Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thomas Davis, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) No. 06 C 2648
Elite Mortgage Services Inc., )
E & I Funding Corp., )
Decision One Mortgage Co., )
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc... ) Robert Gettleman,
Melvin Brooks, LeAndre Burnett, ) Judge Presiding
Lorie Westerfield, Esq., Earnest Terrell Rowell, )
Johnnie Pierre, NovaStar Mortgage Inc. )
and All Unknown Claimants, )
)
Defendants. )
Davis (“Plaintiff”), by his attorney, John Elson, Northwestern University Legal Clinic,
and certified senior law students, Meghan Lind and Ethan White, move for partial
Third and Fourth Affirmative Defenses. In the alternative, Plaintiff moves to dismiss or
strike these Defenses under Rule 12(c) or (f) as insufficient in law. In support of this
Motion, Plaintiff submits the accompanying Memorandum of Law and Local Rule 56.1
1
Case 1:06-cv-02648 Document 125 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 4
made its mortgage loan, it deserves good faith purchaser status and, therefore, a first-
Interest, (Exhibit A to this Motion), months before Novastar made its mortgage loan was
under Illinois statute conclusive notice of Plaintiff’s equitable claim to all subsequent
claimants, and;
iii. Under Illinois law, mortgage lenders do not have a right to bona fide purchaser
Complaint on the ground that the Complaint itself shows that Plaintiff waived his
equitable mortgage claim because he did not conduct himself prudently or reasonably
Celotex doctrine, this Third Affirmative Defense should be dismissed because the facts
alleged in the Complaint do not support the waiver defense’s essential element that
Plaintiff’s actions manifested his intent to waive his claim of title to his Property.
Complaint on the ground that the Complaint itself shows that Plaintiff should be estopped
2
Case 1:06-cv-02648 Document 125 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 4
from asserting his equitable mortgage claim because he did not conduct himself prudently
Celotex doctrine, this defense should be dismissed because the facts alleged in the
Complaint do not support the essential elements of the estoppel defense that Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s conveyance of his Home to Rowell when Novastar made its mortgage loan to
Defendant Pierre.
Summary Judgment because on the basis of the allegations of the Complaint that
Novastar has either admitted, or has not denied, there are no material issues of fact and
Plaintiff, on the basis of the admitted and undenied facts, is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Heck v. Rodgers, 457 F.2d 303, 307(7th Cir. 1972)(“There is nothing
contained in the Rule, (F.R.Civ.P. 56), which required the defendants to support their
8. F.R.Civ.P. 12(c) and (f) provides an alternative basis for the dismissal of
Novastar’s first four Affirmative Defenses. Because Novastar’s Answer admits the
equitable claims, Novastar’s own Answer negates its First and Second Affirmative
Defenses asserting its good faith purchaser status. Because Novastar explicitly bases its
Third and Fourth Affirmative Defenses of waiver and estoppel entirely on facts alleged in
Answer also negates these two Defenses. Therefore, because the pleadings demonstrate
3
Case 1:06-cv-02648 Document 125 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 4
by themselves that Novastar’s Affirmative Defenses have no legal merit, they should
See Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 235, 236 (N.D.Ill.,
1997).
Wherefore, for the reasons stated above and in the accompanying Memorandum
of Law, Plaintiff requests pursuant to either Rule 56 or Rule 12(c) or (f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure that this Court dismiss Novastar’s First, Second, Third and
Respectfully submitted,
s/John S. Elson
Plaintiff’s Attorney
John S. Elson
Attorney No. 23460
Meghan Lind, Certified Senior Law Student
Ethan White, Certified Senior Law Student
Northwestern University Legal Clinic
357 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 503-8576