Preview
Filing # 29289208 E-Filed 07/06/2015 02:41:26 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
WILLIAM H. BEHRENS,
Plaintiff,
V. Case No. 2015-CA-002452-NC
BARBARA A. MORFORD,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S REPLIES TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff, WILLIAM H. BEHRENS, (“BEHRENS’), acting by and through same’s
undersigned counsel, states this same’s Replies to Defendant, BARBARA A.
MORFORD’s, (‘MORFORD”, Affirmative Defenses and his Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Defendant's Counterclaim:
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
On or about December 23, 2012, after dating for a period of time, BEHRENS and
MORFORD became engaged. As an incident of said engagement, BEHRENS
purchased an engagement ring and two (2) wedding rings, (collectively hereinafter
referred to as “rings’).
Subsequent to said engagement, BEHRENS moved certain of his personal
property into MORFORD’s residence located at 50 Circlewood Drive, Venice, Florida,
34293, (‘MORFORD Property”). Subsequent to said engagement, MORFORD moved
certain of her personal property into BEHRENS’ residence located at 2117 Mcintosh
Road, Sarasota, Florida, 34232, (‘BEHRENS Property”). Subsequent to said
engagement, BEHRENS and MORFORD commenced cohabitating together primarily at
Filed 07/06/2015 03:21 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FLthe MORFORD Property, because MORFORD did not want to promptly get married
since she did not want to prematurely terminate her receipt of alimony payments from a
prior husband. Ultimately the engagement and cohabitation were terminated by
MORFORD on or about February 10, 2015.
At all times material hereto, MORFORD was aware of the fact that BEHRENS
suffered from severe dyslexia, severe depression, extreme anxiety, and constant
physical pain caused as a result of a serious on the job accident in BEHRENS’
employment as a fireman and EMT, which disabled him and on or about June 1, 2012,
and he was awarded total disability by social security and forced into early retirement.
At all times material hereto, MORFORD was aware of the fact that BEHRENS’
severe dyslexia made it extremely difficult for BEHRENS to read and fully comprehend
written documents. MORFORD was also aware of the fact that BEHRENS’
aforementioned conditions made it very difficult for BEHRENS to trust people and their
statements. MORFORD, at all times material hereto, was keenly aware of the fact that
BEHRENS trusted her unequivocally, and believed virtually anything she told him,
notwithstanding statements made to BEHRENS by third parties to the contrary.
MORFORD, at all times material hereto, knew that BEHRENS trusted her more than
perhaps anyone other than his Mother.
At all times material hereto, MORFORD had a very good understanding of
BEHRENS’ severe dyslexia and BEHRENS’ aforementioned accompanying physical
and mental conditions caused by same. MORFORD possessed said knowledge based
upon her employment and education in the medical field, as well as the fact thatMORFORD has a close family member that suffers from severe dyslexia and conditions
similar to those of BEHRENS.
At the request of MORFORD, on or about November 22, 2013, the parties
created the William H. Behrens and Barbara A. Morford Revocable Trust, (“Trust”),
which is attached to the Complaint as an exhibit, for use when they ultimately became
married and then only then if either of them died or became in a vegetative state.
Simultaneously with the execution of the Trust, among other items, BEHRENS signed a
Durable Power of Attorney in favor of MORFORD, (“POA”), a copy of which is attached
to the Complaint as an exhibit.
Prior to, and at the time of executing the Trust and POA, BEHRENS attempted to
read and understand the Trust and POA, but, based on BEHRENS’ aforementioned
conditions, he could not fully understand said documents and he relied on MORFORD
to explain said documents and their contents to him; to advise him of the significance of
said documents; and to explain the potential consequences and legal impact on
BEHRENS and his assets that said documents created. Notwithstanding anything
anyone told him to the contrary, BEHRENS believed MORFORD'’s assurances that the
terms of the Trust and POA reflected the aforementioned conditions precedent to the
utilization of same.
