You are on page 1of 5

IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 41TH DISTRICT COURT OF SHELBY TWP Philip W.

Ellison
Plaintiff

v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


Defendant

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


Plaintiff

v. Philip W. Ellison and Occupants


Defendant in error

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case # Judge

Attorney for Plaintiff Donald King of Trott &Trott P.C. 31440 Northwestern Highway Suite 200 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334 248-732-6452

Defendant in error Philip W. Ellison 20078 Ballantrae Dr. Macomb, Michigan 48044

COUNTERCLAIM AND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT NOW COMES Philip Ellison Defendant in error, unschooled in law will respond to an apparent complaint filed by Donald King an alleged attorney for JPMorgan Chase Bank a National Association hereinafter Plaintiff and Counterclaim against the plaintiff and their attorney.

Jurisdictional Statement I 1. The jurisdiction of this court is challenged based on the subject matter of the original complaint as it refers to possession of real property valued at $228,500.00 well above the

$25,000.00 designated for district court. Pursuant to MCR 4.002 Transfer of action the issue of proper venue and jurisdiction is also challenged as there is an objection to the sheriffs deed that is presented in the complaint filed by Donald King. Jurisdictional Statement II 2. The sheriffs deed is dated September 8, 2011 nine months after Chase Home Mortgages Power of Attorney was rescinded due to fraud and failure to answer a Qualified Written RESPA request. Federal Law mandates that a RESPA request must be answered within 30 days. 3. Since Chase Home Mortgage no longer had Power of Attorney it was not possible to Assign their perceived right to invoke a power of sale clause. Furthermore, there is a MISC filing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan memorializing the agreement to the terms. General Background 4. This is an action for dismissal of complaint and change of venue to the court of proper jurisdiction for the Counter complaint regarding RESPA violations. Statement of Fact 5. On April 10th 2009, I Philip Wesley Ellison tendered a negotiable instrument to a representative of Chase Home Mortgage LLC and was led to believe that it was of no value and consequently signed a security interest to my property. 6. I began investigating the origination of the (loan) and the mortgage documents I signed after learning of rampant mortgage fraud nationwide. 7. I contacted the Chase Home Mortgage with a written RESPA request for information concerning the origination of the loan of $228,500.00. The plaintiff never responded to the request.

8. The plaintiff refused to respond to a second request for information and consequently defaulted on the written RESPA request. As a result of the default the plaintiff agreed to forfeit its Power of Attorney and since I was the grantor of the Power of Attorney I rescinded it as agreed. 9. I am in possession of a default agreement with Chase Home Mortgage that was witnessed by an officer of the Secretary of State of the state of Michigan. 10. A notice that was sent to 20078 Ballantrae Dr Macomb, MI 48044 by plaintiff which was published in the Local legal news media stated that on July 21st at 10:00 A.M. that the property in question would be sold at a sheriff sale conducted by county sheriff personnel. 11. Defendant attended the sale on the date published and discovered that the sale had been adjourned for an undetermined time. 12. Defendant received verbal notice from the Macomb County Representative that an adjournment was requested by plaintiff through its Authorized Representative. In regards to foreclosure by advertisement the MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS 600.3220 states the following: [Such sale may be adjourned from time to time, by the sheriff or other officer or person
appointed to make such sale at the request of the party in whose name the notice of sale is published by posting a notice of such adjournment before or at the time of and at the place where said sale is to be made, and if any adjournment be for more than 1 week at one time, the notice thereof, appended to the original notice of sale, shall also be published in the newspaper in which the original notice was published, the first publication to be within 10 days of the date from which the sale was adjourned and thereafter once in each full secular week during the time for which such sale shall be adjourned. No oral announcement of any adjournment shall be necessary].

13. The plaintiff has sent documentation which states that the sheriff sale was conducted on above mentioned date which is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

14. The actual sale was either never conducted or it was conducted in secret on September 8, 2011 which is a violation of above mentioned law as there was no publication in any legal newspaper nor were any notice sent to defendant. 15. Documents have been signed and dated by officers of the State of Michigan and Macomb County that say the sale occurred on July 21st 2011 when in fact it did not. This is in violation of MCL 750.422, MCL764.1e, and MCL 125.1447 as these officers swore an oath of office in a court of law. Since plaintiff included these documents as facts then the statutes mentioned qualifies and is an intentional effort on behalf of the plaintiff and its representatives to defraud the defendant. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 16. The Defendant is unaware of any contract between Donald King P 55358 attorney for Trott & Trott and the Plaintiff and I have seen no affidavit from an Officer for the Plaintiff. Without knowledge of who is making the complaint against me it is not possible to truthfully answer the complaint. 17. Defendant has not found any sworn statements from the plaintiff or an officer for the plaintiff. As I understand, it is necessary for a complaint to have an injured party and a sworn statement to what the injury is. Based on this and the fact that this is not the proper jurisdiction to claim the right to property valued over 25,000.00 I respectfully request the plaintiffs complaint be dismissed pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C)(8) Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Relief Requested 18. Wherefore this court find with the Michigan Court Rules that the proper jurisdiction for the Counter Complaint is the Circuit Court and the plaintiffs complaint is deficient without an

Affidavit from an officer of the plaintiff the complaint shall be dismissed in its present form with prejudice. 19. Counter Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Counter complaint

Respectfully,

____________________________ Philip W. Ellison, all rights reserved