On October 04, 2022 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Citibank, N.A,
and
Hanna, Damon D,
for Consumer Credit Contract
in the District Court of Martin County.
Preview
46-CV-22-909
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/14/2022 2:41 PM
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF MARTTN FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CITIBANK, N.A.
Plaintiff, caseNo.: Llb - CV -aA '2of
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
TO COMPLAINT
DAMON D HANNA
Defendant.
Defendant DAMON D HANNA, hereby submits this Answer to Complaint filed by
Plaintiff, CITIBANK, N.A., as follows:
I.
Defendant denies the following allegations: "Defendant(s) owe(s) Plaintiff $6,441.701'
and lacks information or belief sufficient to answer all other allegations in Paragraph I of the
Complaint, and basing a denial on this ground, denies each and every allegation thereof.
II.
Defendant admits the truth of the following allegations: "Defendant(s)...fail[ed] to
make...payments;" and lacks information or belief sufficient to answer all other allegations in
Paragraph II of the Complaint, and basing a denial on this ground, denies each and every
allegation thereof.
46-CV-22-909
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/14/2022 2:41 PM
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to state an essential element for one or
more of its causes of action, specifically: the Plaintiff did not state the date the contract was
entered into; the Plaintiff did not state the date the contract was breached or otherwise not
complied with; and the Plaintiff failed to adequately describe the material terms of the contract
or attach a signed copy of the contract as an exhibit to the complaint.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitieate Damases)
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps to reduce or
minimize the damages experienced. Specifically, the Plaintiff has: refused to accept a reasonable
settlement offered by the Defendant, and by refusing this reasonable settlement has incurred
additional interest, attorney fees, and court costs unnecessarily.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unclean Hands)
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has committed a wrongdoing, and this lawsuit is
attempting to benefit from this wrongdoing.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Offset)
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffor Plaintiff s assignor owes money or other
valuable consideration to the Defendant, or has not properly credited payments made, or has
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and/or Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
46-CV-22-909
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/14/2022 2:41 PM
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uniust Enrichment)
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is seeking to recover more than Plaintiff is
entitled to recover in this case, and award of the judgment sought by the Plaintiff would unjustly
enrich the Plaintiff.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Truth-In-Lendine Act)
Plaintiff failed to make disclosures required by the Federal Truth-In-Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. $ 1601 et seq.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Minnesota Collection Asencies Act)
Plaintiff s claims are barred under Minnesota Collection Agencies Act, M.S.A $ 332.37.
Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the guidelines and provisions set forth in M.S.A. $ 332.37 in its
attempts to collect the alleged consumer debt.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Rieht to Amend)
Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer, to assert additional affirmative
defenses and to supplement, alter or change this Answer and affirmative defenses upon
revelation of more definitive facts by the Plaintiffand upon the undertaking of discovery and
investigation in this matter.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Consideration)
Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or
in part, by the defense of lack of consideration.
46-CV-22-909
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/14/2022 2:41 PM
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure of Consideration)
Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or
in part, by the defense of failure of consideration.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Improper Notice of Breach)
Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or
in part, by the defense of improper notice of breach.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Breach of Imnlied Covenant of Good Faith)
Plaintiff is barred from obtaining the relief they seek against Defendant by virtue of
Plaintiif s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in all
contractual relationships.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Frauds)
Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or
in part, by the defense of statute of frauds.
/il
46-CV-22-909
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/14/2022 2:41 PM
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Attornevs' Fees Not Recoverable)
Plaintiff is barred from obtaining attorney's fees in this case as there is no contract
provision, statute, or other agreements that entitles Plaintiff to recover attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for award/judgment as follows:
l. That Plaintiff take nothing by its Complaint and claims therein and that an
award/judgment be entered herein in favor of Defendant;
2 . For reasonable fees and costs incurred herein;
J For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4 For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
IN PRO PER
By:
Damon D Hanna
Defendant
420 Tilden St
Fairmont, MN 56031
s07-848-6281
damonhannaS@gmai l.com
Document Filed Date
October 14, 2022
Case Filing Date
October 04, 2022
Category
Consumer Credit Contract
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
46-CV-22-909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/14/2022 2:41 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF MARTTN FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITIBANK, N.A. Plaintiff, caseNo.: Llb - CV -aA '2of DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DAMON D HANNA Defendant. Defendant DAMON D HANNA, hereby submits this Answer to Complaint filed by Plaintiff, CITIBANK, N.A., as follows: I. Defendant denies the following allegations: "Defendant(s) owe(s) Plaintiff $6,441.701' and lacks information or belief sufficient to answer all other allegations in Paragraph I of the Complaint, and basing a denial on this ground, denies each and every allegation thereof. II. Defendant admits the truth of the following allegations: "Defendant(s)...fail[ed] to make...payments;" and lacks information or belief sufficient to answer all other allegations in Paragraph II of the Complaint, and basing a denial on this ground, denies each and every allegation thereof. 46-CV-22-909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/14/2022 2:41 PM FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to state an essential element for one or more of its causes of action, specifically: the Plaintiff did not state the date the contract was entered into; the Plaintiff did not state the date the contract was breached or otherwise not complied with; and the Plaintiff failed to adequately describe the material terms of the contract or attach a signed copy of the contract as an exhibit to the complaint. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitieate Damases) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps to reduce or minimize the damages experienced. Specifically, the Plaintiff has: refused to accept a reasonable settlement offered by the Defendant, and by refusing this reasonable settlement has incurred additional interest, attorney fees, and court costs unnecessarily. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has committed a wrongdoing, and this lawsuit is attempting to benefit from this wrongdoing. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Offset) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffor Plaintiff s assignor owes money or other valuable consideration to the Defendant, or has not properly credited payments made, or has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and/or Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 46-CV-22-909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/14/2022 2:41 PM FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Uniust Enrichment) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is seeking to recover more than Plaintiff is entitled to recover in this case, and award of the judgment sought by the Plaintiff would unjustly enrich the Plaintiff. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Truth-In-Lendine Act) Plaintiff failed to make disclosures required by the Federal Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. $ 1601 et seq. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Minnesota Collection Asencies Act) Plaintiff s claims are barred under Minnesota Collection Agencies Act, M.S.A $ 332.37. Plaintiff has failed to adhere to the guidelines and provisions set forth in M.S.A. $ 332.37 in its attempts to collect the alleged consumer debt. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Rieht to Amend) Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer, to assert additional affirmative defenses and to supplement, alter or change this Answer and affirmative defenses upon revelation of more definitive facts by the Plaintiffand upon the undertaking of discovery and investigation in this matter. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Consideration) Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of lack of consideration. 46-CV-22-909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/14/2022 2:41 PM TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure of Consideration) Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of failure of consideration. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Improper Notice of Breach) Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of improper notice of breach. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach of Imnlied Covenant of Good Faith) Plaintiff is barred from obtaining the relief they seek against Defendant by virtue of Plaintiif s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in all contractual relationships. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Frauds) Plaintiff s causes of action, and each of them, against Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of statute of frauds. /il 46-CV-22-909 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/14/2022 2:41 PM FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Attornevs' Fees Not Recoverable) Plaintiff is barred from obtaining attorney's fees in this case as there is no contract provision, statute, or other agreements that entitles Plaintiff to recover attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for award/judgment as follows: l. That Plaintiff take nothing by its Complaint and claims therein and that an award/judgment be entered herein in favor of Defendant; 2 . For reasonable fees and costs incurred herein; J For costs of suit incurred herein; and 4 For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. IN PRO PER By: Damon D Hanna Defendant 420 Tilden St Fairmont, MN 56031 s07-848-6281 damonhannaS@gmai l.com