It Happened To Us. It Could Happen To You. The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family.
It Happened To Us
      It Could Happen To You
It Happened To Us - The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family
It Happened To Us. It Could Happen To You. The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family.
Home / Legal / Montana Documents / Motion For Leave To Amend Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint, and Demand For Jury Trial
It Happened To Us
Montana Legal Documents

Motion For Leave To Amend Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint, and Demand For Jury Trial
Filed February 12, 2020

Motion For Leave To Amend Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint, and Demand For Jury Trial

COMES NOW, Defendants, Nick and Donna Nickerson, in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 15, and move this Court to freely give us leave, since justice so requires, to amend our answer and submit our counterclaims and third party complaint. This motion is being presented at this time due to the surfacing of compelling new evidence that Wells Fargo is just now being disclosed as a plaintiff party. Wells Fargo was never properly identified or added as a party during the litigation. Wells Fargo’s true involvement and the facts surrounding their involvement was previously concealed by opposing counsel’s use of willful and intentional deceit and fraud on the court. This fact would most certainly have caused a different outcome of all underlying foreclosure judgments as corroborated by previous statements made by opposing counsel when practicing deceit about Wells Fargo’s true involvement.

THE COURT: And there appears to be a history of them attempting to make payments
after that initial default, but they continued to engage the servicer of the loan, Wells
Fargo, in an attempt to pay. Does that create a factual dispute?
MS. PETERMAN: Well, Wells Fargo isn't a party to this case, so it doesn't create a
factual dispute, I don't think, for HSBC…So it could create a factual dispute with Wells
Fargo, but not with HSBC.
Transcript, 13:21-14:8

We have been severely and substantially prejudiced by our inability to present any of our defenses or claims against Wells Fargo due to opposing counsel’s fraudulent concealment, fraud on the court and deceit. We were told our defenses could create an issue of fact for Wells Fargo, not HSBC. Wells Fargo, as the loan originator and our only servicer has been a party to all interactions regarding servicing issues, payment attempts/prevention of performance and our loan in general from it’s origination until the present day. We were grossly prejudiced in our defense of this suit by the restriction of only bringing defenses and claims against HSBC, who we had no dealings with prior to this lawsuit. New evidence demonstrates Wells Fargo was maliciously prosecuting this suit in someone else’s name to avoid settlement requirements and government oversight.

Therefore, we intend to add the following affirmative defenses and claims to our Amended Answer, Counterclaim and Demand For a Jury Trial submitted to the Court that was deemed admitted, then denied, and resubmit with these claims and defenses against Wells Fargo, including, but not limited to, no breach by defendant; inaccurate accounting; failure to mitigate damages; contributory negligence; prevention of performance; waiver; mortgage fraud; forgery; inequitable agreement; unconscionability; breach of general duty of care; conspiracy, collusion and racketeering; negligence; abuse of service process; fraud; malice; wrongful foreclosure; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud on the court; deceit; breach of contract; violation of Truth in Lending act; violation of Montana’s Consumer Protection Act; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This also includes, but is not limited to violations, breaches, and enforcement of M.R.Civ.P. 7.1, MCA § 1-3-211, MCA § 1-3-230, MCA § 27-1-221(2), MCA § 27-1-712, MCA § 28-1-201, MCA § 28-1-211, MCA § 28-1-403, MCA § 28-1-1301, MCA § 28-1-1304, MCA § 28-2-701, MCA § 30-14-103, MCA § 30-14-133, MCA § 32-9-124, MCA § 32-9-170 (1),(2),(3),(7), MCA § 45-4-102; MCA § 45-6-203, MCA § 45-6-325, MCA § 71-1-302; 12 CFR 1024.38; violation of Montana Penal Code, Part I, Title VII, Chapter 4, Section 232 and violation of the settlement agreement.
Furthermore, we intend to add third party’s Crowley Fleck, Kenneth Lay, RCO Legal, Erica Peterman, Lundberg and Associates, and Hillary R. McCormack. We intend to present the following claims against the above named third parties, including but not limited to, violation of MCA § 27-1-712, MCA § 28-1-201, MCA § 37-61-406; deceit; fraud on the court; negligence; misprision of felony; violation of constitutional rights; conspiracy, collusion and racketeering; criminal concealment; fraud and other claims for their intentional concealment of Wells Fargo’s involvement.

This motion is supported by our Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, Counterclaim, Third Party Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial and the Affidavit of Nick Nickerson in Support of Motions.

Wherefore, we move this Court grant leave to amend our answer and submit our counterclaims, third party complaints and demand for a jury trial.

Oral argument requested.

View this document page by page
View this document as a PDF
View other legal documents