Você está na página 1de 15

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, CIVIL ACTION
PLAINTIFFS
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al.,


DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSIVE OBJECTIONS TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO


GEORGIA POWER’S VERIFIED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
_______________________________________________________________
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Janet D. McDonald and Plaintiff James B. Stegeman and
file their Responsive Objection to First Amendment to Defendant Georgia Power’s
Verified Answer and Counterclaim. Plaintiffs move this Court for Dismissal of
Defendant’s Verified Answers, and Amendment to Verified Answers, Dismissal of
Defendant’s Counterclaim and Amendment to Counterclaim.
Plaintiffs filed a Prima Facie Verified Complaint with Prima Facie Evidence in
support of their complaint. Plaintiffs’ complaint stated the Defendants have no easement
rights pertaining to Plaintiffs’ property. Defendants failed to plead with Prima Facie
Rebuttal and evidence. Defendants’ Verification amounts to hearsay and unsubstantiated
innuendos. Plaintiffs further Move this Court for O.C.G.A. §9-11-12(b)(6) Dismissal
of Defendant’s Counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and for an Order granting Judgment in Plaintiffs favor on all counts.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs’ case is brought before this Court from an on-going dispute about
Georgia Power’s alleged easement rights. Plaintiffs deed makes no reference to a utility
easement, the deed shows only an ingress – egress easement between the 811 and 821
properties due to a shared driveway. “Exhibit A”
In 2004 Georgia Power’s Nancy Huddleston under false pretenses,1 using deceit
and fraud in the inducement claimed “imminent domain”. Georgia Power has known for
at least four years that the easement documents were fraudulent, yet they attached the
1941 easement document to their Verified Answers and Counterclaim does not pertain to
Plaintiffs’ property. Georgia Power has wantonly, maliciously, intentionally, and
continually made fraudulent claims using a fraudulent document, thereby have been a
nuisance, criminally trespassed, harassed, intimidated, and criminally damaged Plaintiffs’
property.
March 12, 2008, the Court filed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Verified
Answers and Counterclaim on the grounds of perjury/false swearing, use of a fraudulent
document2 and Georgia Power’s unsupported claim of easement rights which Plaintiffs
have shown that from the beginning of, during, and continuing throughout the on-going
dispute between Plaintiffs and defendants, that Plaintiffs repeatedly disputed the
relevancy and legitimacy of Georgia Power’s easement documents. Plaintiffs provided
undisputed evidence to this Court that the one document that Defendants attached to
prove their claims only proved that Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint correctly stated that
Defendant’s have neither easement rights nor legal documentation pertaining to Plaintiffs’
property.
March 20, 2008 Plaintiffs filed Motion to Stay Discovery and All Other Processes
Pending Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. Since that time, Defendants have, among filing
other documents, filed two frivolous Motion to Compel, Defendant’s First Amendment
with a Motion For Reformation, and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Allegations of Misconduct

1
“false pretenses. The crime of knowingly obtaining title to another’s personal property by
misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud…. – Also termed obtaining property by false
pretenses; fraudulent pretenses, Cf. larceny by trick under LARCENY; EMBEZZLEMENT.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed. Pg. 619
2
Georgia Power, on more than one occasion, and as recently as August 2008, produced two
different easement agreements, one from 1937, one from 1941 which Plaintiffs have presented to
the Court. Plaintiffs fail to understand why Georgia Power abandoned the 1937 agreement,
although the 1937 agreement did not pertain to Plaintiffs’ property, at least the 1937 agreement
properly spelled Sheppard Road. Of course, after Georgia Power reads this, surely they will
decide that the 1937 easement agreement was the one that they really want “Reformation” of.

2
(which Plaintiffs received via US mail May 23, 2008) making sure to have all filed before
the upcoming hearing scheduled for May 27, 2008.

