On May 22, 2019 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Cruz, Nicole,
Mitchell, David,
The Lucas Corporation,
and
All Persons Claiming,
California Td Specialists,
Milligan, Jerilyn,
Milligan, Tim,
Nolan, Margaret Katherine,
Profit Sharing Plan,
Red Leaf Servicing,
Red Leaf Servicing, Inc.,
Red Leaf Servicing, Llc,
Rothchild, Jeffery,
Source Capital Funding, Inc.,
Tjm Real Estate Investments,
Tjm Real Estate Investments Inc.,
for Unlimited Civil Complaint - Real Property
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
21-Oct-2321 41:39, Lau Office Randal Hannah 19396881222
‘
\r \uv
Randal P. Hannah Es . SBNo.: 138778 F I L E D
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
LAW OFFICE 0F? AL P. HANNAH COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO -
489 N. Central Avenue
Upland, CA 91786 OCT 21 202
Telephone:
Facsxmile:
E-mail:
909; 608-1220
909 608-1222
rhannah@rphannahlaw.com BY'
KWJLM.
,
DEPUTY
Attorney for Defendant, DAVID MITCHELL
KOWQQIJIADJN
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 DAVID MITCHELL, an individual, and THE CASE N0. CIVDSI915345
LUCAS. CORPORATION, a California
12 corporatlon Assi ed to the Hon. Judg e Janet M. Fran g1'e
DepEnSZ9
13 Defendant,
ANSWER OF DAVID MITCHELL AND
14 VS. THE LUCAS CORPORATION TO
VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT
15 MARGARET KATHERINE NOLAN an
individual; TJM REAL ESTATE
16 INVESTMENTS PROFIT SHARE PLAN;
TJM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, Inc.,
17 a California corporation; RED LEAF
SERVICING, Inc., a corporation; RED LEAF
18 SERVICING, LLC, a limited liability
compan RED LEAF SERVICING, a
;
19 partners ip; RED LEAF SERVICING, a sole
'
'Ero netorshi SOURCE CAPITAL
;
20 ING,IN . acor oration dbaRedLeaf
Servicing JEFFM ROTI-ECHILD, an
21 individuai; and all persons claiming by,
throu h, or under them, any legal or equltable,
22 or ri t, title, estate, lien or interest in the
ro%erty described in this complaint; and
23 O S 1 through 50, mclusive,
24 Complainants.
25
DAVID J. MITCHELL, and individual, and
26 THE LUCAS CORPORATION, a California
co oration; GENERAL PROPERTIES
27 IN ORPORATED, a Nevada corporation,
and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,
28
Cross—Defendants,
-1-
ANSWER 0F DAVID MITCHELL AND THE LUCAS CORPORATION T0 CROSS—COWLAINT
21-Oct-2821 11:39I Lau Office Randal Hannah 19696881222 p.4
\y \nr
VS.
N.
MARGARET KATHERINE NOLAN, and
TIM MILLIGAN as CO-TRUSTEE of the
TIM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.
QM-BUJ
PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND IERILYN
MILLIGAN as CO-TRUSTEE 0f the TJM
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC.
PROFIT SHARING PLAN,
Cross-Complainants.
KOOOQ
10 COME NOW DEFENDANTS, DAVID MITCPELL and THE LUCAS CORPORATION,
answering the Cross—COmplaint for: 1. Equitable Subrogation, 2. Declaratory Relief, 3. Judicial
11 in
12 Foreclosure 4. Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment (hereinafter “Complaint”) each, for himself
13 and his corporation, admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15 1. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Cross Complainant’s Complaint,
16 answering Cross-Defendants admits each andevery allegation.
17 PARTIES
18 2. Answering the allegations ofParagraphs 2 and 5 of Cross Complainant’s Complaint,
19 answering Cross-Defendants admits each and every allegation.
20 3. Answering the allegations of Paragraphs 3, 7, and 8 of Cross Complainant's
21 Complaint, Cross-Defendants have insufficient information or beliefto answer said allegations and
22 based on such lack of information and belief, answering defendants deny such allegations.
23 4. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Cross Complainant’s Complaint,
24 Cross-Defendants admit that David J. Mitchell, an individual, was an individual residing in the real
25 property commonly known as 165 Wiseman Way, Upland, California 91786 (hereinafter the
26 “Property”), that he secured those certain Deeds of Trust at issue in this action, and that he was an
27 Officer of Cross-Defendants The Lucas Corporation and General Properties Incorporated. As to the
28 remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, Cross-Defendants have insufficient information or belief to
answer said allegations and based on such lack of information and belief, answering Cross-
.
