Lawsuit: Adjourned Two Guys Realty v AWSJonny [2026] DCR 112

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aelia_SingeH3art

Aelia_SingeH3art

Citizen
Supporter
Aelia_SingeH3art
Aelia_SingeH3art
Attorney
Joined
May 29, 2026
Messages
45

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Two Guys Realty (represented by Attorney Aelia SingeHeart, consent below)
Plaintiff

v.

AWSJonny
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Two Guys Realty entered into a valid Mortgage Contract with AWSJonny on April 22, 2026, for the sale and financing of Plot C313. Pursuant to that agreement, AWSJonny borrowed $20,000 and agreed to repay the loan according to the payment schedule established by the parties. The property itself was pledged as collateral, and Two Guys Realty retained a lien upon the property until the balance was paid in full.

The Defendant has failed to satisfy the obligations of the Mortgage Contract and has placed the collateral securing the loan at risk of loss through inactivity. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks immediate judicial intervention to enforce its contractual rights, recover the collateral securing the loan, and obtain all other relief authorized by law and contract.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES

1. Two Guys Realty is the Plaintiff and mortgage holder in this action.
2. AWSJonny is the Defendant and borrower under the Mortgage Contract dated April 22, 2026.

II. FACTS

1. On April 22, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Mortgage Contract concerning Plot C313. (P-001)
2. Under the Mortgage Contract, the Plaintiff financed the Defendant's acquisition of Plot C313 through a loan in the principal amount of $20,000. (P-001)
3. The Mortgage Contract required the Defendant to make monthly payments according to the agreed payment schedule. (P-001, P-002)
4. The Mortgage Contract expressly provides that Plot C313 serves as collateral for the loan and that the Plaintiff retains a lien on the property until the balance is paid in full. (P-001)
5. On or about May 15, 2026, the Defendant contacted representatives of the Plaintiff regarding payment obligations under the Mortgage Contract, demonstrating knowledge of the debt and payment schedule. (P-003)
6. On May 16, 2026, representatives of the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the payment schedule and loan information. (P-003)
7. The payment schedule reflects that a substantial balance remained outstanding on the loan. (P-002)
8. The Defendant became subject to eviction proceedings due to failure to maintain the required minimum activity under Commonwealth regulations. (P-003)
9. The Defendant's inactivity places the collateral securing the loan at immediate risk of forfeiture, reclamation, or loss.
10. If the collateral is lost before the Plaintiff can enforce its rights, the Plaintiff will suffer substantial and irreparable harm.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant entered into a valid and enforceable Mortgage Contract with the Plaintiff and accepted the benefits thereof. (P-001)
2. The Defendant remains obligated under the terms of the Mortgage Contract until the outstanding balance is paid in full. (P-001, P-002)
3. The Mortgage Contract expressly grants the Plaintiff a lien and security interest in Plot C313 until the debt is satisfied. (P-001)
4. Through inactivity resulting in eviction proceedings, the Defendant has jeopardized the collateral securing the loan and impaired the Plaintiff's contractual rights.
5. Pursuant to Section III of the Mortgage Contract, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek legal action, recovery of the property serving as collateral, recovery of the outstanding balance, and any additional relief authorized by the agreement. (P-001)
6. The Plaintiff is entitled to judicial enforcement of its lien, security interest, and contractual remedies.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Immediate transfer and return of Plot C313 to Two Guys Realty.
2. Recognition and enforcement of the Plaintiff's contractual lien and security interest.
3. An order preventing the Defendant from transferring, selling, encumbering, abandoning, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff's rights in the collateral.
4. Judgment for any remaining outstanding balance owed under the Mortgage Contract.
5. Court costs and any attorney fees permitted by the Mortgage Contract.
6. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 24th day of June 2026

 

Attachments

  • p-001.pdf
    p-001.pdf
    52.1 KB · Views: 76
  • p-002.png
    p-002.png
    25.4 KB · Views: 77
  • p-003.png
    p-003.png
    121.8 KB · Views: 74
  • Consent.png
    Consent.png
    14.4 KB · Views: 89

