Dianne Dorman versus Deep Pockets PHH, The Nazi Funding Bank, The Catholic Bandit and The New Lords

ORDER:

The Court ORDERS the following:

(1) Mr. Ryan A. Daniel is hereby SANCTIONED in the amount of $1,000 payable to the Clerk of this Court no later than December 24, 2024;

(2) Mr. Ryan A. Daniel must file the appearance of local counsel, certify in writing to the Court that he resides within the Northern District in compliance with Local Rule 83.10(a), or move to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff no later than December 17, 2024;

(3) Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Answer to Counterclaims (ECF No. 33 ) is GRANTED;

Plaintiff’s 30  answer to Defendants’ counterclaims is hereby STRICKEN from the record.

(Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 12/13/2024) (saw)

(Entered: 12/13/2024)

ORDER

This case was filed on January 8, 2024. ECF No. 1. At the time of filing Plaintiff was proceeding pro se. Id. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton. ECF No. 2.

Subsequently, Plaintiff obtained counsel and is thus no longer proceeding pro se in this matter.

See ECF No. 9.

Consequently, the undersigned finds it prudent to withdraw the pretrial referral and return this case to the Court’s docket.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Court’s previous referral of this matter to Judge Cureton is RESCINDED.

Thus, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return this case to the docket of the undersigned.

MARK T. PITTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On Friday, Feb. 9, 2024, LIT released a tweet which states; Coming up on LIT: Shocking facts and case studies on the current criminal activity endorsed by the US Gov for implementation by Federal Judges and Wall Street’s Creditor Rights lawyers. Truth that will shake American homeowners to the core. Stay tuned. #TruthRevealed #USJustice

This published foreclosure case is part of the live reporting and investigation, which is explained, in part, below:

LIT’s inquiry delves into the prevailing standards governing foreclosures, Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), Injunctions, evictions, and appeals. Drawing from rigorous analysis of factual case studies and a wealth of data amassed over years of investigation, LIT’s insights are prominently featured on this legal blog, LawsInTexas.com.

The initial confusion stemming from the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, wherein the US Government, hand in hand with the judiciary, orchestrated the mass seizure of millions of homes, is a focal point of LIT’s examination.

LIT refrains from extensively elaborating on the myriad frauds that transpired initially, such as lender application fraud and predatory lending which resulted in the financial crisis, and thus leading to counterfeit assignments, robo-signing, document falsification, perjury, and the unlawful actions of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) in foreclosing on homesteads.

Instead, LIT steers the discussion toward the avarice evident within the legal profession and the complicit role of the judiciary in perpetuating fraud in real estate and title deed matters, beyond the scandals within their own administration.

LIT’s live reporting and investigation is published in real-time, as it probes into the motivations driving the US Government’s directive for the judiciary to adopt predatory practices in the latter part of 2023 and throughout 2024—an inquiry to which LIT claims to hold the key answers.

Returning to this published foreclosure case, the controlling question raised is how many orders of foreclosure are required in Texas law?

THE MAY 2021 FEDERAL COURT ORDER OF FORECLOSURE

For example, after removal in a 2020, Judge Pittman issued an amended order of foreclosure in compliance with Dykema’s request on May 31, 2021. Allegedly, this should satisfy all the necessary requirements to effect foreclosure, but that didn’t happen.

THE SEPTEMBER 2023 STATE LAWSUIT BY DEUTSCHE BANK, ET AL

Why Deutsche Bank and PHH Mortgage Corporation felt it necessary to sue Dorman in state court on Sep. 8, 2023 for an expedited foreclosure (Rule 736), and after she exited her latest dismissed bankruptcy is nonsensical. (CASE No. 153-345587-23).

There’s now a second order of foreclosure dated Nov. 15, 2023, this time in state court at the request of the Catholic Bandit and the Wolves of Texas, aka foreclosure mill Mackie Wolf, and which appears to mirror the Dykema/Pittman order of foreclosure issued in May of 2021.

You’d think that would be enough?

DORMAN SUES DEUTSCHE BANK IN STATE COURT TO STOP JAN. 2, 2024 FORECLOSURE SALE

Not so, as on Dec. 28, 2023, just prior to the Jan. 2, 2024 scheduled foreclosure, Dorman filed to stop the auction, correctly relying upon Rule 736 and naming the mortgage servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as a party.