_2_
ANSWER OF DAVE MITCHELL AND THE LUCAS CORP ORATION T0 CROSS-COMPLAINT
Preview
21-Oct-2321 41:39, Lau Office Randal Hannah 19396881222 ‘ \r \uv Randal P. Hannah Es . SBNo.: 138778 F I L E D SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA LAW OFFICE 0F? AL P. HANNAH COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO - 489 N. Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 OCT 21 202 Telephone: Facsxmile: E-mail: 909; 608-1220 909 608-1222 rhannah@rphannahlaw.com BY' KWJLM. , DEPUTY Attorney for Defendant, DAVID MITCHELL KOWQQIJIADJN SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 DAVID MITCHELL, an individual, and THE CASE N0. CIVDSI915345 LUCAS. CORPORATION, a California 12 corporatlon Assi ed to the Hon. Judg e Janet M. Fran g1'e DepEnSZ9 13 Defendant, ANSWER OF DAVID MITCHELL AND 14 VS. THE LUCAS CORPORATION TO VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT 15 MARGARET KATHERINE NOLAN an individual; TJM REAL ESTATE 16 INVESTMENTS PROFIT SHARE PLAN; TJM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, Inc., 17 a California corporation; RED LEAF SERVICING, Inc., a corporation; RED LEAF 18 SERVICING, LLC, a limited liability compan RED LEAF SERVICING, a ; 19 partners ip; RED LEAF SERVICING, a sole ' 'Ero netorshi SOURCE CAPITAL ; 20 ING,IN . acor oration dbaRedLeaf Servicing JEFFM ROTI-ECHILD, an 21 individuai; and all persons claiming by, throu h, or under them, any legal or equltable, 22 or ri t, title, estate, lien or interest in the ro%erty described in this complaint; and 23 O S 1 through 50, mclusive, 24 Complainants. 25 DAVID J. MITCHELL, and individual, and 26 THE LUCAS CORPORATION, a California co oration; GENERAL PROPERTIES 27 IN ORPORATED, a Nevada corporation, and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, 28 Cross—Defendants, -1- ANSWER 0F DAVID MITCHELL AND THE LUCAS CORPORATION T0 CROSS—COWLAINT 21-Oct-2821 11:39I Lau Office Randal Hannah 19696881222 p.4 \y \nr VS. N. MARGARET KATHERINE NOLAN, and TIM MILLIGAN as CO-TRUSTEE of the TIM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC. QM-BUJ PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND IERILYN MILLIGAN as CO-TRUSTEE 0f the TJM REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Cross-Complainants. KOOOQ 10 COME NOW DEFENDANTS, DAVID MITCPELL and THE LUCAS CORPORATION, answering the Cross—COmplaint for: 1. Equitable Subrogation, 2. Declaratory Relief, 3. Judicial 11 in 12 Foreclosure 4. Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment (hereinafter “Complaint”) each, for himself 13 and his corporation, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15 1. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Cross Complainant’s Complaint, 16 answering Cross-Defendants admits each andevery allegation. 17 PARTIES 18 2. Answering the allegations ofParagraphs 2 and 5 of Cross Complainant’s Complaint, 19 answering Cross-Defendants admits each and every allegation. 20 3. Answering the allegations of Paragraphs 3, 7, and 8 of Cross Complainant's 21 Complaint, Cross-Defendants have insufficient information or beliefto answer said allegations and 22 based on such lack of information and belief, answering defendants deny such allegations. 23 4. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4 of Cross Complainant’s Complaint, 24 Cross-Defendants admit that David J. Mitchell, an individual, was an individual residing in the real 25 property commonly known as 165 Wiseman Way, Upland, California 91786 (hereinafter the 26 “Property”), that he secured those certain Deeds of Trust at issue in this action, and that he was an 27 Officer of Cross-Defendants The Lucas Corporation and General Properties Incorporated. As to the 28 remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, Cross-Defendants have insufficient information or belief to answer said allegations and based on such lack of information and belief, answering Cross- . _2_ ANSWER OF DAVE MITCHELL AND THE LUCAS CORP ORATION T0 CROSS-COMPLAINT