{* NOTE: Plaintiff McDonald placed a call Friday May 23rd to inquire with the calendar
clerk about the May 27th hearing (which still does not show on the On-line Judge’s
calendar), and to inquire about this Court’s Court Reporter’s availability for the hearing.
Plaintiff McDonald was transferred (by an unknown party) to Judge Becker’s Law Clerk
Mr. Hash. Mr. Hash told Ms. McDonald that she would need to call Monday morning
and talk with the Court Reporter. Later that same afternoon (May 23rd), Plaintiff
McDonald realized that Monday the 26th of May is Memorial Day and that the Courts
would be closed, thereby preventing the opportunity to contact the Court Reporter on
Monday. Rather than risk a hearing without a Court Reporter, Plaintiff McDonald
was able to locate a Court Reporter that would be available for the hearing. Plaintiffs
sincerely believe that bringing in an outside Court Reporter is much less cost effective,
nevertheless made the necessary arrangements for the Court Reporter to attend the
hearing.}

RELEVANT FACTS
Georgia Power alleges harassment, obstruction in the exercise of their easement
rights, that one or both Plaintiffs threatened Matt Goff’s life, and a “blatant disregard” for
Georgia Power’s easement rights. Should Georgia Power have had any legal easement
rights, they would have brought the matter before the Court, requested “Reformation” on
the easement document and “Declaratory Judgment”. Instead, Georgia Power attempts
larceny by extortion”3 by hiring State Patrol Troopers to whom they claimed to have a
Court Order and that Plaintiffs’ had threatened to “kill” Matt Goff. Hidden within
Defendant’s Amendment to Verified Answers and Counterclaim, is Defendants’ request
for “reformation” of the same Easement that Defendants previously sworn on oath to be
true and correct. By requesting “Reformation”, Georgia Power has made a judicial
confession that Plaintiffs’ Verified complaint correctly stated that the Document did not
pertain to Plaintiffs’ property, and in turn shows that all Counts in Plaintiffs’ Verified
Complaint are true as well.

3
larceny by extortion. Larceny in which the preparatory obtains property … (2) accuse anyone
of a criminal offense, … or (7) inflict any other harm that would not benefit the actor. Model
Penal Code § 223.4. See EXTORTION. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed. Pg. 886

3
The request for “Reformation” is not properly before this Court and must be
denied. Further, even should this Court grant Reformation, the Easement Agreement will
still fail to pertain to Plaintiffs’ property and constitutes not only a fraud upon the Court,
but Georgia Power requests that this Court falsify4 real estate documents for them to
make their evidence conform to their sworn pleadings. Plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment
as a matter of law.

DEFENDANT’S FIRST AMENDMENT TO VERIFIED ANSWERS


AND COUNTERCLAIM

May 5, 20085 Defendants filed their First Amendment to their Verified Answers
and Counterclaim, although Plaintiffs had provided evidence to the Court two months6
beforehand that the 1941 easement attached to Defendant’s Verified Answers and
Counterclaim did not pertain to Plaintiffs’ property. Hidden within Defendant’s Amended
Answers and Counterclaim, is “Motion for Reformation” of the same 1941 Easement
agreement that Georgia Power had sworn on oath was properly executed and recorded.7
Georgia Power’s “reformation” request results in cognovit actionem,8 implied color,
direct confession, and judicial confession.
Georgia Power attempts to claim “scrivener’s error”, and “mutual mistakes”, both
of which fails as a matter of law. Reformation must be denied for several reasons
discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

4
“falsify. vb 1. To make something false; to counterfeit …” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh
Ed. Pg. 619
5
Plaintiffs bring note that although the Amendment was signed May 5, 2008, Plaintiffs received
it May 7, 2008, the Amendment failed to show on the Docket Report until sometime May 15,
2008, and shows as filed on May 5, 2008.
6
Defendants had knowledge that the document did not pertain to Plaintiffs’ property since at
least 2004.
7
Georgia Power originally provided two easements to Plaintiffs to prove Georgia Power had
easement rights, one from 1937, one from 1941, it has never been explained to Plaintiffs why
Georgia Power abandoned the 1937 easement and now only uses the 1941; facts clearly show
that neither easement ever pertained to Plaintiffs’ property.
8
“cognovit actionem “[Law Latin, he has confessed the claim]”; Defendant’s written
acknowledgement of Plaintiffs’ claim…” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., pg.. 254

4
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from “mutual mistake”, and there was no
“scrivener’s” error as defendants claim. For a “Reformation” claiming mutual mistake
and/or scrivener’s error, the action must consist of original parties to the original
agreement, or privies to the original estate. Georgia Power cannot speak for Dr. Wells in
his absence.9 Defendants would have this Court believe that Georgia Power and their
counsel know the intent of both grantor and grantee in 1941 and there was an “excusable
oversight” on the part of both parties.
Surely the Agreement was drawn up by either a permanent staff Attorney of
Georgia Power or an Attorney employed by Georgia Power for the purpose of “drawing
up” the Agreement. Georgia Power would have this Court believe that Doctor Wells, a
Doctor10, paid so little attention to what he was signing that among other things, he did
not notice: Land Lot Number 37 - instead of 73 and Shiphud Rd. - instead of
Sheppard Rd.
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO
COUNT V “REFORMATION OF WRITTEN EASEMENT”
Defendant’s make numerous meritless claims and false statements about the 1941
easement and request this Court to grant “Reformation” of the easement.11 The request is
not properly before this Court and must be denied.
Defendants have failed to produce the required prima facie or clear, convincing
evidence to support their statements as shown in the following:

9
Hearsay
10
In 1941, both Doctors and Attorneys were conscientious persons of integrity, well educated,
they paid attention to detail. According to the 1937 Georgia Power/Railway Map, O. A. Fields
owned the land where Plaintiffs’ home is now located.
11
Defendants dedicate three pages and ¶¶s 48 through 60(g) attempting to explain how and why
Reformation of the 1941 easement should be granted, Defendants have failed to meet the burden.
None of the explanations carry weight and cannot overcome the fact the Defendants filed a
Verified Answer and Counterclaim swearing that their answers and counterclaim had been
thoroughly investigated and were accurate. Should the Court agree to “Reformation”, the
document still cannot and will not pertain to Plaintiffs’ property.

5
¶49: Defendants have offered no evidence that Robert F. Wells
was the record owner of Land Lots 73 and 74, 18 th District of
DeKalb County, GA and that it encompassed Plaintiffs’ property.
¶50: Defendants have offered no evidence that the 1941 Easement
contained a scrivener’s error that went undetected.12
¶51: Defendants falsely represents to and misleads this Court that
the only issue of “Reformation” on the 1941 easement is to change
the “37” to “73” 13 Defendants mislead this Court and offer no
evidence in support of their claim that their attached “Exhibit B”
would be a proper substitute of the current legal description and
that it be incorporated therein.14
¶52: Defendants offer no evidence that Dr. Wells did not own real
property in Land Lot 37, 18th District, DeKalb County, Georgia.
¶53: Defendants offer no evidence that the description in ¶53 is
accurate or pertains to Plaintiffs’ property.
¶54: Defendants offer no evidence that “Shepard” Road runs
through Land Lot 73, 18th District and not through Land Lot 37 of
the 18th District. (NOTE: Defendant’s 1941 easement document is
for Shiphud Road, Plaintiffs’ property is located on Sheppard Rd.
next they will be asking to change the spelling?)
¶55: Defendants offer no evidence concerning Ridge Avenue.
¶56: This paragraph is redundant and merely a re-wording of ¶50.
¶57: Defendants offer no evidence that Dr. Wells acted on an
assumption, or that there were easement rights conveyed in Land
Lots 73 and 74, and/or that said lands “encompassing what is today
Plaintiffs’ property”.15
¶58: Defendants offer no evidence of ¶58
¶59: Defendants offer no evidence that it would be a proper, legal
land description by deleting the legal description and substituting
the Defendant’s claim of what should be the description. (NOTE:
12
1937 Easement and 1937 Power/Railway map shows “Dr. R. F. Wells” Georgia Power would
have this Court believe that a Doctor in 1941 would fail to notice the many discrepancies
contained within the document. A Doctor, well educated, usually from a good family
background, would carefully read a document before signing it, and surely would notice the
wrong District Number, wrong Land Lot, the misspelling of the road on which he owned
property, would notice that the land description was incorrect, and would notice the names listed
on the adjoining properties were not his neighbors.
13
Defendants falsely represent to and mislead this Court that the only issue of “Reformation” on
the 1941 easement is to change the “37” to “73”, they fail to inform the Court of the other
obvious issues: i. According to Defendants, 1941 easement reads Shepard Rd. ii. According to
Defendants, Plaintiffs address is on Shepard Rd
14
The easement still would not pertain to Plaintiffs’ property
15
Plaintiffs property, according to the 1937 Power Company/Railway map, was clearly owned by
Mr. Fields, who apparently refused to give easement to Georgia Power.

