IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR SKAGIT COUNTY
ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, as §
TRUSTEE of the ANN G. FREEZE §
REVOCABLE TRUST, and of the §
RONALD L. FREEZE REVOCABLE §
TRUST §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. 22-2006329
§
ERIC FREEZE §
Defendant. §
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM
NOW COMES Eric Freeze, Defendant, and files this Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
Pursuant to Wash. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 12, Defendant answers the allegations and claims made by Plaintiff in each corresponding paragraph of the First Amended Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “Complaint”), as follows:
- IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
- Defendant admits the contents of Paragraph 1.1 of the Complaint.
- Defendant admits the contents of Paragraph 1.2 of the Complaint.
- JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- Defendant admits the contents of Paragraph 2.1 of the Complaint.
- FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.1 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.2 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.3 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.4 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.5 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.6 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.7 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.8 of the Complaint.
- FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Trespass
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.2 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.3 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.4 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4.5 of the Complaint.
- SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Ejectment
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.1 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.2 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.3 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.4 of the Complaint.
- THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Quiet Title
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.1 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.2 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.3 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.4 of the Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.5 of the Complaint.
- FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Nuisance and Injunctive Relief
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.1 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.2 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.3 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.4 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.5 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.6 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.7 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.8 of this Complaint.
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Slander of Title
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.1 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.2 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.3 of this Complaint.
- Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 8.4 of this Complaint.
Statement of Facts Common to Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim
- Defendant rendered services to Plaintiff. Plaintiff promised and agreed to provide indefinite residency for services rendered but has failed to do so despite Defendant’s continuous provision of services.
- The affidavit requires Plaintiff to pay consideration to Defendant in the sum of $740,000.00. Defendant has not received such consideration from Plaintiff.
- In order to safeguard his interests, Defendant filed a lis pendens at the Skagit County land records office as well as a mechanic’s lien on the subject property.
- After Plaintiff’s persistent refusal to pay despite multiple requests to do so, a lis pendens and a mechanic’s lien were the only options Defendant was left with.
Affirmative Defenses
- Defendant hereby incorporates the facts set out in the foregoing Statements of Facts as though set out in full herein.
- Failure of consideration. Plaintiff did not pay Defendant $740,000.00 as outlined in the affidavit.
- Promissory estoppel. Plaintiff promised and agreed to provide indefinite residency for services rendered but has failed to do so despite multiple fulfillments by Defendant.
- Lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover consequential damages from breach of a contract that does not contemplate such damages. Plaintiff is subject to the affidavit amount which is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
- This matter has been settled stare decisis by tacit ascent.
- The Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendant.
- Plaintiff is not entitled to any punitive/liquidated damages as Defendant did not act or fail to act in a manner sufficient to give rise to punitive/liquidated damages liability.
- Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages.
- Plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy while coming with unclean hands.
- Defendant’s actions were in utmost good faith.
- All actions taken by Defendant with respect to Plaintiff were supported by legitimate business reasons.
- Defendant reserves the right to assert further affirmative defenses as they become evident through discovery investigation.
Counterclaim – Quiet Title
- Defendant incorporates the facts set out in the foregoing Statement of Facts as though set out in full herein.
- Defendant would like this Court to quiet title in his name and subsequently eject Plaintiff from the subject property under lis pendens and a mechanic’s lien.
- Granting quiet title requires that the party bringing such an action possess true title to the property and the title must be superior to other claimants.
- Defendant possesses true title to the property until he is paid $740,000.00 for services rendered. His title is superior to that of Plaintiff because Plaintiff owes him $740,000.00 for services rendered.
- In good faith, Defendant tried to convince Plaintiff to pay him, to no avail. Defendant had to ensure that he is paid for services rendered, so he filed a lis pendens and a mechanic’s lien on the property.
- Defendant requests this Court to grant quiet title in his name.
Prayer for Relief
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following reliefs:
- DISMISS Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Trespass, Ejectment, Quiet Title, Nuisance and Injunctive Relief, and Slander of Title with prejudice;
- GRANT judgment in favor of Defendant;
- QUIET title to the property located at 47796 and 47972 Moen Road, Concrete, Washington 98237;
- AWARD Defendant costs of this suit; and
- AWARD Defendant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
Dated this ___ day of March, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Eric Freeze,
Defendant in pro per
VERIFICATION
I, Eric Freeze, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
_________________________________
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of March, 2022.
______________________________
Notary Public
________________________________________
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: ____________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )