Fannie Mae vs. Michael Eddings Lawsuit: Answer
Fannie Mae vs. Michael Eddings Lawsuit: Answer
Fannie Mae vs. Michael Eddings Lawsuit: Answer
ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff vs. MICHAEL A. EDDINGS, THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. EDDINGS, P.C., and, APEX TITLE, Inc., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : :
ANSWER to Complaint for Damages COMES NOW, MICHAEL A. EDDINGS, THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. EDDINGS, P.C., and APEX TITLE, INC., Defendants in the above styled action, , by and through their attorney Robert S. Poydasheff, Jr. and files this, consolidated Answer to Complaint and respectfully shows as follows: ANSWER 1. Defendants admit paragraph 1. 2. Defendants admit paragraph 2. 3. Defendants admit paragraph 3. 4. Defendants admit paragraph 4. 5. Defendants admit paragraph 5. 6. Defendants admit paragraph 6. 7. Defendants admit paragraph 7.
8. Defendants admit paragraph 8. 9. Defendants admit Paragraph 9. 10. Defendants admit paragraph 10. 11. Defendant admit paragraph 11. Defendant shows that Apex Title took no part and had no role in the 11th Avenue Property closing. 12. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny. Upon belief and information defendants show that on or about October 28, 2011 the proceeds due to plaintiff were paid into the register of the Superior Court of Muscogee County by Columbus Bank and Trust. 13. Defendants deny paragraph 13. 14. Defendants admit paragraph 14. 15. Defendants admit paragraph 15. 16. Defendants admit paragraph 16. 17. Defendants admit paragraph 17. 18. Defendants admit paragraph 18. 19. Defendants admit paragraph 19. 20. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny. Defendants believe that the proceeds of the sale were paid into Superior Court of Muscogee County as part of Columbus Bank and Trusts (CB&T) Petitioner for Interpleader. The interpleader action was subsequently removed to federal court for the Middle District of Georgia. (CAFN 4:11-cv-184(WLS). 21. Defendants deny paragraph 21. COUNT 1-NEGLIGENCE 22. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraph 1-21.
23. Defendants deny that defendant Apex Title, Inc., had any role, or duty as part of the 11th Avenue property closing. 24. In response to paragraph 24, defendants deny participating in any misconduct or mishandling of escrow funds. Defendants specifically show that it is their belief that the funds in question were deposited as part of the Interpelader proceedings referenced in paragraph 20. 25. Defendants deny paragraph 25. 26. Defendants deny paragraph 26. 27. Defendants deny the conclusions stated in the affidavit referenced in paragraph 27. 28. Defendants deny paragraph 28. COUNT II- BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 29. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-28. 30. Defendants deny paragraph 30. 31. Defendants deny paragraph 31. 32. Defendants deny paragraph 32. 33. Defendants deny paragraph 33. COUNT III- BREACH OF CONTRACT 34. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-33. 35. Defendants deny paragraph 35. 36. Defendants deny paragraph 36. Defendants show that any funds owed to plaintiff are currently in the possession of the Federal Court, Middle District of Georgia.
37. Defendants deny being the proximate cause of any damages in paragraph 37. 38. Defendants deny paragraph 38. COUNT IV- CONVERSION 39. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-38.. 40. Defendants deny paragraph 40 41. Defendants admit paragraph 41. 42. Defendants admit paragraph 42. 43. Defendants admit paragraph 43. 44. Defendants deny paragraph 44. COUNT V- CIVL RICO, O.C.G.A. 16-14-1 et seq. 45. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-44. 46. Defendants deny paragraph 46. 47. Defendants deny paragraph 47. 48. Defendants deny paragraph 48. COUNT VI- FRAUD 49. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-48. 50. Defendants deny paragraph 50. 51. Defendants deny paragraph 51.
52. Defendants deny paragraph 52. COUNT VII- PUNITIVE DAMAGES 53. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-52. 54. Defendants deny paragraph 54. 55. Defendants deny paragraph 55. 56. Defendants deny paragraph 56. COUNT VIII- O.C.G.A. 13-6-11, ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES 57. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-56. 58. Defendants deny paragraph 58. 59. Defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in paragraph 59. FIRST DEFENSE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM All Claims 71. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE: IMPOSSIBILITY COUNT III 72. Defendants show that it was impossible for Defendants to disburse funds to seller as demanded by plaintiff, because the funds were seized and interplead into the courts registry.
WHEREFORE Defendant prays that: a) b) b) Plaintiffs prayers be denied; Defendant be afforded a jury trial; and Defendant have whatever other relief the court deems equitable and just.
This 23rd day of July 2012. HARP & POYDASHEFF, LLC. _/s Robert S. Poydasheff, Jr. ________ Robert S. Poydasheff, Jr. State Bar No. 586593 Attorney for Defendants. [email protected] P.O. Box 1172 Columbus Ga 31902 Phone: 706.323.2761 Fax 706.323.0182
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date served upon opposing counsel in the above styled case a true and correct copy of the Answer by hand delivery and/or depositing the same in the United States mail in an envelope with sufficient postage thereon to: Frank R. Olson Todd Surden Six Piedmont Center, Suite 700 3525 Piedmont Road, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30305 This 23rd day of July 2012. HARP & POYDASHEFF, LLC. _/s Robert S. Poydasheff, Jr. ________ Robert S. Poydasheff, Jr. State Bar No. 586593 Attorney for Eddings Holdings Inc. [email protected] P.O. Box 1172 Columbus Ga 31902 Phone: 706.323.2761 Fax 706.323.0182