IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, CASE NO. 08 000 937 - GCS

Plaintiff,

v.

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN, et al.

Defendants._____________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER to THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Come now the Defendants, Jeremiah T. Ammann and Laura U. Ammann (nee Chaney),

husband and wife, to ANSWER Plaintiff’s unverified “Third Amended Mortgage Foreclosure

Complaint” (hereafter the "Complaint ") as follows:

DEFENDANTS DISPUTE THE DEBT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF AND DEMANDTHAT PLAINTIFF VERIFY THE DEBT PURSUANT TO THE FDCPA.

1. Admitted only as to venue, and denied as to jurisdiction. The subject property of this

action is "residential" real estate property.

2. Denied for lack of knowledge. The "firm" and the Plaintiff are not identified in the

allegations of the Complaint. Without identitifying the Plaintiff, the court has no subject matter

jurisdiction. No papers in, or attached to, the Complaint are labeled as an "Exhibit."

3. Denied . This paragraph does not identify who "executed" the "Mortgage Note," nor does

it identify to whom it was "delivered." This paragraph does not identify the "Mortgagor(s)."

Plaintiff is not named in the "Copies of the original Mortgage Note and Mortgage" attached to

the Complaint. Thus, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

4. Denied . The Complaint does not state a cause of action because it fails to allege a

material fact: that Plaintiff "owns" the alleged note and mortgage1 and Defendants demand proof

of ownership thereof. Plaintiff has shown no standing or capacity to sue in its Complaint.

5. Admitted . Co-Defendants, Jeremiah and Laura, are husband and wife.

6. Admitted only that a payment was "applied to the December 1, 2007, installment" All

else is denied, especially denied that "no subsequent payments have been applied to the loan." In

1 See Fla. R. Civ. Proc., Form 1.944 (2010)

early January 2008, we were told that we had to be three (3) months behind in our loan payments

before we could receive any help. It is our understanding that the "servicer" of our loan is

voluntarily obligated (by a "servicing" contract which we did not see or sign) to make monthly

installment payments on the loan when we do not, or can not, make those payments.

7. Denied . Plaintiff has established no right to make such a declaration. By information in

the record, we understand that Plaintiff allegedly purchased the "Note" knowing that it was

overdue, thus, Plaintiff is not a "holder in due course" of the alleged Note. Further, Plaintiff did

NOT have possesion of the alleged Note when it filed this action.

8. Denied . Plaintiff is suing on an alleged Mortgage that does not authorize "attorney's fees"

except for those awarded in appeals and bankruptcy cases. See page 14, paragraph # 24 of the

alleged Mortgage which clearly states:

As used in this Security Instrument and the Note, attorneys' fees shall include those awarded by an appellate court and any attorneys' fees incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding.

It does not say "also include." It does not say "including, but not limited to." It does not say

"circuit" court.

9. Denied . Plaintiff did not give Defendants the mandatory "written notice" of assignment

"30 days before any action to collect the debt." See F.S. § 559.715.

10. Admitted only that Plaintiff has retained the services of a group of pettifoggers and all

else is denied.

11. Denied for lack of knowledge.

12. Denied . This paragraph makes no sense to us.

13. Admitted .

WHEREFORE, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action and Defendants move the

Court: 1) to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; 2) to quiet title of the subject residential

property in favor of the Defendants, Jeremiah and Laura Ammann; 3) for costs of defending

against this action; 4) for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and 5) for such other and

further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

14. No Standing - The Complaint fails to state a cause of action by not attaching necessary

documents showing Plaintiff’s interest in the matter. See Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule

2

1.210 (a). This case was dismissed by the Court's Order of 21 May 2009, for this very same

reason. The Complaint's exhibits do not support the Complaint. "Exhibits attached to a pleading

become a part of the pleading for all purposes. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b). If an exhibit facially

negates the cause of action asserted, the document attached as an exhibit controls and must be

considered in determining a motion to dismiss." Andre Fladell v. Palm Beach County

Canvassing Board, 772 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2000).

