arrow left
arrow right
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
  • CHAFFEE, THOMAS E vs GONZALEZ, FRANCISCAOther Real Property: Unlimited document preview
						
                                

Preview

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB Electronically Filed 11/17/2020 11:13 PM Superior Court of California 1 Armando S. Mendez, SBN 203909 County of Stanislaus 1231 8th Street, Suite 600 Clerk of the Court 2 Modesto, CA. 95354 By: Marie Brillon, Deputy Telephone: (209)622-0600 3 Fax: (916) 405-3554 $435 PD 4 E-Mail: Amendezlaw@aol.com Attorneys for Defendants Francisca Gonzalez and Michael Anthony Lentini 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 6 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 7 THOMAS E. CHAFEE, SUE A. CHAFFEE Case No: CV-20-002758 8 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT FRANCISCA GONZALEZ vs. and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s 9 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST FRANCISCA GONZALEZ, MICHAEL AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 10 ANTHONY LENTINI; and DOES 1-25, DECLARATORY RELIEF TO 11 Inclusive, DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION 12 Defendants, 13 14 Defendants FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI (Collectively 15 DEFENDANTS) answers Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief to Determine Existence of Easement by Prescription (Complaint) as follows: 16 17 GENERAL DENIAL 18 Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30 DEFENDANTS deny generally each and every allegation of the Complaint and the whole thereof and denies that the 19 Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, right or sustained any damages by reason of any act, error, and /or omission on the part of DEFENDANTS. 20 21 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 22 As separate and distinct affirmative defenses to the Complaint on file herein, DEFENDANTS, 23 allege as follows: 24 I FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. - 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB 1 II 2 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 Plaintiffs had a duty to mitigate, minimize, or prevent damages, if any there were, and they have 4 failed and refused to do so. 5 III THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 The allegations in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 7 IV 8 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 The allegations in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 10 V 11 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Other parties, individuals and entities were a sole and/or contributing cause in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint, and that actions on the part of said others proximately caused 13 or contributed to the happening of the incident, and to the alleged injuries, losses and/or damages against this answering Defendants. Defendant is therefore entitled to have the amount of losses 14 or damages proven by the Plaintiff to be abated, reduced, or eliminated in proportion to the percentage of contributing conduct of said others. 15 VI 16 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17 The allegations in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of laches. 18 VII 19 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 The acts, omissions, losses and damages of which Plaintiffs complain were caused solely by other persons or entities over which this answering DEFENDANTS had no control. 21 VIII 22 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because DEFENDANTS had at all times mentioned 24 in the Complaint exclusive ownership, use, possession and control of the subject disputed real property and any use by Plaintiffs has been merely permissive and by consent of 25 DEFENDANTS. Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. - 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB 1 IX 2 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because DEFENDANTS have at all times mentioned 4 in the Complaint timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes on the subject disputed real property. 5 X 6 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs cannot establish that they have ever timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes on the subject disputed real property. 8 XI 9 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs’ use of the subject disputed real 11 property is merely permissive and only by virtue of the consent of DEFENDANTS. 12 XII TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 The Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred by the applicable 14 statute of limitations. (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 318, 319, 320, 321, 325) 15 XIII THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 17 Plaintiff’s own intentional and/or negligent acts proximately caused or contributed to the claims raised by Plaintiffs and to the alleged injuries, losses or damages if any there were. Plaintiff’s 18 intentional and/or negligent acts bar or proportionately reduce any potential recovery. 19 XIV FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs’ use of the subject disputed real 21 property was not open and notorious; hostile to DEFENDANTS for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years. 22 23 XV FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs have no claim of right to the 25 subject disputed real property. Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. - 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB 1 XVI 2 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs do not need or require any portion 4 of the subject disputed real property for purposes of ingress or egress to, or from, their own real property 5 6 XVII SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 The allegations in the Complaint are barred because Plaintiffs are seek an exclusive easement in 8 their favor in violation of settled California law. Harrison v. Welch, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1084 (2004). Should Plaintiffs seek to establish what the law does not allow DEFENDANTS shall 9 seek an award of attorney fees by way of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.5 10 and 128.7 11 12 WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS pray for judgment as follows: 13 1. That Plaintiffs be granted no relief in this action; 2. For costs herein incurred as allowed by law; 14 3. For reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in defending against the Complaint, 4. Attorney Fees and Costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.5 and 128.7 15 5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper 16 17 Respectfully Submitted, 18 11/17/2020 19 Date:_______________________ _____________________________ Armando S. Mendez 20 Attorney for Defendants FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and 21 MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI 22 23 24 25 Defendant FRANCISCA GONZALEZ and MICHAEL ANTHONY LENTINI’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. - 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 1F4441A6-509E-4A1B-8B84-C3F8A9DB1BAB