6
Defendants do not have the credentials to determine how the
“description should be worded)
¶60: Defendants claim that there is “no adequate remedy at law to
restore the Parties to the status quo ante” 16
(e) Defendants request to maintain the “status quo”17

What Defendants are asking could be deciphered several ways: 1) They request
to have the deed put back into Dr. Wells’ name, change the easement agreement and keep
the date of 1941; 2) They are requesting to Judge to have the deed put back into Dr.
Wells’ name and that the Judge be “surrogate” Dr. Wells taking Wells’ place for the
reformation by agreeing that there was a mutual mistake; 3) Change was the easement
agreement says to what Defendants propose and ignore the laws concerning such an act.
Even if Dr. Wells were alive, if he no longer owned the property, the request would
still fail because of a third-party. Plaintiffs have contacted Everhome Mortgage Company
who is lien-holder and the property. It appears that they are displeased that the easement
agreement reads that Georgia Power could literally end up taking any and all of the
Plaintiffs’ property. What Georgia Power proposes is illegal, immoral and must be
denied.
ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF
AUTHORITY

A. Plaintiffs filed a Verified prima facie case with prima facie evidence. The
Defendants filed Verified Answers, affirmative defenses and a Counterclaim to which
they attached a copy of a 1941 easement agreement as “true and correct” and pertaining
to Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs disproved the easement and asked to have the Verified
Answers stricken and for judgment as a matter of law.
"To prevail … must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and that the undisputed facts, … warrant judgment as
a matter of law." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d
474) (1991)."

16
“status quo ante: The situation that existed before something else (being discussed) occurred.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., page 1420
17
status quo

7
“Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent
to come forward with rebuttal evidence." (Citation and punctuation
omitted.) Kelly v. Pierce Roofing Co., 220 Ga. App. 391, 392-393
(2) (469 SE2d 469) (1996).

"In rebutting this prima facie case, an adverse party may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials … must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." (Punctuation
omitted.) Entertainment Sales Co. v. SNK, Inc., 232 Ga. App. 669-
670 (502 SE2d 263) (1998).

“A prima facie case is made by the party upon whom the burden of
proof rests by the introduction of evidence sufficient to authorize
the jury to render a verdict in his favor, if no other evidence be
introduced, or if evidence to the contrary be disregarded. Spivey v.
Spivey, 202 Ga. 644, 649 (44 SE2d 224); Black's Law Dictionary
(4th Ed.) 1353. See also McKemie v. McKemie, 76 Ga. App. 212
(45 SE2d 456), and Bank of America &c. Asso. v. Reserve Life
Ins. Co., 90 Ga. App. 332 (8) (83 SE2d 66).”

“In an action on a promissory note, a claimant may establish a


prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law by producing the
promissory note and showing that it was executed.” Jay Gleason
Advertising Svc. v. Gleason, 193 Ga. App. 445 (1) (388 SE2d 43)
(1989).

B. “Motion for Reformation” of the 1941 Easement agreement that Georgia Power
previously swore was properly executed and recorded. Defendants ask this Court to
falsify18 or to allow falsification of Real Estate Records.
Georgia Power claims “scrivener’s error”, “mutual mistakes”, which fails as a
matter of law. Evidence suggests that Georgia Power caused the easement to be drafted,
thereby causing a “unilateral mistake” which dopes not warrant reformation, that than by
“mutual mistake” as they suggest.
See:

18
falsifying a record. The crime of making false entries or otherwise tampering with a public
record with the intent to deceive or injure, or to conceal wrongdoing. 18 USCA §§ 1506, 2071,
2073; Model Penal Code §224.4 Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed. Pg. 619

8
Cox v Smith, 244 Ga. 280, (260 S.E.2d 310) (1979) concerning
“unilateral mistake” held: “[30] … the evidence shows, … was
drafted at the direction of only one of the contracting parties, …
therefore …was a … a unilateral mistake, which will not warrant
reformation. Delong v. Cobb, supra, (1a) and cit.”

See also:
Fox et., al., v. Washburn, et., al., 264 Ga. 617, 277 (449 SE2d
513)(1994) Carley Dissenting: “Construing this … the sole result
of Washburn's unilateral mistake in failing to advise the ..., since
Fox relied entirely upon Washburn to advise the attorney as to the
terms of the deed … Thus, the undisputed evidence shows that
there was no reformable mutual mistake… See A. J. Concrete
Pumping v. Richard O'Brien Equip. Sales, 256 Ga. 795, 796 (1)
(353 SE2d 496) (1987); Layfield v. Sanford, 239 Ga. 816, 817 (1)
(238 SE2d 899) (1977); Gauker v. Eubanks, 230 Ga. 893, 896 (1)
(199 SE2d 771) (1973). The evidence shows, at most, a unilateral
mistake on the part of Washburn…”

See also:
"Mutual mistake, in relation to reformation, means a mistake
shared by, or participated in by, both parties, or a mistake common
to both parties, or reciprocal to both parties; … the same
misconception in respect of the terms and conditions …, the
instrument as written does not express the contract or intent of
either of the parties." [Cit.]
Lawton v. Byck, 217 Ga. 676, 681, 682 (124 SE2d 369) (1962).

Further, the defendants have not met the burden of clear, unequivocal and decisive
evidence. See the following:
Curry v. Curry, 267 Ga. 66, 1721(473 SE2d 760)(1996), Justice
Carley’s dissent joined by Justice Thomson: “The burden was on
Grandson to prove that the legal description in the 1988 deed was a
mutual mistake… He could not meet this burden by a mere
preponderance of the evidence, but only with "clear, unequivocal,
and decisive" evidence. OCGA 23-2-21 (c); Carroll v. Craig, 214
Ga. 257, 261 (5) (104 SE2d 215) (1958).”

Reformation is barred by “Equitable Estoppel” as well. See the following:


Thompson v. McVey, 12th District Court of Appeals, Ohio Supreme
Court, http://vlex.com/vid/25605145 (2006) “Equitable estoppel

9
prevent[s] one party from taking unfair advantage of another when,
through false language or conduct,… has induced another person to
act in a certain way, with the result that the other person has been
injured in some way." Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.Rev. 1999)
571. The essential elements of equitable estoppel are: (1) the
nonrelying party made a factual misrepresentation, (2) that was
misleading, (3) that induced actual reliance that was reasonable and
in good faith, and (4) that caused detriment to the relying party.
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Parker, Butler App. No. CA2003-11-
299, 2005-Ohio-1801, ¶20.

See also:
Minor, et., al., v. Finch, et., al., 228 Ga. (58 S.E.2d 389), 206 Ga.
721(1950): “[26] … parties may reform …, so long as accrued
rights of third persons are not disturbed; ….”
“[27] … equitable power to relieve from mistake "shall be
exercised with caution, and to justify it the evidence shall be clear,
unequivocal, and decisive as to the mistake." …"where the parties
have reduced their contract, agreement, or stipulation to writing,
and assented thereto, it is the best evidence of the same." This is a
general rule of law. 45 Am. Jur., 649, § 112.”
“[34] This court has uniformly laid down the rule that, where
reformation is sought upon the ground of mutual mistake, the
mistake must be shown by evidence which is clear, unequivocal,
and decisive.”
“[35] … the present case, the verified petition could not have any
effect as evidence. Mrs. Crandall was dead, and to permit the
verified petition to be given the effect of evidence would violate
the rule that, where one party is dead, the other is incompetent to
testify in his own behalf. Code, § 38-1603 (1); Kilpatrick v.
Strozier, 67 Ga. 247; Sivell v. Hogan, 115 Ga. 667 (42 S.E. 151);
Arnold v. Freeman, 181 Ga. 654 (183 S.E. 811).

See also the following cases:


Trout v. Goodman, 7 Ga. 383, 385 (4),… held: "It is conceded that
those who undertake to rectify an agreement, by showing a
mistake, undertake a task of great difficulty … strongest proof
possible;… it must be irrefragable proof. … will exercise very
sparingly, and only upon the clearest and most satisfactory proof of
the intention of the parties."

Wyche v. Greene, 11 Ga. 159, 160 (4), … held: "As to the degree
of proof that will be required, before relief will be granted … The

10
mistake itself should be plain and made out by evidence clear of all
reasonable doubt."’

Ligon v. Rogers, 12 Ga. 281, 287, 288,… held: "The general rule
is, that the written instrument furnishes better evidence of the
deliberate intention of the parties to it than any parol evidence can
supply; and the general rule must prevail, unless … by showing by
clear and satisfactory evidence, that either by accident, fraud, or
mistake, the written instrument does not contain and express what
the parties intended it should contain and express, at the time of its
execution."’

Wall v. Arrington, 13 Ga. 89 (7),…held: "A Court …, is very slow


in exerting it to reform …requires the clearest and strongest
evidence... It is not sufficient, … to presume a mistake; the
evidence must be clear, unequivocal, and decisive."’

Helton v. Shellnut, 186 Ga. 185 (4), (197 S.E. 287), … held: "To
authorize a verdict reforming a deed upon the ground of mutual
mistake, the evidence, like the petition, should at least by inference
show the particular mistake and illustrate how it occurred; and it is
also the rule that 'the evidence shall be clear, unequivocal, and
decisive as to the mistake.'" The same rule is stated in Yablon v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 200 Ga. 693, 704 (2), (38 S.E.2d
534).”

Reformation must be denied due to the seven year statute of limitation. Further,
Reformation is estopped by the doctrine of laches. See:
Evans v. Lipscomb, 266 Ga. 767 (470 SE2d 641): “We granted …
to determine whether the superior court erred in holding …
reformation was not barred, as a matter of law, by the applicable
statute of limitation. We reverse.”
“[21] 1. "An action to reform a written instrument can be brought
at any time within seven years …, if not barred by laches." Whittle
v. Nottingham, 164 Ga. 155, 161 (3) (138 S.E. 62) (1927).”
“[24] …asserts … should not begin to run … discovered the
mistake …, or,… should have discovered the mistake …the statute
of limitation should be tolled... fail.”
“[27] … is not a good response to the statute of limitation.
Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 410 (2) (37 S.E.2d 143) (1946).
*fn4” ”[28] The present action is time-barred and the
superior court erred in finding otherwise.”

11
“[29] Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.”

See also:
Bradshaw v. City of Atlanta, 275 Ga.App. 609, (621 SE2d 563)
http://www.versuslaw.com> (2005):
“[8] The trial court dismissed … pursuant to … statutes of
limitation for actions based on a mutual mistake or fraud...We
discern no error and affirm.”
“[14] … from filing suit in a timely manner. See Leathers v. Timex
Corp., 174 Ga. App. 430, 431-432 (2) (330 SE2d 102) (1985) …
within the applicable statutes of limitation, the trial court properly
dismissed his suit. See id. at 432 (2).

For a “Reformation”, the action must consist of original parties to the original
agreement, or privies to the original estate. Neither Plaintiff Ms. McDonald, nor Plaintiff
Mr. Stegeman were part of the original agreement, and the agreement no longer involves
the original estate of the original owner. Plaintiffs further believe that Dr. R. F. Well is no
longer alive and legally Georgia Power cannot speak for Dr. Wells in his absence.19
See:
Moore v McBrayer, et., al., Ga.App. 0000464, No. A07A2288
< http://www.versuslaw.com> (2008):
“[20] "When two parties have made a mutual mistake in the
creation …, permit reformation ... However, … is limited to those
who are either parties to the original deed … such original parties."
(Footnotes omitted.) Gregorakos v. Wells Fargo Nat. Ass'n, 285
Ga. App. 744, 746 (1) (647 SE2d 289) (2007). ..””

See also:
Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. at 626 (on motion for
reconsideration). See OCGA § 23-2-34.” “Moore was neither a
party nor a … a privy in estate, because a privy in estate is a
successor to the same estate in the same property,"…, even if the
agreement … was based upon mutual mistake, …is not entitled to a
reformation… Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. at 626-628 (on motion
for reconsideration). See also Gregorakos v. Wells Fargo Nat.
Ass'n, 285 Ga. App. at 746 (1); Empire Land Co. v. Stokes, 212
Ga. 707, 709 (2) (95 SE2d 283) (1956).”

19
Hearsay

12
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs filed a prima facie case, with prima facie evidence, shifting the burden
upon Defendants to answer with prima facie evidence, which they failed to do.
Defendants’ request for Reformation is barred as Georgia Power has failed to meet
the burden to present clear, convincing, unequivocal evidence to support the claim of
“mutual mistake”; barred due to unilateral mistake; barred by equitable estoppel because
Georgia Power’s actions fall within the guidelines for equitable estoppel and have taken
advantage of Plaintiffs through misrepresentation; barred by statute of limitations and
laches; barred because Dr. Wells is dead and Georgia Power is incompetent to testify on
his behalf.
Rather than going to Superior Court and getting a Judgment, Georgia Power
decided to make libelous statements that the homeowners had threatened Matt Goff’s life
and he was in fear of his life. This cannot be true either, to make that claim, Mr. Goff
would need to have a Police Report to prove such a statement.
In Magistrate Court, Georgia Power was confronted with the fact that it would
have been much easier to go through the proper channels when Plaintiffs informed Nancy
Huddleston that criminal charges would be taken should Georgia Power come to
Plaintiffs’ property and damage their trees. Even after going to a criminal hearing,
Georgia Power still refused to take the matter into the Courts.
Georgia Power has in fact illegally trespassed, maliciously, criminally, wantonly,
intentionally, damaged Plaintiffs’ property. Now Georgia Power asks this Court to help
them falsify real estate documents, insert the documents into County records, Plaintiffs’
suit and Georgia Power’s Answer and Counterclaim so Georgia Power can win.
This Court should levy criminal charges of perjury, contempt, obstruction and
fraud against the defendants, strike their Verified Answers and Counterclaim,
Should this Court take up Georgia Power’s request and allow the First Amendment
to their Answers and Counterclaim, and the changing of the Easement Agreement to read
as Georgia Power wishes, Plaintiffs request that this Court GRANT Plaintiffs’ request for
review by the Appellate Court. Plaintiffs NOTICE this Court that Plaintiffs’ intend to ask

13
this Court to allow Appellate Review.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs have proven that Georgia Power, due to lack of the required evidence to
support their claims, have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs Move this Honorable Court to Dismiss Georgia Power’s Verified Answers,
Amendment to Verified Answers, Dismiss Georgia Power’s Verified Counterclaim,
Amended Counterclaim; Find in favor of and Grant Plaintiffs’ requests for Relief as
stated in their Verified Complaint. Plaintiffs further Move this Court for Declaratory
Judgment, Injunction and Permanent Restraining Order against Georgia Power and Order
Georgia Power to remove the lines crossing Plaintiffs property. Georgia Power must not
be rewarded for illegally taking Plaintiffs’ property, intimidating, harassing, making
libelous statements in order to have State Troopers aid Georgia Power in their criminal
acts. Plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted, this 26th day of May, 2008

By: _____________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al.,


DEFENDANTS
_____________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I Certify that I have this 26th day of May, 2008 served upon Defendants, through their
attorney on file, a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSIVE OBJECTIONS TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO GEORGIA POWER’S
VERIFIED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM by mailing U.S.P.S. First Class Mail,
proper postage affixed as follows:
Troutman Sanders, LLP
C/o Brian P Watt
5200 Bank of America Plaza
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
____________________________
Janet D. McDonald, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770)879-8737

_____________________________
James B. Stegeman, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770)879-8737

15