In “explaining” the significance of the Trust and POA to BEHRENS, MORFORD
failed to advise BEHRENS of the fact that, once his assets were transferred into the
Trust, MORFORD had the ability through the Trust and POA to dispose of BEHRENS’
assets without BEHRENS’ consent, consultation, agreement or knowledge and, to thecontrary, MOREFORD in fact told BEHRENS that he would still have complete control
over his assets unless and until the aforementioned conditions precedent occurred.
BEHRENS’ relied on MORFORD, and only MORFORD, to explain the contents
and significance of the Trust and POA and to honestly and accurately advised
BEHRENS of the legal significance of the Trust and POA. MORFORD failed to
accurately advise BEHRENS of the true contents and possible impact the terms of the
Trust and POA could have on BEHRENS and the BEHRENS Assets, MORFORD
undertook said actions and / or inactions knowing that her representations regarding the
contents and possible impact and consequences of said documents were false and
incomplete. BEHRENS would not have executed the Trust or the POA had MORFORD
honestly and accurately advised BEHRENS of the possible consequences and
exposure BEHRENS and his assets would be subjected to by his execution of said
documents nor would BEHRENS have transferred any of his assets into the Trust had
BEHREN known that MORFORD was not accurately advising him of the true import of
the Trust and POA and that, with said executed documents, MORFORD would have the
ability to control BEHRENS’ assets without his consent, knowledge or participation.
Subsequent to the creation of the Trust, at the direction of MORFORD,
BEHRENS transferred the BEHRENS Property; three (3) lots he owned in North Port,
Florida, (hereinafter referred to as the “Lots”); approximately Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) in bank accounts and brokerage accounts, (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “BEHRENS Accounts’); and other items into the Trust, (all of the
foregoing are hereinafter collectively referred to as “BEHRENS Assets”). Subsequent to
the creation of the Trust, MORFORD only transferred the encumbered MORFORDProperty into the Trust. The BEHRENS Assets and the MORFORD Property, as same
pertain to the Trust, are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Assets”.
Utilizing the POA, and without the knowledge or consent of BEHRENS,
MORFORD withdrew fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) from the BEHRENS
Accounts; changed life insurance(s) policy(ies), insuring the life of BEHRENS, to reflect
MORFORD as the beneficiary; sold the Lots and retained over half of the proceeds from
said sale for her own use and benefit; made extensive charges to credit card accounts
owned by BEHRENS; attempted to cash out certain retirement accounts held by
BEHRENS; and changed certain of BEHRENS’ investment account(s) / annuity(ies).
REPLIES TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Each and every Affirmative Defense of MORFORD is denied.
2. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s First Affirmative Defense, same is
merely a legal conclusion insofar as it contains no facts on which to predicate a defense
of unclean hands and same should be stricken.
3. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Third Affirmative Defense, based
on the foregoing Common Factual Allegations, MORFORD has waived any right she
might otherwise have possessed to avoid liability under the Complaint.
4. Specifically with regard to MORFORD'’s Third Affirmative Defense, based
on the foregoing Common Factual Allegations, MORFORD is estopped to utilize the
allegations contained in her Third Affirmative Defense to avoid liability under the
Complaint.
5. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Third Affirmative Defense, based
on the foregoing Common Factual Allegations, MORFORD’s actions and / or inactionssurrounding and regarding BEHRENS’ execution of the Trust and POA constitute fraud
and as such MORFORD cannot advance the factual allegations contained in her Third
Affirmative Defense to avoid liability under the Complaint.
6. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Fourth Affirmative Defense, while
the parties cohabitated, BEHRENS paid in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the parties’
living expenses and, as MORFORD is well aware, the parties’ living expenses had
nothing to do with her conversion and / or theft of BEHRENS’ Assets.
7. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Fifth Affirmative Defense,
demands were made by BEHREN for MORFORD to return his_ property,
notwithstanding the fact that said demands were futile. Further, BEHRENS would direct
MORFORD to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
8. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Sixth Affirmative Defense,
although certain comingling of the parties’ assets were consensual, BEHRENS never
agreed that the his assets which were, or are, in the possession of MORFORD were
“gifts” to MORFORD or were otherwise left to the discretion of MORFORD to keep said
assets; divest herself of said assets by the delivery of same to third parties; or otherwise
divest herself of said assets. At all times material hereto, BEHRENS intended to retain
ownership and possession of said assets.
9. MORFORD’s alleged Ejighth Affirmative Defense is irrelevant and
immaterial to the instant proceeding and should be stricken since MORFORD has not
alleged any basis for her recovery of attorney’s fees.ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
1. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 16, 25, and 33 are admitted for
jurisdictional purposes, but same are otherwise denied.
2. BEHRENS Is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations
contained in Paragraphs 2, 15, 29, and 30, and thus said allegations are denied.
3. Paragraphs 3, 11, and 17 are admitted.
4. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, said allegations are
admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the parties were engaged, but
BEHRENS is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of said
allegations and thus same are denied.
5. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, said allegations are
admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that BEHRENS purchased an
engagement ring and gave it to MORFORD with the understanding that, if the parties
decided not to get married, the ring would be returned to BEHRENS, but the remainder
of said allegations are denied.
6. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 6, 12, 13, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31,
34 and 35 are denied.
7. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, said allegations are
admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the parties spent the majority of their
time together at the MORFORD Property, but the remainder of said allegations are
denied.
8. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, said allegations are
admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the parties had personal property atthe BEHRENS Property and at the MORFORD Property, but the remainder of said
allegations are denied.
9. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, said allegations are
admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the Trust and POA were drafted by
legal counsel, but, to the extent that the remainder of the allegations pertain to
BEHRENS, same are denied.
10. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, said allegations
are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the Trust and POA were drafted
by legal counsel, but, as is set forth in the Common Factual Allegations above,
BEHRENS relied exclusively on the representations made by MORFORD in executing
the Trust and POA. The remainder of said allegations are denied.
11. Concerning the allegations in Paragraphs 14, 24, and 32, BEHRENS
restates and incorporates herein by reference same’s Answers to Paragraphs 1 through
13 above as if fully rewritten herein.
12. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, BEHRENS never
physically assaulted MORFORD and thus the allegations and innuendos in Paragraph
19 are denied.
13. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, said allegations
are admitted insofar as same tend to indicate that the police appeared at the hotel /
motel the parties were staying at in California, but BEHRENS is without sufficient
knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of said allegations and thus same are
denied.14. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, BEHRENS denies
that he ever assaulted MORFORD; admits that, when confronted with accusations and
questions from third parties asserting inaccuracies pertaining to the parties’ argument,
he advised some of same of the truth regarding said argument; but BEHRENS is
without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of said allegations and thus
same are denied.
15. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, said allegations
are admitted insofar as same tend to indicate that BEHRENS is in possession of
personal property assets that MORFORD left at the BEHRENS Property and that
BEHRENS is agreeable to MORFORD’s retrieval of same on a mutually agreeable date
and time, but the remainder of said allegations are denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
Based on the aforementioned actions and / or inactions of MORFORD, same has
waived any rights she might otherwise have possessed to obtain the relief sought in the
Counterclaim.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel)
Based on the aforementioned actions and / or inactions of MORFORD, same is
estopped to obtain the relief sought in the Counterclaim.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Fraud)
Relying upon BEHRENS’ total trust of her and her knowledge of BEHRENS’
aforementioned learning disabilities (including dyslexia), and aforementioned other
conditions, MORFORD undertook the aforementioned actions and / or inactions with theintent that BEHRENS would rely on her aforementioned false and inaccurate
statements regarding the contents, impact and consequences of the Trust and POA in
order to have BEHREN execute said documents and thereafter place his assets into the
Trust and provide MORFORD with a legal document to enable MORFORD to obtain
control over BEHRENS’ financial assets and his available credit. BEHRENS did in fact
rely upon MORFORD’s representations in executing the Trust and POA and would not
have otherwise executed said documents or transferred assets into the Trust.
