESSOR IN INTERESTS BREACH OF CONTRACT AS A NONNEGOTIABLE NOTE, THE ORIGINAL DEFENSES INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DEFENDANT.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

LACK OF CONSIDERATION.

Page 6 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WAIVER OF CONDITIONS.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCOUNTING.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CANCELATION OF CONTRACT AND RESCISSION UNDER TILA.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DOCTRINE OF RIGHT OF REINSTATEMENT AND CURE.

August 17, 2011

_______________________________ Amrit Singh

Page 7 of 7

ANSWER, UNLAWFUL DETAINER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES