Preview
VINOD NICHANI — SB#277607
NICHANI LAW FIRM
111 North Market Street, Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408-800-6174
Fax: 408-290-9802
Email: vinod@nichanilawfirm.com
Attorney for Defendants
JUAN JOSE PEREZ, LUIS ESTRADA,
MARIA ESTRADA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
HORTENSIA SALGADO, Case No.: 17CV319162
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
JUAN JOSE PEREZ; LUIS ESTRADA;
MARIA ESTRADA; JP MORGAN CHASE
BANK N.A.; and all persons unknown
claiming any interest in the property, names as
DOES I - X, inclusive.
Defendant,
Defendants Juan Jose Perez, Luis Estrada, and Maria Estrada hereby ANSWER the
Second Amended Complaint (hereafter ‘SAC”) of Plaintiff Hortensia Salgado as follows:
1. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SAC.
2. In answer to paragraph 3 of the SAC, Defendants deny that Plaintiff simply acquired her
interest in the real property as merely a joint tenant. The conveyance to Plaintiff is
actually to “Juan Jose Perez and Hortensia Salgado as husband and wife”, which
evidences their contemplation of marriage, not merely as joint tenants.
3. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the SAC.
1
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT0 Oo IND HW PF WN HY
RP RYN NK NNN NDE Bee eee eB ew ie
on Dn nA FF WN K DO ON HD HA fF WB ND YS CO
4. Defendants have no information or belief as the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 and
8 of the SAC, and basing their denial on such grounds, deny each and every allegation
contained in said paragraphs.
. Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 9, 10, 11, and 12 of
the SAC.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second
amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in
that the SAC fails to join and/or serve all parties necessary to adjudicate the action as
required by the partition statutes.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second
amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in
that the Plaintiff was granted her interest as a purported wife of Defendant Juan Jose
Perez and that said conveyance constituted a condition precedent, which was never met.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second
amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in
that the Plaintiff was granted her interest as a purported wife of Defendant Juan Jose
Perez and that said conveyance constituted a condition precedent, which was never met.
That a result, the purported marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant Juan Jose Perez did not
2
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTio em YN DA HW ® WN
NN NY NY NY NNN YK Se Be Bee Be eB Be Be eB
oN A A BR BN —§ S Ow NI DAH BF WN +S CO
occur, the property should be returned to Defendant Juan Jose Perez, pursuant to Civil
Code section 1590.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second
amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in
that the Plaintiff was granted her interest as a purported wife of Defendant Juan Jose
Perez and that said conveyance constituted a condition precedent, which was never met.
That a result, the purported marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant Juan Jose Perez did not
occur, the property should be treated as quasi community or quasi marital property and
with the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.210 and no partition of the
property shall occur.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the Plaintiff is
guilty of unclean hands, laches, and is otherwise estopped from obtaining partition of the
real property.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants demand an accounting
from Plaintiff, including all sums claimed by Plaintiff to have been advanced or expended|
on the subject property.
3
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT0 OW IN ANH FF WN
YN YN NY NY NN KN ee Be Be Be eB we ewe ewe ee
oN AA BP YBN EF SOM AXA AW BB wWN KE GS
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants assert a set off for all
sums advanced by them to protect and preserve the property, as well as those amounts
which represent the difference between the fair rental value and the mortgage payments
made by Plaintiff. Defendants further claim a set off for all sum advanced by them when
Plaintiff did not make full payments on the mortgage.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has
waived her right to partition and damages.
NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants request rescission of the
deed of trust conveying an interest to Plaintiff and reformation of the deed conveying title|
to these answering Defendants. The conditions of the deed not having been met and no
consideration having been paid by Plaintiff, Defendants seek the return of title to the
property.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants assert that Plaintiff is
guilty of laches in the failure to assert her rights herein and upon the delay in prosecution
of this matter.
4
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As and For a ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DERENSE, Defendants assert that they have
recently answered the complaint and that discovery is underway and that they are not
fully appraised of the facts and circumstances and reserve the right to amend, supplement
or modify their answer herein.
Dated: July 8, 2020 NICHANI LAW FIRM
HANI
Attorney for Defendants JUAN JOSE PEREZ, LUIS
ESTRADA, MARIA ESTRADA
5
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINToO Oo NDA PF WN Ye
eb Ne RY KRY HY NY N WN — —
eB XYUanere SRESSGCRETATEBEAS
VERIFICATION
I, LUIS ESTRADA, am a Defendant in this action. I have read the foregoing “Answer to
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint” and know the contents thereof, have personal
knowledge of the matters stated therein, except where stated on information and belief, and as to
such matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7th day of July, 2020 at Campbell, California.
Luis ax
6
ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTSo oe mI DM PF WN He
Ro wow
PROOF OF SERVICE.
Hortensia Salgado v. Juan Jose Perez, et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 17CV319162
I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in Santa Clara County, California. I am
over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 111 N.
Market Street, Ste. 300, San Jose, CA 95113.