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff moves that the Defendant in this case not be evicted, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Defendant is the owner of Plot C313 pursuant to a Mortgage Contract entered into with the Plaintiff on April 22, 2026. Plot C313 serves as collateral securing a $20,000 mortgage loan issued by the Plaintiff.
2. The Mortgage Contract expressly grants the Plaintiff a lien and security interest in Plot C313 until the loan balance is paid in full.
3. The Defendant remains indebted to the Plaintiff under the terms of the Mortgage Contract.
4. The Defendant is currently facing eviction due to failure to satisfy Commonwealth activity requirements.
5. If the Defendant is evicted before this matter is adjudicated, the collateral securing the loan may be lost, reclaimed, transferred, reassigned, or otherwise rendered unavailable to the Plaintiff and such loss would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff by impairing or destroying the Plaintiff's contractual and property rights under the Mortgage Contract.
6. The Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as the existence of the Mortgage Contract, outstanding balance, and security interest are supported by documentary evidence.
7. The balance of equities favors preserving the status quo until the Court can determine the rights of the parties.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Immediately enjoin any eviction, reclamation, reassignment, transfer, or forfeiture of Plot C313 pending final resolution of this matter;
B. Preserve the status quo concerning Plot C313 until judgment is entered;

Respectfully submitted,

Aelia Singeheart
Counsel for Two Guys Realty

 
Aelia_SingeH3art said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff moves that the Defendant in this case not be evicted, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Defendant is the owner of Plot C313 pursuant to a Mortgage Contract entered into with the Plaintiff on April 22, 2026. Plot C313 serves as collateral securing a $20,000 mortgage loan issued by the Plaintiff.
2. The Mortgage Contract expressly grants the Plaintiff a lien and security interest in Plot C313 until the loan balance is paid in full.
3. The Defendant remains indebted to the Plaintiff under the terms of the Mortgage Contract.
4. The Defendant is currently facing eviction due to failure to satisfy Commonwealth activity requirements.
5. If the Defendant is evicted before this matter is adjudicated, the collateral securing the loan may be lost, reclaimed, transferred, reassigned, or otherwise rendered unavailable to the Plaintiff and such loss would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the Plaintiff by impairing or destroying the Plaintiff's contractual and property rights under the Mortgage Contract.
6. The Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as the existence of the Mortgage Contract, outstanding balance, and security interest are supported by documentary evidence.
7. The balance of equities favors preserving the status quo until the Court can determine the rights of the parties.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Immediately enjoin any eviction, reclamation, reassignment, transfer, or forfeiture of Plot C313 pending final resolution of this matter;
B. Preserve the status quo concerning Plot C313 until judgment is entered;

Respectfully submitted,

Aelia Singeheart
Counsel for Two Guys Realty

Click to expand...

Court Order


The Defendant has already been evicted from C313, however, it has not gone to auction yet.

I will be granting a modified Emergency Injunction:

The Commonwealth may not auction or transfer C313 until this Injunction is lifted.

 

Writ of Summons


@AWSJonny is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Two Guys Realty v AWSJonny [2026] DCR 112.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant has failed to enter an appearance or otherwise respond within the seventy-two hour period prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. More than 72 hours have elapsed since the filing and service of the Complaint, and the Defendant has made no appearance before this Court.

As the Defendant has failed to contest the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Summary Judgment and award the relief requested in the Complaint, together with any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
Aelia SingeHeart
Counsel for Two Guys Realty

 
Aelia_SingeH3art said:

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant has failed to enter an appearance or otherwise respond within the seventy-two hour period prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. More than 72 hours have elapsed since the filing and service of the Complaint, and the Defendant has made no appearance before this Court.

As the Defendant has failed to contest the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Summary Judgment and award the relief requested in the Complaint, together with any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
Aelia SingeHeart
Counsel for Two Guys Realty

Click to expand...
Overruled.

You are describing Default Judgement, not Summary Judgement.

Even so, the Court will grant the Defendant a Public Defender instead.
 
Your Honour, please forgive my misunderstanding.

If I were to reformat it, would you reconsider?

The aforementioned plaintiff has not been seen online in over a month, assigning a PD might not be in the best interest of the court
 
Aelia_SingeH3art said:
Your Honour, please forgive my misunderstanding.

If I were to reformat it, would you reconsider?

The aforementioned plaintiff has not been seen online in over a month, assigning a PD might not be in the best interest of the court
Click to expand...
The Defendant has a Constitutional Right "to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence."

Thus, a Public Defender will be appointed.
 
Hello,

It has now been more than 2 weeks since a Public Defender was assigned. Has there been any progress made on this in terms of finding AWSJonny a PD?
 

Motion



MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter Default Judgment against the Defendant, AWSJonny.

1. The Defendant was properly summoned and expressly given 72 hours to appear, with the Court stating that failure to appear would result in Default Judgment.
2. The Defendant has failed to appear, respond to the Complaint, or otherwise defend this matter.
3. The Court previously determined that the Defendant's Constitutional Right to legally qualified counsel required the appointment of a Public Defender.
4. More than two weeks have passed since the Court indicated that a Public Defender would be appointed, and the Plaintiff has received no indication that counsel has entered an appearance.
5. Additionally, AWSJonny himself has since been permanently deported from the Commonwealth, further preventing him from personally appearing or participating in these proceedings.
6. The Plaintiff therefore respectfully submits that continued delay serves no meaningful purpose and requests that the Court enter Default Judgment based upon the Defendant's continued failure to appear and defend.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter Default Judgment in favor of Two Guys Realty, enforce its lien and security interest in Plot C313, order the transfer of the property to the Plaintiff, and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 
Muggy21 said:
This apparently my case now.

Take until 9/10/26 to identify a way this case can proceed considering the defendant's deportation.
Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief

Your Honor,

This case can proceed despite the Defendant's deportation. A Public Defender can provide an adversarial challenge to law and procedure for a deported Defendant, while not making affirmative representations on their behalf. (See: FCR 21)

I propose that:

  • The Motion for Default be denied;
  • Permit me to answer the Complaint based on the evidence provided;
  • This case proceeds through the ordinary stages.

Thank you.

 
ameslap said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief

Your Honor,

This case can proceed despite the Defendant's deportation. A Public Defender can provide an adversarial challenge to law and procedure for a deported Defendant, while not making affirmative representations on their behalf. (See: FCR 21)

I propose that:

  • The Motion for Default be denied;
  • Permit me to answer the Complaint based on the evidence provided;
  • This case proceeds through the ordinary stages.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Certainly, the Court will action your proposal.

Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.

@ameslap You have 96 Hours to present an Answer.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Answer to Complaint

Two Guys Realty
Plaintiff
v.

Awsjonny
Defendant

I. Answer to Complaint​

1. Affirm.
2. Affirm.
3. Affirm.
4. Affirm.
5. Affirm.
6. Affirm.
7. Affirms that there is an outstanding balance. Denies that this establishes a default.
8. Denies as stated. The evidence shows that the Plaintiff warned the Defendant that they were at risk of eviction, not that the eviction proceedings had already started.
9. Affirms that the Defendant's inactivity created risk to the collateral. Denies that this risk constitutes a default.
10. Denies that the Plaintiff could be irreparably harmed or establish entitlement to the relief requested.

II. Defenses​

1. Failure to Establish Contractual Default
The Plaintiff has not established that the Defendant defaulted under the contract. The contract defines default as "the failure to pay the amount owed with the excess late fee within 7 days of notice".

The Plaintiff has not provided evidence that a payment was missed, that proper notice was given, or that the 7-day grace period expired. Sure, there are numbers in an Excel screenshot, but we have not been provided with a true in-game transaction history showing a failure to pay.

Additionally, this suit was filed on June 24, only 4 days after the initial warning of inactivity.

The Plaintiff's own evidence establishes that the relevant payment was due on June 22. This lawsuit was filed on June 24, only two days later. Even assuming the payment was not made on June 22, the Defendant could not yet have satisfied the contract's definition of default because the required notice and seven-day period had not occurred.

The June 20th warning does not satisfy this requirement. It concerned the Defendant's inactivity and risk of eviction and was sent before the June 22 payment was even due.

2. Failure to Establish Relief
Even if the Plaintiff is permitted to seek relief under the contract, the Plaintiff must establish the amount still owed.

Additionally, the relief requested is beyond reasonable. They are asking for the plot and the outstanding balance in monetary terms. One or the other should be reasonable, not double-dipping.

Thank you,
Ameslap

 
@Aelia_SingeH3art You've not requested witnesses, we shall proceed to a Closing Statement period.

You have 96 Hours to present a closing brief. Include all arguements, factual distinctions, or any other statements you wish to include.

@ameslap You have 96 Hours after that time.
 
Apologies your honour, I have been on a work trip the past few days, is it possible to have an extension?
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Two Guys Realty
Plaintiff

v.

AWSJonny
Defendant

[2026] DCR 112

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case concerns a $20,000 mortgage used to finance AWSJonny’s acquisition of Plot C313. The Defendant, through appointed counsel, now affirms the existence of the Mortgage Contract, the financing, the monthly-payment obligation, the lien on C313, the Defendant’s knowledge of the repayment schedule, the existence of an outstanding balance, and the risk to the collateral created by inactivity.

The remaining issues are whether the contractual default requirement has been met and what remedy may lawfully follow. The Plaintiff submits that the evidence supports judgment; alternatively, if the Court finds that the contractual notice period had not matured when this action was filed, the claim should be resolved without prejudice rather than by a final judgment suggesting that the debt or lien has been discharged.

I. The Core Contractual Facts Are No Longer Disputed

The Defendant’s Answer affirms Facts 1 through 6 of the Complaint. It also affirms that an outstanding balance remains under the payment schedule and that inactivity created a risk to the collateral.

Accordingly, the record establishes:

1. The parties entered into the Mortgage Contract concerning C313 on 22 April 2026. P-001.
2. Two Guys Realty financed the Defendant’s acquisition of C313 through a $20,000 loan. P-001.
3. The Defendant undertook monthly repayment obligations. P-001, P-002.
4. C313 was pledged as collateral, and Two Guys Realty retained a lien until the secured obligation was satisfied. P-001.
5. The Defendant knew of the loan and payment schedule. P-003.
6. A balance remained outstanding. P-002.

These facts satisfy the requirements for a valid contract under the [Contracts Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/): offer, acceptance, consideration, intent to create legal obligations, and capacity.

II. The Defendant’s Eviction Is an Established Fact

The Answer denies that eviction proceedings had begun at the time alleged in the Complaint. That distinction does not alter the present record.

The Court has already found that the Defendant “has already been evicted from C313,” while preserving the plot from auction or transfer pending this case. The Plaintiff does not ask the Court to review or reverse the eviction. The eviction is relevant because it demonstrates the precise risk that the collateral could be lost before the secured debt is resolved.

III. The Defendant Was Given Notice of the Payment Obligation

The Defence argues that P-001 defines default as a failure to pay the amount owed, including the late fee, within seven days of notice. The Plaintiff agrees that the contract’s actual terms control.

P-003 shows that the Defendant raised the payment obligation with the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff supplied the repayment schedule and loan information. The Defendant therefore had actual notice of the amount owed and the payment schedule.

The contract, as described by the Defence, requires notice; it does not state that notice must take a particular form or can only be supplied after a due date has passed. The Defendant’s actual knowledge of the repayment terms cannot be disregarded simply because the Plaintiff also warned of the separate risk created by inactivity.

The Defence identifies 22 June 2026 as the relevant payment date. Even under that construction, the Defendant had already received the payment information and had ample notice of the obligation. The Court is now deciding the matter long after the seven-day period relied upon by the Defence. No evidence in the record shows that the Defendant paid the amount due, cured any default, or satisfied the secured debt.

A breach of contract arises when a party fails to fulfil a contractual obligation. [Contracts Act, §7](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/). The [Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VI, §1](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34107/) likewise recognizes breach where a party fails to perform an obligation under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.

The Plaintiff has met the civil standard of proof: the balance of probabilities. See [Judicial Standards Act, Part II, §3](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/judicial-standards-act.34670/).

IV. Alternatively, Any Timing Defect Does Not Extinguish the Debt or Lien

If the Court concludes that P-003 did not satisfy the Mortgage Contract’s notice requirement, or that the claim was filed before the relevant seven-day period elapsed, that conclusion would concern the timing of enforcement—not whether the mortgage, loan, outstanding balance, or lien existed.

The Defendant has not claimed payment, discharge, rescission, or satisfaction of the debt. Nor has the Defendant disputed the validity of the Mortgage Contract or the existence of Two Guys Realty’s contractual security interest.

Accordingly, the proper alternative disposition would be without prejudice to a later enforcement action after compliant notice and cure procedures—not a final ruling that relieves the Defendant of the unpaid mortgage obligation.

V. Relief Must Be Lawful and Must Not Result in Double Recovery

The Plaintiff recognizes the Defence’s concern that recovery of both C313 and the entire balance, without crediting the value of the collateral, would be improper.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks no double recovery. The Plaintiff requests a judgment establishing the amount of the secured obligation and recognition of the lien between the parties. Any recovery from collateral must be credited against the debt, and any remaining deficiency may be pursued only as permitted by law.

The [Property Lien Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/property-lien-act.39775/) preserves pre-existing private security interests between the original parties. It also requires collateral enforcement to follow the statutory notice, cure, sale, and proceeds-distribution process. The Plaintiff therefore asks for lawful enforcement of its security interest—not an impermissible private foreclosure or an award exceeding the amount actually owed.

VI. Requested Relief

WHEREFORE, Two Guys Realty respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Find that the Mortgage Contract is valid and enforceable;
2. Find that AWSJonny breached the repayment obligation and enter judgment for the outstanding balance established by P-002;
3. Recognize Two Guys Realty’s contractual lien and security interest in C313 as valid between the parties;
4. Permit the Plaintiff to pursue collateral enforcement through the procedures required by the Property Lien Act, with all collateral proceeds credited against the secured debt;
5. Award any lawful deficiency remaining after that credit;
6. Award court costs and legal fees as permitted by the Mortgage Contract and the [Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, §7](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34107/); and
7. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Alternatively, if the Court finds that the contractual notice-and-cure period had not matured when suit was filed, the Plaintiff requests that any dismissal be without prejudice and expressly preserve the validity of the debt and lien.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: 28 September 2026 7:46PM

 
Aelia_SingeH3art said:

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Two Guys Realty
Plaintiff

v.

AWSJonny
Defendant

[2026] DCR 112

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case concerns a $20,000 mortgage used to finance AWSJonny’s acquisition of Plot C313. The Defendant, through appointed counsel, now affirms the existence of the Mortgage Contract, the financing, the monthly-payment obligation, the lien on C313, the Defendant’s knowledge of the repayment schedule, the existence of an outstanding balance, and the risk to the collateral created by inactivity.

The remaining issues are whether the contractual default requirement has been met and what remedy may lawfully follow. The Plaintiff submits that the evidence supports judgment; alternatively, if the Court finds that the contractual notice period had not matured when this action was filed, the claim should be resolved without prejudice rather than by a final judgment suggesting that the debt or lien has been discharged.

I. The Core Contractual Facts Are No Longer Disputed

The Defendant’s Answer affirms Facts 1 through 6 of the Complaint. It also affirms that an outstanding balance remains under the payment schedule and that inactivity created a risk to the collateral.

Accordingly, the record establishes:

1. The parties entered into the Mortgage Contract concerning C313 on 22 April 2026. P-001.
2. Two Guys Realty financed the Defendant’s acquisition of C313 through a $20,000 loan. P-001.
3. The Defendant undertook monthly repayment obligations. P-001, P-002.
4. C313 was pledged as collateral, and Two Guys Realty retained a lien until the secured obligation was satisfied. P-001.
5. The Defendant knew of the loan and payment schedule. P-003.
6. A balance remained outstanding. P-002.

These facts satisfy the requirements for a valid contract under the [Contracts Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/): offer, acceptance, consideration, intent to create legal obligations, and capacity.

II. The Defendant’s Eviction Is an Established Fact

The Answer denies that eviction proceedings had begun at the time alleged in the Complaint. That distinction does not alter the present record.

The Court has already found that the Defendant “has already been evicted from C313,” while preserving the plot from auction or transfer pending this case. The Plaintiff does not ask the Court to review or reverse the eviction. The eviction is relevant because it demonstrates the precise risk that the collateral could be lost before the secured debt is resolved.

III. The Defendant Was Given Notice of the Payment Obligation

The Defence argues that P-001 defines default as a failure to pay the amount owed, including the late fee, within seven days of notice. The Plaintiff agrees that the contract’s actual terms control.

P-003 shows that the Defendant raised the payment obligation with the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff supplied the repayment schedule and loan information. The Defendant therefore had actual notice of the amount owed and the payment schedule.

The contract, as described by the Defence, requires notice; it does not state that notice must take a particular form or can only be supplied after a due date has passed. The Defendant’s actual knowledge of the repayment terms cannot be disregarded simply because the Plaintiff also warned of the separate risk created by inactivity.

The Defence identifies 22 June 2026 as the relevant payment date. Even under that construction, the Defendant had already received the payment information and had ample notice of the obligation. The Court is now deciding the matter long after the seven-day period relied upon by the Defence. No evidence in the record shows that the Defendant paid the amount due, cured any default, or satisfied the secured debt.

A breach of contract arises when a party fails to fulfil a contractual obligation. [Contracts Act, §7](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/). The [Redmont Civil Code Act, Part VI, §1](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34107/) likewise recognizes breach where a party fails to perform an obligation under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.

The Plaintiff has met the civil standard of proof: the balance of probabilities. See [Judicial Standards Act, Part II, §3](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/judicial-standards-act.34670/).

IV. Alternatively, Any Timing Defect Does Not Extinguish the Debt or Lien

If the Court concludes that P-003 did not satisfy the Mortgage Contract’s notice requirement, or that the claim was filed before the relevant seven-day period elapsed, that conclusion would concern the timing of enforcement—not whether the mortgage, loan, outstanding balance, or lien existed.

The Defendant has not claimed payment, discharge, rescission, or satisfaction of the debt. Nor has the Defendant disputed the validity of the Mortgage Contract or the existence of Two Guys Realty’s contractual security interest.

Accordingly, the proper alternative disposition would be without prejudice to a later enforcement action after compliant notice and cure procedures—not a final ruling that relieves the Defendant of the unpaid mortgage obligation.

V. Relief Must Be Lawful and Must Not Result in Double Recovery

The Plaintiff recognizes the Defence’s concern that recovery of both C313 and the entire balance, without crediting the value of the collateral, would be improper.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks no double recovery. The Plaintiff requests a judgment establishing the amount of the secured obligation and recognition of the lien between the parties. Any recovery from collateral must be credited against the debt, and any remaining deficiency may be pursued only as permitted by law.

The [Property Lien Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/property-lien-act.39775/) preserves pre-existing private security interests between the original parties. It also requires collateral enforcement to follow the statutory notice, cure, sale, and proceeds-distribution process. The Plaintiff therefore asks for lawful enforcement of its security interest—not an impermissible private foreclosure or an award exceeding the amount actually owed.

VI. Requested Relief

WHEREFORE, Two Guys Realty respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Find that the Mortgage Contract is valid and enforceable;
2. Find that AWSJonny breached the repayment obligation and enter judgment for the outstanding balance established by P-002;
3. Recognize Two Guys Realty’s contractual lien and security interest in C313 as valid between the parties;
4. Permit the Plaintiff to pursue collateral enforcement through the procedures required by the Property Lien Act, with all collateral proceeds credited against the secured debt;
5. Award any lawful deficiency remaining after that credit;
6. Award court costs and legal fees as permitted by the Mortgage Contract and the [Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, §7](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/redmont-civil-code-act.34107/); and
7. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

Alternatively, if the Court finds that the contractual notice-and-cure period had not matured when suit was filed, the Plaintiff requests that any dismissal be without prejudice and expressly preserve the validity of the debt and lien.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: 28 September 2026 7:46PM

Click to expand...

@ameslap You have until 10/2/26 at 9pm EDT to offer a response
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing

Your Honor,

There is no disputing that the mortgage exists. We are disputing whether the Plaintiff has established a default that allows the relief requested.

1. The burden is on the Plaintiff
Under the Judicial Standards Act, Part II, Sections 2–3, the Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Saying that the Defendant has not proven payment does not establish their case. They still need to establish the missed payment, proper notice, and expiration of the seven-day period.

2. Knowing the payment schedule is not the same as notice of default
The contract requires seven days of notice. Simply knowing when payments are due does not establish notice of an unpaid amount and late fee.

The payment was due June 22, and this case was filed June 24. The June 20 warning concerned inactivity and came before the payment was due. The Plaintiff has not established that the required notice and seven-day period occurred. This case taking months does not fix that missing proof.


3. An eviction does not establish a payment default
The Defendant being evicted does not, by itself, establish a default under the mortgage. Additionally, the Plaintiff must establish the amount owed, and any recovery from the property must be credited against that amount.


Thank you,
Ameslap

 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict- Two Guys Realty v. AWSJonny [2026] DCR 112


Summary of Controversy

On April 22nd, 2026, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Mortgage Contract under which Plaintiff financed Defendant’s acquisition of Plot C313 through a $20,000 loan, with C313 pledged as collateral and Plaintiff retaining a lien until the balance was paid in full. Defendant later became inactive, was evicted from C313, and has since been permanently deported. Plaintiff filed suit on June 24th, 2026, seeking return of C313, enforcement of its lien, and judgment for the outstanding balance Defendant, through an appointed Public Defender, affirmed the existence of the contract, the loan, the lien, and an outstanding balance, but denied that Plaintiff had established a default under the terms of the contract.

Findings of Fact

The Court finds, as uncontested, that a valid Mortgage Contract was formed, that Plaintiff financed Defendant’s acquisition of C313 for $20,000, that C313 is subject to Plaintiff’s lien, and that a balance remains outstanding. Payment is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it rests with the party claiming to have paid; An uncontested financial instrument is afforded additional weight must be afforded additional weight. Defendant affirmed the contract and the outstanding balance in P-002 and did not assert payment. The Court therefore finds that the payment due June 22nd, 2026 was not made.


However, the contract defines default as the failure to pay the amount owed, with late fee, within seven days of notice. Notice and the expiry of that period are conditions precedent that Plaintiff must prove. The communications in P-003 predate the missed payment and do not identify an unpaid amount or late fee, and this action was filed two days after the due date. Plaintiff has not established that compliant notice was given or that the cure period expired. Defendant’s eviction, while demonstrating risk to the collateral, does not itself constitute a default.

THEREFORE, the Court determines the following on the Complaint:

1) The Mortgage Contract is VALID.
2) Plaintiff holds a valid lien and security interest, not within the context of new legistation, on C313.
3) Breach of Contract - Dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the conditions for default were satisfied.
Transfer of C313 - GRANTED. Given Defendant's deportation, and the valid lien established, it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy that the property be reverted to Plaintiff.

The EI shall remain in force until October 22nd, 2026 so Plaintiff may cure the defect. DCT is ordered to transfer the plot to the representative of Plaintiff as soon as Plaintiff's agent presents themselves to the DHS.

So ordered,
Justice Mug in the District Court




 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top