PAUL W. DAUGHARTY
RUDE, JACKSON & DAUGHARTY, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Telephone: (208) 664-3799
Facsimile: (208) 666-0550
Idaho State Bar Association No. 4520
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
LARRY A. DECKER AND ROSANNE E.
DECKER, husband and wife,
CASE NO.CV-03-00722
Petitioners, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
v. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT; COMPLAINT FOR
STONERIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES
ASSOCIATION, INC, an
nonprofit corporation aka
SOUCI PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Respondent.
__________________________________
COMES NOW, the Defendant, STONERIDGE PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATON, INC., an
1. Each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages is denied unless specifically admitted herein.
I.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Petitioners Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages is without sufficient information and/or knowledge to admit or deny, and therefore, denies the same.
3. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages admits the same.
4. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 6, subsections A, B, C, D, E, F and G, of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages admits that the Exhibits attached to Petitioners’ Petition are true and correct copies.
5. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 7 of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same.
6. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 8 of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same as written. The actions complained of were undertaken by both the Board of Directors and members of the association.
7. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 9 of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages to the extent necessary denies the same.
8. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraphs 10 and 11 of Petitioners’ Petitions for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same.
II.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
9. Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
10. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 1 of the First Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages admits the same.
11. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 2 and 3 of the First Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same.
12. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 4 of the First Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages to the extent necessary denies the same.
13. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 5 and 6 of the First Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages to the extent necessary denies the same.
14. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 7 of the First Cause of Action of First Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction admits the same.
15. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 8 and 9 of the First Cause of Action of
First Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same.
III.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
16. Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
17. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 1 of the Second Cause of Action of
Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages and to the extent that any response is required thereto, Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 16 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
18. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same.
19. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 6 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same as written.
20. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 7 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages, admits that Petitioners’ counsel wrote a letter to Stoneridge’s counsel on the 15th day of April, 2003, but denies the remainder of Paragraph 7.
21. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 8 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages is without sufficient information and/or knowledge to admit or deny, and therefore, denies the same.
22. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 9 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages is without sufficient information and/or knowledge to admit or deny, and therefore, denies the same.
23. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 10 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages admits that changes were made between the original Articles of Incorporation and the amended Articles of Incorporation.
24. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 11 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages admits that changes were made between the original Declaration of Covenants and the new Master Declaration of Covenants.
25. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Second Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same as written.
IV.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
26. Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
27. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 1 of the Third Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages and to the extent that any response is required thereto, Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 26 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
28. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Third Cause of Action of Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages and to the extent necessary denies the same. Provided, however, to the extent Paragraph 3 only sets forth the language from the original Declaration of Covenants, it is hereby admitted.
V.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
QUIET TITLE
29. Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
30. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 1 of the Fourth Cause of Action of Petitioners’ re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Answer as Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages and to the extent that any response is required thereto, Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
31. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 2 of the Fourth Cause of Action of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages to the extent necessary admits the same.
32. Stoneridge in answer to Paragraph 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages denies the same.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Stoneridge hereby re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
2. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s first affirmative defense to Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages asserts that the Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and should therefore be dismissed.
3. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s second affirmative defense to Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages asserts that Stoneridge asserts that it has not been able to engage in sufficient discovery and therefore requests the Court to permit Stoneridge to amend its Answer and to assert further affirmative defenses or delete affirmative defenses once discovery has been completed.
4. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s third affirmative defense to Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages asserts that Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages contains what is commonly referred to as a “Prayer for Relief” and to the extent that any response is required thereto Stoneridge denies the same.
5. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s fourth affirmative defense to Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages Stoneridge asserts estoppel and/or laches.
6. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s fifth affirmative defense to Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages Stoneridge asserts waiver.
7. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s sixth affirmative defense to Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages Stoneridge asserts that the actions alleged by Petitioners to be unlawful or improper were ratified by the membership of the association.
8. By way of further answer and as Stoneridge’s seventh affirmative defense to Petitioner’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages Stoneridge asserts that Petitioners have failed to join indispensable and/or necessary party.
WHEREFORE, Stoneridge prays for judgment against the Petitioners as follows:
1. That Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Complaint for Injunction and Damages be dismissed with prejudice and that Petitioners take nothing thereby;
2. For attorney’s fee and costs in the amount not less that THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,000.00) to be established for the Court; and
3. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.
Dated this 17 day of July, 2003.
RUDE, JACKSON & DAUGHARTY, LLP
(signed)
_____________________________________
PAUL W. DAUGHARTY
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I hereby certify that I caused to be
Served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing ANSWER on this
17 day of July, 2003,
to:
PAUL WILLIAM VOGEL, P.A. [ ] Mail, postage prepaid thereon
ATTORNEY AT LAW [X] Via Facsimile – (208) 265-6775
P.O.
(signed)
PAUL W. DAUGHARTY
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT; COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
AND DAMAGES
Retyped
by Rosanne
Accuracy
not guaranteed