Said actions and / or inactions of MORFORD constitute fraud in the inducement
and she is thus precluded from recovering the relief sought in the Counterclaim and
further she is precluded from retaining the benefits to her that were created and realized
by her fraudulent actions and / or inactions.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Set-Off)
BEHRENS is entitled to a set-off, against any monies, if any, found due and
owing to MORFORD pursuant to the Counterclaim, in the amount of any monies found
due and owing to BEHRENS under the Complaint, as well as all monies BEHRENS was
required to pay, or is required to pay, as a result of MORFORD's unauthorized use of
BEHRENS ' credit.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Undue Influence)
Relying upon BEHRENS’ total trust of her and her knowledge of BEHRENS’
aforementioned learning disabilities (including dyslexia), and aforementioned other
conditions, MORFORD undertook the aforementioned actions and / or inactions with the
intent that BEHRENS would rely on her aforementioned representations in electing to
10execute the Trust and POA and thereafter place his assets into the Trust and provide
MORFORD with a legal document to enable MORFORD to obtain control over
BEHRENS’ financial assets and his available credit. BEHRENS did in fact rely upon
MORFORD’s representations in executing the Trust and POA and would not have
otherwise executed said documents or transferred assets into the Trust.
Said actions and / or inactions of MORFORD in obtaining BEHRENS’ signature
on the Trust and POA constitute undue influence and MORFORD is thus precluded
from recovering the relief sought in the Counterclaim and further she is precluded from
retaining the benefits to her that were created and realized by said undue influence.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document has been
furnished by email to: Kathryn Armstrong, Esq., at klarmstrongsrqlaw@gmail.com, on
this @™ day of July, 2015.
RANDY L. MERRITT, ESQ., P.A.
5409 Downham Mdws
Sarasota, FL 34235
Telephone: 941.377.9966
Email: rmerrittesq@comcast.net
Counsel for Plaintiff
Randy ti Le, Esq.
FL Bar No. 0572055
11
Preview
Filing # 29289208 E-Filed 07/06/2015 02:41:26 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA WILLIAM H. BEHRENS, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2015-CA-002452-NC BARBARA A. MORFORD, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S REPLIES TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff, WILLIAM H. BEHRENS, (“BEHRENS’), acting by and through same’s undersigned counsel, states this same’s Replies to Defendant, BARBARA A. MORFORD’s, (‘MORFORD”, Affirmative Defenses and his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant's Counterclaim: COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On or about December 23, 2012, after dating for a period of time, BEHRENS and MORFORD became engaged. As an incident of said engagement, BEHRENS purchased an engagement ring and two (2) wedding rings, (collectively hereinafter referred to as “rings’). Subsequent to said engagement, BEHRENS moved certain of his personal property into MORFORD’s residence located at 50 Circlewood Drive, Venice, Florida, 34293, (‘MORFORD Property”). Subsequent to said engagement, MORFORD moved certain of her personal property into BEHRENS’ residence located at 2117 Mcintosh Road, Sarasota, Florida, 34232, (‘BEHRENS Property”). Subsequent to said engagement, BEHRENS and MORFORD commenced cohabitating together primarily at Filed 07/06/2015 03:21 PM - Karen E. Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FLthe MORFORD Property, because MORFORD did not want to promptly get married since she did not want to prematurely terminate her receipt of alimony payments from a prior husband. Ultimately the engagement and cohabitation were terminated by MORFORD on or about February 10, 2015. At all times material hereto, MORFORD was aware of the fact that BEHRENS suffered from severe dyslexia, severe depression, extreme anxiety, and constant physical pain caused as a result of a serious on the job accident in BEHRENS’ employment as a fireman and EMT, which disabled him and on or about June 1, 2012, and he was awarded total disability by social security and forced into early retirement. At all times material hereto, MORFORD was aware of the fact that BEHRENS’ severe dyslexia made it extremely difficult for BEHRENS to read and fully comprehend written documents. MORFORD was also aware of the fact that BEHRENS’ aforementioned conditions made it very difficult for BEHRENS to trust people and their statements. MORFORD, at all times material hereto, was keenly aware of the fact that BEHRENS trusted her unequivocally, and believed virtually anything she told him, notwithstanding statements made to BEHRENS by third parties