(DIANNE DORMAN VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES, 048-349030-23).

That stated, that was only part one of foreclosure defense lawyer Ryan Daniel’s required acts to reverse the 736 Order of foreclosure. In order to complete the task at hand, he would have to file a motion to vacate, which was not present on the docket prior to the Jan. 2, 2024 sale, nor was there a TRO/bond (as the Petition requested in the alternative).

See; In re Priester, No. 05-16-00965-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Nov. 21, 2016)

(“Rule 736 also provides the respondent with the means to abate and vacate a foreclosure order issued under these rules by

(1) timely filing a separate, original proceeding putting in issue any matter related to the origination, servicing, or enforcement of the loan agreement, contract, or lien sought to be foreclosed,

and

(2) timely-filing a motion to vacate the foreclosure order. TEX. R. CIV. P. 736.11(a)”)

The docket in the Dorman case does not show a motion to vacate was ever filed.*

*LIT does see in the Prayer section (Page 14 of Dorman’s petition) a discussion about filing the motion to vacate with a proposed order – none was filed – but LIT avers based on In re Priester was necessary to stop the foreclosure and reverse the judgment.

Dorman’s attorney did not file the motion to vacate within the ten days of filing the petition. See; In re Breitling, No. 05-17-00043-CV, at *4 (Tex. App. Jan. 30, 2017) (“it was not filed within ten days of filing the independent lawsuit”).

However, the Wolves of Texas arrived on the tenth day via the Catholic Bandit and removed the case to federal court, having stopped the foreclosure sale rather than continue with the sale (as happened in the Breitling case).

In short, LIT avers as non-lawyers, non-prisoners, the foreclosure sale could have proceeded.

JUDGE PITTMAN RECEIVES THE REMOVAL NEWS ON JAN. 8, 2024

This case has been removed back to federal court in 2024, and notably, back to Judge Mark Pittman, who really isn’t happy about foreclosure mills bringing state court federal cases into federal court.

LIT’s sure he’ll be even more disgruntled that he wrote an order of foreclosure nearly 2 years ago which has not even been considered in the subsequent litigation.

Alas, we know how Judge Pittman feels, we’ve witnessed similar acts in our cases where controlling facts are discounted to allow for manipulated opinions. This time, the homeowner has obtained this benefit.

CONCLUSION

LIT suggests, based on prior case studies in Texas courts, that because Dorman was represented by counsel, this materially influenced Mackie Wolf’s decision to cancel the foreclosure auction for her homestead.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2007-NC1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC1 (“Deutsche Bank”) and PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH,” collectively “Defendants”) file this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition Subject to Defendants’ 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Answer to Counterclaims (the “Complaint”) (Doc. 30) and respectfully shows the following:

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS

1.                  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), Defendants hereby move the Court to strike Plaintiff Dianne Dorman’s Answer to Defendants’ Original Counterclaim filed on May 1, 2024, because it was untimely filed.

Defendants respectfully show the Court as follows:

2.                  Under Rule 12(f), the Court may “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

The Fifth Circuit has stated that motions to strike are generally disfavored.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1058 (5th Cir.1982).

Although motions to strike are generally disfavored, a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is proper when the defense is insufficient as a matter of law.

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc., 677 F.2d at 1057; see also Berry v. Lee, 428 F.Supp.2d 546, 563 (N.D.Tex.2006).

“Rule 12(f) motions require a showing of prejudice.”

Landmark Graphics Corp. v. Paradigm Geophysical Corp., 2007 WL 189333, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007) (Rosenthal, J.).

The Court possesses considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to strike.

FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F.Supp. 441, 449 (N.D.Tex.1993).

3.                  Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 28, 2023, in the 48th Judicial District Court for Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No. 048-349030-23. (Doc. No. 1-1).

4.                  Defendants removed the case to this Court on January 8, 2024. (Doc. No. 1).

5.                  Defendants filed their Original Answer and Counterclaim against Plaintiff on January 12, 2024. (Doc. No. 6).

