DOCKET NO.

FBT-CV-09-6003132

HSBC BANK USA AS TRUSTEE SUPERIOR COUR

T
VS. JD FAIRFIELD
LUDE A. GEORGES
AT BRIDGEPORT
June 4,2010

ANSWER And Counterclaim

The defendant, through her attorney, Edward F. Kunin, answers the compla
int as
follows:
1. Defendant denies knowledge or information as to the allegations conta
ined in
paragraph 1 of the complaint and leaves the plaintiff to its proof.
2. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint.
3. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint.
4. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint rega
rding the
execution of the mortgage and denies the remainder the said paragraph.
5, 6. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the comp
laint.
7, 8, and 9. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraphs 7, 8, and g
of the
complaint.
10. Defendant denies knowledge as to the allegations of paragraph 10 of
the complaint
and leaves the plaintiff to its proof.
11. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the complaint.

FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE:

1. The mortgage sought to be foreclosed is a "sub-prime" mortgage loan.

 2. The loan was issued without regard to defendant's ability to repay an
d was
misrepresented to the defendant.
 3. Under the circumstances this Court should exercise its equitable juri
sdiction to adjust
the principle balance to reflect both the decline in market value of the subject
property
and plaintiffs predecessor's conduct in making the loan and permit Defendant's
continued possession of the premises.

SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE:

1. The Federal Government and the Federal Reserve System have reimbursed
through
various programs either the plaintiff or plaintiffs predecessor for all or part
of the
principal balance of this loan which has been paid to the extent of said payment
s.

AS COUNTERCLAIMS;
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM:

1. When the defendant was behind in her payments, the plaintiff contacte
d her and
offered a modification plan provided she made the first three payments on time.
2. The defendant was advised that if she made the payments, the mortgage
would be
modified to eliminate the arrearage and to bring the monthly payments down to an

amount she could afford.

3. After making the three payments, the plaintiff did not fonivard the m
odification
agreement, but stated if she made three more payments the modification agreement

would be forwarded to her.

4. She made another three payments. The plaintiff then informed her that
she did not
qualify for a modification agreement and sent her a letter increasing the monthl
y
payments it required.
 5. The plaintiff did not deal with the defendant in good faith and misre
presented its
intentions in order to extract payments from the defendant.
 6. The defendant rerquests that the Court require the plaintiff to modif
y this mortgage as
it initially agreed.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM:
Paragraphs 1-5 of the First Count are hereby made paragraphs 1-5 of this
Second
Count.

6. By wrongfully representing that it would modify the mortgage when it

had no intention
of doing so, the plaintiff committed an unfair trade practice as prohibited by C
.G.S. S421
10b et seq.

WHEREFORE defendant claims:

1. Equitable relief from foreclosure
2. Damages and Punitive Damages
3. Attorney's Fees
4. Costs of Litigation
5. Enforce the modification agreement as originally offered to the defen
dant
6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

Dated at Fairfield, Conn

ecticut June 4,2010
The Defendant, Lude A. G
eorges

Edward F. Kunin, her att

orney
PO Box 1555
Fairfield, Ct., 06825
Juris 32821
Phone/Fax (203) 334-2905
 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was faxed to Andrew Barson
, Hunt Liebert,
Jacobson, at (860) 241-1721 on June 4,2010