to the contrary. MORFORD, at all times material hereto, knew that BEHRENS trusted her more than perhaps anyone other than his Mother. At all times material hereto, MORFORD had a very good understanding of BEHRENS’ severe dyslexia and BEHRENS’ aforementioned accompanying physical and mental conditions caused by same. MORFORD possessed said knowledge based upon her employment and education in the medical field, as well as the fact thatMORFORD has a close family member that suffers from severe dyslexia and conditions similar to those of BEHRENS. At the request of MORFORD, on or about November 22, 2013, the parties created the William H. Behrens and Barbara A. Morford Revocable Trust, (“Trust”), which is attached to the Complaint as an exhibit, for use when they ultimately became married and then only then if either of them died or became in a vegetative state. Simultaneously with the execution of the Trust, among other items, BEHRENS signed a Durable Power of Attorney in favor of MORFORD, (“POA”), a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as an exhibit. Prior to, and at the time of executing the Trust and POA, BEHRENS attempted to read and understand the Trust and POA, but, based on BEHRENS’ aforementioned conditions, he could not fully understand said documents and he relied on MORFORD to explain said documents and their contents to him; to advise him of the significance of said documents; and to explain the potential consequences and legal impact on BEHRENS and his assets that said documents created. Notwithstanding anything anyone told him to the contrary, BEHRENS believed MORFORD'’s assurances that the terms of the Trust and POA reflected the aforementioned conditions precedent to the utilization of same. In “explaining” the significance of the Trust and POA to BEHRENS, MORFORD failed to advise BEHRENS of the fact that, once his assets were transferred into the Trust, MORFORD had the ability through the Trust and POA to dispose of BEHRENS’ assets without BEHRENS’ consent, consultation, agreement or knowledge and, to thecontrary, MOREFORD in fact told BEHRENS that he would still have complete control over his assets unless and until the aforementioned conditions precedent occurred. BEHRENS’ relied on MORFORD, and only MORFORD, to explain the contents and significance of the Trust and POA and to honestly and accurately advised BEHRENS of the legal significance of the Trust and POA. MORFORD failed to accurately advise BEHRENS of the true contents and possible impact the terms of the Trust and POA could have on BEHRENS and the BEHRENS Assets, MORFORD undertook said actions and / or inactions knowing that her representations regarding the contents and possible impact and consequences of said documents were false and incomplete. BEHRENS would not have executed the Trust or the POA had MORFORD honestly and accurately advised BEHRENS of the possible consequences and exposure BEHRENS and his assets would be subjected to by his execution of said documents nor would BEHRENS have transferred any of his assets into the Trust had BEHREN known that MORFORD was not accurately advising him of the true import of the Trust and POA and that, with said executed documents, MORFORD would have the ability to control BEHRENS’ assets without his consent, knowledge or participation. Subsequent to the creation of the Trust, at the direction of MORFORD, BEHRENS transferred the BEHRENS Property; three (3) lots he owned in North Port, Florida, (hereinafter referred to as the “Lots”); approximately Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) in bank accounts and brokerage accounts, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “BEHRENS Accounts’); and other items into the Trust, (all of the foregoing are hereinafter collectively referred to as “BEHRENS Assets”). Subsequent to the creation of the Trust, MORFORD only transferred the encumbered MORFORDProperty into the Trust. The BEHRENS Assets and the MORFORD Property, as same pertain to the Trust, are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Assets”. Utilizing the POA, and without the knowledge or consent of BEHRENS, MORFORD withdrew fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) from the BEHRENS Accounts; changed life insurance(s) policy(ies), insuring the life of BEHRENS, to reflect MORFORD as the beneficiary; sold the Lots and retained over half of the proceeds from said sale for her own use and benefit; made extensive charges to credit card accounts owned by BEHRENS; attempted to cash out certain retirement accounts held by BEHRENS; and changed certain of BEHRENS’ investment account(s) / annuity(ies). REPLIES TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Each and every Affirmative Defense of MORFORD is denied. 2. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s First Affirmative Defense, same is merely a legal conclusion insofar as it contains no facts on which to predicate a defense of unclean hands and same should be stricken. 3. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Third Affirmative Defense, based on the foregoing Common Factual Allegations, MORFORD has waived any right she might otherwise have possessed to avoid liability under the Complaint. 4. Specifically with regard to MORFORD'’s Third Affirmative Defense, based on the foregoing Common Factual Allegations, MORFORD is estopped to utilize the allegations contained in her Third Affirmative Defense to avoid liability under the Complaint. 5. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Third Affirmative Defense, based on the foregoing Common Factual Allegations, MORFORD’s actions and / or inactionssurrounding and regarding BEHRENS’ execution of the Trust and POA constitute fraud and as such MORFORD cannot advance the factual allegations contained in her Third Affirmative Defense to avoid liability under the Complaint. 6. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Fourth Affirmative Defense, while the parties cohabitated, BEHRENS paid in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the parties’ living expenses and, as MORFORD is well aware, the parties’ living expenses had nothing to do with her conversion and / or theft of BEHRENS’ Assets. 7. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Fifth Affirmative Defense, demands were made by BEHREN for MORFORD to return his_ property, notwithstanding the fact that said demands were futile. Further, BEHRENS would direct MORFORD to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 8. Specifically with regard to MORFORD’s Sixth Affirmative Defense, although certain comingling of the parties’ assets were consensual, BEHRENS never agreed that the his assets which were, or are, in the possession of MORFORD were “gifts” to MORFORD or were otherwise left to the discretion of MORFORD to keep said assets; divest herself of said assets by the delivery of same to third parties; or otherwise divest herself of said assets. At all times material hereto, BEHRENS intended to retain ownership and possession of said assets. 9. MORFORD’s alleged Ejighth Affirmative Defense is irrelevant and immaterial to the instant proceeding and should be stricken since MORFORD has not alleged any basis for her recovery of attorney’s fees.ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 1. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 16, 25, and 33 are admitted for jurisdictional purposes, but same are otherwise denied. 2. BEHRENS Is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 15, 29, and 30, and thus said allegations are denied. 3. Paragraphs 3, 11, and 17 are admitted. 4. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, said allegations are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the parties were engaged, but BEHRENS is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of said allegations and thus same are denied. 5. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, said allegations are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that BEHRENS purchased an engagement ring and gave it to MORFORD with the understanding that, if the parties decided not to get married, the ring would be returned to BEHRENS, but the remainder of said allegations are denied. 6. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 6, 12, 13, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 34 and 35 are denied. 7. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, said allegations are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the parties spent the majority of their time together at the MORFORD Property, but the remainder of said allegations are denied. 8. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, said allegations are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the parties had personal property atthe BEHRENS Property and at the MORFORD Property, but the remainder of said allegations are denied. 9. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, said allegations are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the Trust and POA were drafted by legal counsel, but, to the extent that the remainder of the allegations pertain to BEHRENS, same are denied. 10. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, said allegations are admitted only insofar as same tend to indicate that the Trust and POA were drafted by legal counsel, but, as is set forth in the Common Factual Allegations above, BEHRENS relied exclusively on the representations made by MORFORD in executing the Trust and POA. The remainder of said allegations are denied. 11. Concerning the allegations in Paragraphs 14, 24, and 32, BEHRENS restates and incorporates herein by reference same’s Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 13 above as if fully rewritten herein. 12. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, BEHRENS never physically assaulted MORFORD and thus the allegations and innuendos in Paragraph 19 are denied. 13. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, said allegations are admitted insofar as same tend to indicate that the police appeared at the hotel / motel the parties were staying at in California, but BEHRENS is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of said allegations and thus same are denied.14. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, BEHRENS denies that he ever assaulted MORFORD; admits that, when confronted with accusations and questions from third parties asserting inaccuracies pertaining to the parties’ argument, he advised some of same of the truth regarding said argument; but BEHRENS is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of said allegations and thus same are denied. 15. Concerning the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, said allegations are admitted insofar as same tend to indicate that BEHRENS is in possession of personal property assets that MORFORD left at the BEHRENS Property and that BEHRENS is agreeable to MORFORD’s retrieval of same on a mutually agreeable date and time, but the remainder of said allegations are denied. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) Based on the aforementioned actions and / or inactions of MORFORD, same has waived any rights she might otherwise have possessed to obtain the relief sought in the Counterclaim. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) Based on the aforementioned actions and / or inactions of MORFORD, same is estopped to obtain the relief sought in the Counterclaim. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fraud) Relying upon BEHRENS’ total trust of her and her knowledge of BEHRENS’ aforementioned learning disabilities (including dyslexia), and aforementioned other conditions, MORFORD undertook the aforementioned actions and / or inactions with theintent that BEHRENS would rely on her aforementioned false and inaccurate statements regarding the contents, impact and consequences of the Trust and POA in order to have BEHREN execute said documents and thereafter place his assets into the Trust and provide MORFORD with a legal document to enable MORFORD to obtain control over BEHRENS’ financial assets and his available credit. BEHRENS did in fact rely upon MORFORD’s representations in executing the Trust and POA and would not have otherwise executed said documents or transferred assets into the Trust. Said actions and / or inactions of MORFORD constitute fraud in the inducement and she is thus precluded from recovering the relief sought in the Counterclaim and further she is precluded from retaining the benefits to her that were created and realized by her fraudulent actions and / or inactions. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Set-Off) BEHRENS is entitled to a set-off, against any monies, if any, found due and owing to MORFORD pursuant to the Counterclaim, in the amount of any monies found due and owing to BEHRENS under the Complaint, as well as all monies BEHRENS was required to pay, or is required to pay, as a result of MORFORD's unauthorized use of BEHRENS ' credit. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Undue Influence) Relying upon BEHRENS’ total trust of her and her knowledge of BEHRENS’ aforementioned learning disabilities (including dyslexia), and aforementioned other conditions, MORFORD undertook the aforementioned actions and / or inactions with the intent that BEHRENS would rely on her aforementioned representations in electing to 10execute the Trust and POA and thereafter place his assets into the Trust and provide MORFORD with a legal document to enable MORFORD to obtain control over BEHRENS’ financial assets and his available credit. BEHRENS did in fact rely upon MORFORD’s representations in executing the Trust and POA and would not have otherwise executed said documents or transferred assets into the Trust. Said actions and / or inactions of MORFORD in obtaining BEHRENS’ signature on the Trust and POA constitute undue influence and MORFORD is thus precluded from recovering the relief sought in the Counterclaim and further she is precluded from retaining the benefits to her that were created and realized by said undue influence. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document has been furnished by email to: Kathryn Armstrong, Esq., at klarmstrongsrqlaw@gmail.com, on this @™ day of July, 2015. RANDY L. MERRITT, ESQ., P.A. 5409 Downham Mdws Sarasota, FL 34235 Telephone: 941.377.9966 Email: rmerrittesq@comcast.net Counsel for Plaintiff Randy ti Le, Esq. FL Bar No. 0572055 11