15. No Capacity - The Complaint contains no allegations identifying the Plaintiff, its

authority to do business in Florida, or its capacity to bring this suit. Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 1.120 (a) says, in pertinent part:

It is ... necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, ... to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court....

16. No Notice of Acceleration - Defendants never received a "notice of acceleration" which

gave them a "30-day notice" to cure a default from the "owner and holder" of the alleged "note

and mortgage."

17. No Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.110 (b) requires

that a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s

jurisdiction depends....” By failing to plead in what capacity the Plaintiff brings suit and by

failing to define or identify in any way the nature of its legal entity, the Plaintiff has not plead

that it has the capacity to maintain suit before this Court. Thus, the Court has no subject matter

jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's case.

18. No Certificate - Plaintiff has not shown that it (or anyone else in the chain-of-title) has

paid for and obtained the necessary certificate from the Florida Department of State pertaining to

the sale of notes, bonds and mortgages. A violation of the Florida Statute regarding said

certificate is a felony. See F.S. §§ 609.02 and 609.06 (2009).

19. No Witness - The Complaint fails to attach an affidavit of a competent eyewitness

testifying as to the authenticity and the proper application of the alleged Note and the alleged

Mortgage. Thus, it fails to state a cause of action. The Complaint is not verified.

20. Fraud – By filing this Complaint with its alleged Note and alleged Mortgage, the Plaintiff

and its attorneys have committed a fraud upon the court. The Plaintiff and its attorneys knew,

should have known, or recklessly did not know, that Plaintiff is not, legally, entitled to enforce

the alleged Note and Mortgage. The alleged Note and Mortgage do not contain Plaintiff's name.

The Complaint fails to allege how or why Defendants owe Plaintiff any amount of money.

3

21. Missing Elements – Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy one or more of the necessary elements of

a claim, on the face of the complaint, is an absolute bar to that claim. The alleged Note and

Mortgage do not contain Plaintiff's name. The Complaint fails to allege how or why Defendants

owe Plaintiff any amount of money. Plaintiff fails to allege, or show, that it "owns" the alleged

Mortgage Note and the alleged Mortgage. See Fla. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 1.210(a) and Form 1.944.

22. FDCPA Violations – Plaintiff (as the "servicer" is attempting to collect an alleged

consumer debt for an unidentified person) and Plaintiff's attorneys (who are attempting to collect

an alleged consumer debt for Plaintiff), are "debt collectors" who have violated (and continue to

violate) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by making several false,

deceptive and/or misleading representations regarding the debt alleged in the Complaint, which

include, but are not limited to: The amount allegedly owed, the identity of the owner of the

alleged consumer debt, the legal status of said debt and the character of said debt. Plaintiff and

its attorneys are using the United States mail in their attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt.

Further, Plaintiff did not allow Defendants the mandatory 30-day time-period to dispute

Plaintiff's dunning letter, dated 15 July 2008, because Plaintiff filed its Complaint eight (8) days

later on 23 July 2008. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

23. Documentary Stamps - Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate payment of the proper amount

of Documentary Stamp Tax for any "additional debt" affecting the principal amount of the

alleged Note and Mortgage, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 201.08, and pursuant to Somma V. Metra

Electronics Corp., 727 So.2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

24. Statute of Limitations – Each cause of action, claim, and item of damages did not accrue

within the time prescribed by law for them before this action was brought. See Fla. R. Civ. Proc.,

Form 1.965 (2010).

25. Violations of Federal Law – Plaintiff has failed to make the necessary disclosures and

offers of assistance as required by the: Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. (“TILA”),

as amended by the Home Ownership & Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. §§1602(aa)

and 1639 (“HOEPA”), and Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. part 226.

26. Violations of Florida Law – By making false representations in this Foreclosure Action,

Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys have violated The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade

Practices Act (F.S. § 501.201 et seq.) and The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (F.S.

§ 559.551 et seq.) regarding, but not limited to: the amount allegedly owed, the identity of the

owner of the alleged consumer debt, the legal status of said debt and the character of said debt.

4

27. No Possession of Note at Filing – By Plaintiff's own allegations (in its original

complaint--at paragraph 21, and its first amended foreclosure complaint--at paragraph 19)

Plaintiff did not have "possession of the Mortgage Note" when it filed the original complaint.

Plaintiff filed the alleged original Note in April 2010, almost two (2) years AFTER it filed the

original complaint.

28. Satisfaction of Debt by Mortgage Insurance – Section 10 of the Mortgage provides for

mortgage insurance premiums to be paid by Defendants to "reimburse Lender (or any entity that

purchases the Note) for certain losses it may incur if Borrower does not repay the Loan."

29. Satisfaction by Federal Note Guarantee – The Lender, JPMorgan, acquired a "Loan Note

Guarantee" on 23 December 2005, in which "the United States of America" agreed to "pay the

Lender" for "Any loss of an amount equal to 90 percent of the principal amount" including

"principal and interest evidenced by the Note." This loan guarantee restricts the Lender's right to

sell the loan: "Lender may sell the guaranteed loan only to a Lender which meets the

qualifications and in the manner as provided in Subpart D, 7 CFR 1980. Such loan must not be in

default at the time of the sale." The loan guarantee also requires that "Lender will be responsible

for servicing the entire loan and Lender will remain mortgagee and/or secured party of record."

The Complaint appears to be contrary to the Loan Note Guarantee. Plaintiff does NOT own the

loan.

30. F.S. § 559.715 – Plaintiff failed to give the mandatory "written notice" of assignment to

Defendants before filing its foreclosure action against Defendants as mandated by Florida Statute

§ 559.715. The purported assignment did not exist until after the original complaint was filed.

31. Counterfeit Note - The alleged "Original Note" filed in this case appears to be a high-

resolution, computer-generated, color copy. Defendant has examined said Note and it appears to

be a counterfeit copy. A copy of a promissory note is just as worthless as a copy of a dollar bill.

See F.S. §§ 90.952 and 90.953. According to "Comments of the Florida Bankers Association"2

filed with the Supreme Court of Florida, it is common practice to destroy notes after they have

been scanned and their images have been stored, electronically, in a computer's memory banks.

32. Violation of Federal Law . The alleged "Original Note" and the alleged "Original

Mortgage" filed in this case appear to be counterfeit securities which, if so, violate United States

Code Title 18 USC §§ 472 - 474.

2 Case No. 09-1460, In Re: Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure and Forms..., pp. 3-4.

5

33. Satisfaction via U.S. Bailout and/or Derivatives – The Lender, JPMorgan, and/or the

Plaintiff, recieved payment for the alleged consumer debt via bailout money from United States

taxpayers and/or through derivatives (i.e, credit default swaps).

34. Not Verified – Plaintiff's Complaint is not verified as mandated by Florida Rules of

Judicial Administration, Rule 1.110(b) as amended by the Florida Supreme Court. The new rule

was "effective" on February 11, 2010. See "Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint," Circuit

Court, 6th Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida, Case Number 09-20548-CI-13.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants move the Court to dismiss the Complaint with

prejudice, for findings of fact and conclusions of law, for taxable costs, and for such other and

further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED by Defendants and Cross-Claimants, Self-Represented:

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN and LAURA U. AMMANN

________________________________ ____________________________

1820 IRIS AVENUE - SEBRING, FL 33875-6090 - Telephone (863)-385-3138

6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, CASE NO. 08 000 937 - GCS

Plaintiff,

v.

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN, et al.

Defendants._____________________________/

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN andLAURA U. AMMANN

Cross-Claimants,

v.

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,

Counter-Defendant,

FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L.;ASHLEIGH L. PRICE (nee POLITANO);RONALD E. PEREIRA, andANNE M. CRUZ-ALVAREZ;

Cross-Defendants._____________________________/

DEFENDANTS' COUNTER-CLAIM and THIRD-PARTY CROSS-CLAIM

Comes now Defendants, Counter-Claimants and Cross-Claimants, Jeremiah T. Ammann

and Laura U. Ammann (husband and wife, hereafter "Defendants") for themselves, and allege:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

35. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

36. This action arises out of Plaintiff's and Cross-Defendants’ violations of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).

7

37. Cross-Defendants have violated the FDCPA § 1692e by making several false, deceptive

and/or misleading representations regarding the debt alleged in the Complaint, which include,

but are not limited to, representations as to: the amount allegedly owed, the identity of the owner

of the alleged debt, the legal status of the alleged debt and the character of the alleged debt.

38. Venue is proper in Highlands County because the acts and transactions occurred here,

Cross-Claimants reside here, and Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants transact business here.

PARTIES

39. Defendant and Cross-Claimant, Jeremiah T. Ammann (hereafter, “Jeremiah”), is a

natural person who resides on the subject residential property in the City of Sebring, Highlands

County, Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

40. Defendant and Cross-Claimant, Laura U. Ammann (hereafter, “Laura”), is a natural

person who resides on the subject residential property in the City of Sebring, Highlands County,

Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

41. Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, Chase Home Finance, LLC, EIN 20-1897196

(hereafter, “Chase”), is a foreign limited liability company registered with the Florida Division

of Corporations whose principal address is 194 Wood Avenue South, 2nd Floor, Iselin, New

Jersey 08830 and, as a self-proclaimed "servicer," is an out-of-state “debt collector” as that term

is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) who is, wantonly and recklessly, attemping to collect a debt

through fraud. Chase does not appear to be registered with Florida as an out-of-state debt

collector. Plaintiff is liable for the actions of its agents, including the attorneys named as cross-

defendants herein.

42. Cross-Defendant, Florida Default Law Group, P. L. (“FDLG”), is a Florida limited

liability company attempting to collect an alleged debt for Plaintiff and is a “debt collector” as

that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). FDLG routinely represents creditor's in Florida

8

foreclosures on single family homes. FDLG is under investigation by the office of Florida

Attorney General Bill McCollum for possibly “fabricating and/or presenting” misleading

documents in foreclosure cases. "In the May 1 [2010] article at ecreditdaily.com, the Florida

attorney general’s office was quoted as saying in reference to the firm’s paperwork under review:

“These documents have been presented in court before judges as actual assignments of mortgages and have later been shown to be legally inadequate and/or insufficient.”3

43. Cross-Defendant, Ashleigh L. Price (nee Politano), Florida Bar # 51416 (“Price”), is a

natural person who is a Florida attorney, and agent for Plaintiff, attempting to collect an alleged

debt for Plaintiff and is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

44. Cross-Defendant, Ronald E. Pereira, Florida Bar # 597872 (“Pereira”), is a natural

person who is a Florida attorney, and agent for Plaintiff, attempting to collect an alleged debt for

Plaintiff and is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

45. Cross-Defendant, Anne M. Cruz-Alvarez, Florida Bar # 17140 (“Cruz”), is a natural

person who is a Florida attorney, and agent for Plaintiff, attempting to collect an alleged debt for

Plaintiff and is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

46. Cross-Defendants (FDLG, Price, Pereira and Cruz) will be collectively referred to as

“the Attorneys” or as “Plaintiff’s Attorneys.” The Attorneys are, wantonly and recklessly,

pursuing this legal action when they know, should know, or recklessly do not know, that the

facts and relevant law do not support the action as alleged in the Complaint.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

47. On 2 December 2005, Cross-Claimants incurred a financial obligation that was primarily

for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a "consumer debt” as that term is

defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), namely, a promissory note (that does not appear to be a

3 See http://www.jdjournal.com/2010/05/03/florida-default-law-group-under-investigation-by-florida-ag/

9

“negotiable instrument”) in the approximate amount of $151,900.00 (hereafter the "Note"). This

amount is "approximate," because the Note is subject to an alleged Mortgage of the same date

(hereafter the "Mortgage") and the Mortgage purports to obligate the mortgagor to pay "Funds"

into an escrow account for the payment of "taxes and assessments and other items."4 Sections 5

and 9 of the alleged Mortgage allow for "additional debt ... secured by this Security Agreement."

Further, this amount includes fees that violate federal and state consumer protecton laws.

48. The "Lender," on the Note, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., (hereafter "JPMorgan"),

led Cross-Claimants to believe that JPMorgan was loaning them money from JPMorgan's

account. It now appears that JPMorgan and Cross-Claimants merely exchanged one kind of

money for another (a promissory note for several Federal Reserve promissory notes). It appears

JPMorgan's account was not debited.

49. Plaintiff is not the Lender, JPMorgan.

50. Plaintiff has not claimed to be representing the Lender, JPMorgan.

51. Plaintiff has not shown that it purchased the Note and Mortgage either prior to the

commencement of this action or prior to the Note being in default (overdue), thus Plaintiff is not

a "creditor" as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(4).

52. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys have filed a purported "Assignment of Mortgage" in the

official records of Highlands County as File # 1514949, Bk 2154, Pg 1957 on 14 August 2008

(hereafter, the “Assignment”).

53. The Assignment was, allegedly, executed on 25 July 2010—two days AFTER Plaintiff's

Complaint was filed with this Court and six months AFTER Plaintiff alleges the Note was in

default.

4 Complaint's "MORTGAGE" Exhibit, page 4, paragraph number 3.

10

54. The Assignment purports to transfer the Mortgage "together with the Note," however,

Plaintiff did not have the Note until years AFTER it filed the Complaint.

55. Pursuant to papers filed under oath in this action, Stacy E. Spohn is both the Vice

President of JPMorgan, assignor, and the Vice President of Plaintiff, assignee. Thus, Plaintiff

knew, should have known, or recklessly did not know that the Note was overdue for at least six

months prior to the execution of the Assignment.

56. Plaintiff's attorneys, as agents of Plaintiff, prepared the Assignment, thus they knew,

should have known, or recklessly did not know that the Note was overdue for at least six months

prior to the execution of the Assignment.

57. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys knew, should have known, or recklessly did not know

that Plaintiff has not shown that it purchased the Note and Mortgage.

58. Plaintiff is a self-proclaimed "servicer" attempting to collect an alleged consumer debt for

an another person(s) and is a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6).

59. Plaintiff's Attorneys as agents of Plaintiff are attempting to collect an alleged consumer

debt for Plaintiff and are all debt collectors as "debt collector" is defined by the FDCPA, 15

U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6).

60. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants have all violated (and continue to violate) the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by making false, deceptive and/or misleading

representations regarding the debt alleged in the Complaint, said representations include, but are

not limited to: The amount allegedly owed, the identity of the owner of the alleged debt, the

legal status of the alleged debt and the character of the alleged debt.

61. Plaintiff and its attorneys have used, and continue to use the United States mail to

communicate false, deceptive and/or misleading representations, as previously mentioned, in

their attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt.

11

62. Cross-Claimants have suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection

communications including, but not limited to: harm to their credit, restrictions to their ability to

sell or encumber their Property, costs of defending this action, and damages from the willful

destruction of their personal property (approx. $315.00), rent of $9,600.00, moving expenses

(approx. $300.00) and their suffering from emotional distress caused by Plaintiff's and Cross-

Defendants' unlawful acts and omissions.

COUNT ONE:VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA (15 - U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.), FLORIDA'S

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (F.S. § 501.201 et seq.), andTHE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (F.S. § 559.551 et seq.)

63. Cross-Claimants incorporate by reference paragraphs 35-62 of this Counter/Cross-Claim

as though fully stated herein.

64. The foregoing acts and omissions of Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants (Chase Home

Finance, LLC; FDLG, Price, Pereira and Cruz) constitute multiple violations of the Fair Debt

Collections Practice Act ("FDCPA") including, but not limited to each and every one of the

above-cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq, F.S. § 501.201 et seq and F.S. §

559.551 et seq.

65. As a result of each and every one of these violations of the FDCPA, Defendants are

entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount

up to $1,000.00 per party pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2)(A); punitive damages pursuant to

F.S. § 559.77(2), reasonable attorney’s fees--if any, and taxable costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1692(a)(3), F.S. § 501.201 et seq and § 559.551 et seq from Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants.