On the date set forth below, I caused to be served DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the party or parties named below, as
follows:
BY MAIL: By following ordinary business practice, and placing a true copy thereof enclosed in
a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it
would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid depositing with the United
States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business at my business address,
and addressed as follows:
Flora Garcia-Sepulveda Attorneys for Plaintiff
Woodman Garcia-Sepulveda Law
555 Price Avenue #280
Redwood City, CA 94063
Executed on July 10, 2020, at San Jose, California. I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
Mark K. Oto
Preview
VINOD NICHANI — SB#277607 NICHANI LAW FIRM 111 North Market Street, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: 408-800-6174 Fax: 408-290-9802 Email: vinod@nichanilawfirm.com Attorney for Defendants JUAN JOSE PEREZ, LUIS ESTRADA, MARIA ESTRADA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HORTENSIA SALGADO, Case No.: 17CV319162 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. JUAN JOSE PEREZ; LUIS ESTRADA; MARIA ESTRADA; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; and all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property, names as DOES I - X, inclusive. Defendant, Defendants Juan Jose Perez, Luis Estrada, and Maria Estrada hereby ANSWER the Second Amended Complaint (hereafter ‘SAC”) of Plaintiff Hortensia Salgado as follows: 1. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SAC. 2. In answer to paragraph 3 of the SAC, Defendants deny that Plaintiff simply acquired her interest in the real property as merely a joint tenant. The conveyance to Plaintiff is actually to “Juan Jose Perez and Hortensia Salgado as husband and wife”, which evidences their contemplation of marriage, not merely as joint tenants. 3. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the SAC. 1 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT0 Oo IND HW PF WN HY RP RYN NK NNN NDE Bee eee eB ew ie on Dn nA FF WN K DO ON HD HA fF WB ND YS CO 4. Defendants have no information or belief as the allegations contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the SAC, and basing their denial on such grounds, deny each and every allegation contained in said paragraphs. . Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the SAC. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in that the SAC fails to join and/or serve all parties necessary to adjudicate the action as required by the partition statutes. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in that the Plaintiff was granted her interest as a purported wife of Defendant Juan Jose Perez and that said conveyance constituted a condition precedent, which was never met. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in that the Plaintiff was granted her interest as a purported wife of Defendant Juan Jose Perez and that said conveyance constituted a condition precedent, which was never met. That a result, the purported marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant Juan Jose Perez did not 2 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTio em YN DA HW ® WN NN NY NY NY NNN YK Se Be Bee Be eB Be Be eB oN A A BR BN —§ S Ow NI DAH BF WN +S CO occur, the property should be returned to Defendant Juan Jose Perez, pursuant to Civil Code section 1590. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the second amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against these answering Defendants, in that the Plaintiff was granted her interest as a purported wife of Defendant Juan Jose Perez and that said conveyance constituted a condition precedent, which was never met. That a result, the purported marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant Juan Jose Perez did not occur, the property should be treated as quasi community or quasi marital property and with the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 872.210 and no partition of the property shall occur. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that the Plaintiff is guilty of unclean hands, laches, and is otherwise estopped from obtaining partition of the real property. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants demand an accounting from Plaintiff, including all sums claimed by Plaintiff to have been advanced or expended| on the subject property. 3 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT0 OW IN ANH FF WN YN YN NY NY NN KN ee Be Be Be eB we ewe ewe ee oN AA BP YBN EF SOM AXA AW BB wWN KE GS SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants assert a set off for all sums advanced by them to protect and preserve the property, as well as those amounts which represent the difference between the fair rental value and the mortgage payments made by Plaintiff. Defendants further claim a set off for all sum advanced by them when Plaintiff did not make full payments on the mortgage. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has waived her right to partition and damages. NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a NINETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants request rescission of the deed of trust conveying an interest to Plaintiff and reformation of the deed conveying title| to these answering Defendants. The conditions of the deed not having been met and no consideration having been paid by Plaintiff, Defendants seek the return of title to the property. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendants assert that Plaintiff is guilty of laches in the failure to assert her rights herein and upon the delay in prosecution of this matter. 4 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As and For a ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DERENSE, Defendants assert that they have recently answered the complaint and that discovery is underway and that they are not fully appraised of the facts and circumstances and reserve the right to amend, supplement or modify their answer herein. Dated: July 8, 2020 NICHANI LAW FIRM HANI Attorney for Defendants JUAN JOSE PEREZ, LUIS ESTRADA, MARIA ESTRADA 5 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINToO Oo NDA PF WN Ye eb Ne RY KRY HY NY N WN — — eB XYUanere SRESSGCRETATEBEAS VERIFICATION I, LUIS ESTRADA, am a Defendant in this action. I have read the foregoing “Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint” and know the contents thereof, have personal knowledge of the matters stated therein, except where stated on information and belief, and as to such matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7th day of July, 2020 at Campbell, California. Luis ax 6 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTSo oe mI DM PF WN He Ro wow PROOF OF SERVICE. Hortensia Salgado v. Juan Jose Perez, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 17CV319162 I, the undersigned, declare that I am employed in Santa Clara County, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 111 N. Market Street, Ste. 300, San Jose, CA 95113. On the date set forth below, I caused to be served DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the party or parties named below, as follows: BY MAIL: By following ordinary business practice, and placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first class delivery, postage fully prepaid depositing with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business at my business address, and addressed as follows: Flora Garcia-Sepulveda Attorneys for Plaintiff Woodman Garcia-Sepulveda Law 555 Price Avenue #280 Redwood City, CA 94063 Executed on July 10, 2020, at San Jose, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Mark K. Oto