Defendants asserted a counterclaim for non-judicial foreclosure and judicial foreclosure based on their authority to foreclose on the subject Property pursuant to the Security Instrument, as owners and holders of the Note, and as mortgagees of record.

Id. at ¶¶ 28-50.

6.                  Plaintiff was served a copy of Defendants’ Original Answer and Counterclaim through her attorney of record, Ryan Daniel, via the federal electronic court filing system on January 12, 2024.

7.                  Plaintiff was required to file an answer or other responsive pleading to Defendants’ counterclaim within 21 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(B).

Thus, Plaintiff’s answer or other responsive pleading was due on or around February 2, 2024.

8.                  Plaintiff filed an untimely Answer to Defendants’ Original Counterclaim on May 1, 2024, as part of her First Amended Complaint.

(Doc. No. 30 at ¶¶ 46-54).

9.                  The defenses asserted in Plaintiff’s answer fail as a matter of law because they are untimely filed according to the federal rules.

Moreover, this is not the first time that Plaintiff has disregarded clear pleading deadlines and Orders of this Court.

(See generally, Doc. Nos. 5, 20, 26).

The Court should not reward such behavior which prejudices Defendants by unduly delaying this proceeding.

Defendants are further prejudiced because the deadline to amend pleadings, including their counterclaim, has already passed on April 1, 2024.

(Doc. No. 10).

10.              Based on the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Original Counterclaim at paragraphs 46-54 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be stricken in its entirety.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court grant this 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’ Original Counterclaim filed on May 1, 2024, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

1.                  The allegations in paragraph 1 are of no effect and require no response as this matter has been removed to federal court.

2.                  The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 2 state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. The allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 2 are not factual allegations requiring a response. To the extent a response is required to any of the allegations in paragraph 2, Defendants deny the allegations.

3.                  The allegations in paragraph 3 require no response because Defendant Deutsche Bank has appeared in this action and does not contest in personam jurisdiction.

4.                  The allegations in paragraph 4 require no response because Defendant PHH has appeared in this action and does not contest in personam jurisdiction.

5.                  The allegations in paragraph 5 are of no effect and require no response because this matter has been removed to federal court. Defendants do not contest venue.

6.                  The allegations in paragraph 6 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 6.

7.                  Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 7.

8.                  With respect to the allegations in paragraph 8, Defendants admit only that the pertinent loan documents speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations in paragraph 8.

9.                  Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 9.

10.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 10.

11.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 11.

12.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 12.

13.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 13.

14.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14.

15.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 15.

16.              The allegations in paragraph 16 require no response.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

17.              The allegations in paragraph 17 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

18.              The allegations in paragraph 18 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited statute speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

19.              The allegations in paragraph 19 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

20.              The allegations in paragraph 20 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law and statute speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

21.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 21.

22.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 22.

Defendants further deny Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in paragraph 22 or any other relief.

23.              The allegations in paragraph 23 require no response.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

24.              The allegations in paragraph 24 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited statutes speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

25.              The allegations in paragraph 25 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law and statute speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

26.              The allegations in paragraph 26 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only that the cited statute speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

27.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 27.

28.              The allegations in paragraph 28 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law and statute speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

29.              The allegations in paragraph 29 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited statute speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

30.              The allegations in paragraph 30 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited statute and case law speak for themselves and deny the remaining allegations.

31.              Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 31.

The remaining allegations in paragraph 31 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited statutes speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

32.              The allegations in paragraph 32 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law and statute speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

33.              The allegations in paragraph 33 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law and statute speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

34.              The allegations in paragraph 34 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law and statute speak for themselves and deny any remaining allegations.

35.              The allegations in paragraph 35 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.

To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

36.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36.

37.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 37, including each of its subparts (a.- d.).

38.              Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 38. Defendants further deny Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in paragraph 38 or any other relief.

39.              The allegations in paragraph 39 require no response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

40.              The allegations in paragraph 40 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited regulation speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

41.              The allegations in paragraph 41 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited regulation speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

42.              The allegations in paragraph 42, including each of its subparts (a.-c.), state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited regulation speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

43.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 43.

44.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 44.

45.              Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 45. Defendants further deny Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in paragraph 45 or any other relief.