COUNT TWO:QUIET TITLE (SLANDER OF TITLE)

66. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 35-62 of this Counter/Cross-Claim as

though fully stated herein.

12

67. Defendants are the owners of record and residents of their home,5 the residential real

estate property described as:

Lot 32, Block 4, ORANGE BLOSSOM ESTATES UNIT NO. 7, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 26, Public Records of Highlands County, Florida. Parcel ID No. C243528-07000400320, and

more commonly known as: 1820 Iris Avenue, Sebring, Florida 33875-6090

Hereafter referred to as the "Property."

68. Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants intentionally published false, deceptive and/or

misleading statements regarding Defendants and their Property to third parties, including but not

limited to: statements in Plaintiff's Complaint and other court papers. The purpose of these

statements is to FORECLOSE an alleged "mortgage held by Plaintiff against" the Property

(hereafter, the "Mortgage") which Plaintiff could not do without these misleading statements.

69. Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants knew, should have known, or recklessly did not know

that: 1) the Note and the Mortgage did not name Plaintiff; 2) Plaintiff has offered no valid

paperwork showing it purchased and owns the Note and Mortgage; and 3) Plaintiff has not

shown, and does not have, the legal right to foreclose on the Property.

70. Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants knew, should have known, or recklessly did not know

that the publication and communication of these false, misleading and/or deceptive statements

would likely result in inducing others not to deal with Defendants. Defendants can not sell their

home (or use their home as collateral for a loan) as a direct result of the actions and/or omissions

of Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants.

71. The actions of Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants have played a material and substantial

part in inducing others not to deal with Defendants.

72. Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants have a duty not to publish false, misleading and

deceptive statements regarding the Defendants and their Property.

73. Defendants have suffered (and continue to suffer) actual, general and special damages

caused as a result of the actions and omissions of Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that judgment be entered for them and against Plaintiff

and each and every Cross-Defendant, with findings of fact and conclusions of law and:

5 Plaintiff admits this fact in its Complaint at page 2, paragraph 5 of Count One.

13

AS TO COUNT ONE:VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA (15 - U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.), FLORIDA'S

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (F.S. § 501.201 et seq.), andTHE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (F.S. § 559.551 et seq.)

• for an award of actual, general and special damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) and F.S. § 501.2105 for the Defendants, against the Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants;

• for an award of statutory damages of $1,000 per party/per defendant, for the Defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2)(A) against the Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants;

• for $500,000 in punitive damages for wanton and reckless acts pursuant to F.S. § 559.77(2),

• for taxable costs of court and reasonable attorney’s fees (if any) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) for the Defendants, against the Plaintiff and all Cross-Defendants; and

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

AS TO COUNT TWO:QUIET TITLE (SLANDER OF TITLE)

• for judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice;

• for judgment declaring clear title of the Property to Jeremiah and Laura;

• for judgment voiding the purported "Assignment of Mortgage" filed in the official records of Highlands County as File # 1514949, Bk 2154, Pg 1957 on 14 August 2008;

• for an award of actual, general and special damages;

• for any appropriate injunctive relief (i.e., quieting title, cease and desist, etc.);

• for taxable costs of court; and

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted by Co-Defendants, Self-Represented:

JEREMIAH T. AMMANN and LAURA U. AMMANN

________________________________ ____________________________

1820 IRIS AVENUE 1820 IRIS AVENUESEBRING, FL 33875-6090 SEBRING, FL 33875-6090(863)-385-3138 (863)-385-3138

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was delivered to the parties listed

below on the 18th day of November 2010 as indicated below:

by U.S. mail: by hand delivery:ASHLEIGH L. PRICE HIGHLANDS COUNTYFLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.L. c/o ELIZABETH V LENIHANP O BOX 25018 2543 US HWY 27 SOUTHTAMPA FL 33622-5018 SEBRING FL 33870-2125

Certified by: Laura U. Ammann

_________________________________

1820 Iris AvenueSebring, FL 33875-6090Telephone: (863) 385-3138

15