46.              Paragraph 46 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 46. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.1

47.              Paragraph 47 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 47. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein

1 Defendants’ answer and responses to Paragraphs 46-54 of the Complaint are asserted subject to and without waiving the Defendants’ 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Answer to Counterclaims plead herein.

all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

48.              Paragraph 48 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 48. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

49.              Paragraph 49 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 49. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

50.              Paragraph 50 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 50. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

51.              Paragraph 51 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 51. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

52.              Paragraph 52 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 52. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

53.              Paragraph 53 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 53. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

54.              Paragraph 54 contains Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ counterclaims. Thus, no response from Defendants is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 54. Defendants incorporate by reference and reallege herein all allegations, requests for relief, and any other statements in their counterclaim. Defendants further state they are entitled to all relief sought by their counterclaims.

55.              The allegations in paragraph 55 state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit only the cited case law speaks for itself and deny any remaining allegations.

56.              With respect to the allegations in paragraph 56, Defendants admit only that Plaintiff seeks such relief and otherwise denies any remaining allegations. Defendants further deny Plaintiff is entitled to such relief or any other relief.

57.              With respect to the allegations in paragraph 57, Defendants admit only that Plaintiff seeks such relief and otherwise denies any remaining allegations. Defendants further deny Plaintiff

is entitled to such relief or any other relief. Defendants further state Plaintiff’s attorney fees are neither reasonable nor necessary.

58.              Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 58.

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the Prayer of the Complaint or any other relief.

Defendants further seek all relief sought by the counterclaims and incorporate all allegations and requests for relief contained in their counterclaims herein by reference, including but not limited to a declaration from the Court that

(1) Defendants are authorized to enforce the power of sale in the Security Instrument through foreclosure of the subject Property pursuant to Texas Property Code section 51.002, the Note and Security Instrument;

or

(2) alternatively, a judgment foreclosing Defendants’ lien and order of sale.

Defendants further seek to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs.

Except as expressly admitted, qualified, or otherwise pleaded, Defendants deny all allegations contained in the Complaint.2

DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

Without conceding the burden of proof, Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:

1.                  Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and therefore, each of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.

2.                  Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by doctrines of unclean hands, laches, and/or other equitable doctrines.

3.                  Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of frauds.

2 Plaintiff’s “Prayer” was not numbered in the First Amended Complaint.

4.                  Plaintiff’s claims and damages, if any, are subject to and/or barred by the terms of any relevant and applicable contracts or agreements.

5.                    Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic loss doctrine.

6.                  Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of estoppel, in all of its forms, quasi-estoppel, waiver, ratification, release, and/or other equitable doctrines.

7.                  Plaintiff’s damages are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate.

8.                  Plaintiff’s claims are barred by set-off, off-set, and recoupment, and PHH and Deutsche Bank claim all credits available to them.

9.                  Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of judicial estoppel, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

10.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of proportionate responsibility. Any loss or damage allegedly suffered by Plaintiff was caused by the conduct of Plaintiff or other parties.

11.              Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees are not recoverable, reasonable, or necessary and are barred, in whole or in part, by failing to present a demand or making an excessive demand.

12.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff failed to allege and prove facts sufficient to support a right to relief.

13.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because one or more of the material obligations of the Note and Security Instrument has not been satisfied by Plaintiff.

14.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations.

15.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy a condition precedent.

16.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the release provisions contained in the subject loan modification agreement(s).

17.              Any alleged wrongful acts or omissions of Defendants, if and to the extent such acts or omissions occurred, were legally excused or justified and were not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

18.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Defendants’ compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.

19.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by rescission and/or waiver.

20.              Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by subrogation in all of its forms, including equitable or contractual.

21.              PHH and Deutsche Bank reserve the right to plead such other and/or affirmative defenses which cannot be anticipated at this time, but which may become apparent and applicable during the pendency of this lawsuit, by reason of future discovery.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PHH and Deutsche Bank request that the Court, upon final hearing hereof, render a judgment that Plaintiff take nothing by way of her claims against Defendants, that this action be dismissed with prejudice, and that Defendants recover their attorneys’ fees and costs and have all other relief, at law or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Dianne Louise Dorman (22-40421)

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas