File: LVCrt-03

Superior Court of the State of California
City and County of San Francisco

Number 891863
Diane Hegarty, Plaintiff
vs.
Anton LaVey, Defendant

VERIFIED ANSWER TO VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ANTON LaVEY

Comes now defendant Anton LaVey, hereinafter referred to as
defendant, who answers the allegations of the verified complaint on
file herein as follows:

1. Defendant denies, specifically and generally, each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20,
22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66.

2. Defendant denies that plaintiff is the co-owner with defendant of
any real and personal property. Defendant admits the remaining
allegations or paragraph #2 of the complaint.

3. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to be able to
admit or deny the allegations of paragraph #3, and lacking such
information or belief defendant denies them.

4. Defendant admits that plaintiff and defendant began to live
together in April 1962, that they held themselves out publicly as
husband and wife, that they filed joint federal and state income-tax
returns, and that on November 19, 1963 plaintiff gave birth to a
daughter fathered by defendant and surnamed LaVey according to
defendant's express wishes. Defendant denies that any of this
conduct was done pursuant to an oral agreement.

5. Defendant denies that plaintiff and defendant formed a
partnership on or about April 30, 1966 and took steps to form a non-
profit corporation. Defendant denies that plaintiff and defendant
participated equally in promoting and operating said business or
that plaintiff continued to participate in said business subsequent
to April 1984.

6. Defendant admits the allegation that a true copy of the grant
deed executed by defendant's father is attached as Exhibit #A to the
complaint. Defendant denies that defandant's father gave the
property known as 6114 California Street, San Francisco, California
to Anton and Diane LaVey, his wife. Defendant denies that plaintiff
is his wife. Defendant admits that defendant sought and obtained
refinancing upon said property, and that he did so under the name of
defendant and of plaintiff, whom he described as husband and wife.
Defendant denies that plaintiff provided any consideration for the
gift of said property. Defendant admits each and every remaining
allegation of paragraph #7 of the complaint.

7. Defendant denies the allegation that plaintiff left the family
residence in fear for her life. Defendant denies the allegation that
defendant's behavior was violent or abusive. Defendant denies that
he harassed or threatened plaintiff, or has made oral or written
threats against plaintiff between April 30, 1984 and present.
Defendant admits each and every remaining allegation of paragraph #9
of the complaint.

9. [#8 omitted] Defendant admits that a true copy of an agreement
signed by defendant and plaintiff on or about April 26, 1985 is
attached to the complaint as Exhibit #B. Defendant admits the
allegation that Exhibit #B contains an agreement regarding their
intentions as to certain real and personal property. Defendant
denies each and every remaining allegation of paragraph #10.

10. Defendant denies the allegation that defendant failed and
refused to cooperate with the terms of the agreement with respect to
the remodeling of the real property referred to in paragraph #7 of
the complaint. Defendant denies the allegation that defendant
dishonored all provisions made in said agreement to ensure the
privacy of plaintiff.

12. [#11 omitted] Defendant denies the allegation that plaintiff
realized she would be unable to occupy the portion of the property
designated as her private quarters. Defendant denies that plaintiff
has attempted to arrive at an equitable division of the property
characterized as jointly-owned.

13. Defendant denies that the purpose of the agreement entered into
by defendant and plaintiff was to "memorialize" their 23-year
relationship. Defendant denies that the purpose of the agreement was
to "memorialize" the nature of any real or personal property.
Defendant denies that plaintiff acquired any real or personal
property during the 23 years of relationship between the parties.
Defendant denies the allegation that the agreement contemplated an
equitable partition of any property or to enable both parties to
continue to operate a business or to maintain joint possession and
control of any property.

14. Defendant denies the property listed in Attachment #C of the
agreement is jointly owned.

15. Defendant denies that the property to which plaintiff and
defendant were to share equal access under the terms of the
agreement was jointly owned.

16. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to enable him
to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph #45, and on that basis
denies each and every allegation contained therein.

17. Defendant denies that plaintiff was forced by defendant's
threats and violence to leave the family residence on or about April
30, 1984. Defendant denies that he contacted plaintiff with threats
of violence, either written or telephonic, until January 1988.

As and for separate, affirmative defenses to the first cause of
action, defendant alleges the following:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action for breach of contract.
2. No contract was formed because defendant's consent was obtained
by fraud.
3. No contract was formed because defendant's consent was obtained
by undue influence.
4. No contract was formed because defendant's performance was
unsupported by consideration.
5. No contract was formed because defendant's consent was obtained
by oppression.
6. The contract is unenforceable because defendant's consent was the
result of a mistake of law.
7. The contract is unenforceable because defendant's consent was the
result of a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty, as
to a material fact.
8. Relief is barred under the doctrine of waiver.
9. Relief is barred under the doctrine of laches.
10. Relief is barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.
11. Relief is barred under the doctrine of estoppel.

As and for separate, affirmative defenses to the second cause of
action, defendant alleges the following:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.
2. Relief is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to oral
contracts.

As and for separate, affirmative defenses to the third cause of
action, defendant alleges the following:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of
action for fraud or deceit.
2. The action is barred under the doctrine of laches.
3. The action is barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.

As and for separate, affirmative defenses to the fifth cause of
action, defendant alleges the following:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action for emotional distress.
2. The action is barred by the statute of limitations.
3. The action is barred under the doctrine of laches.
4. The action is barred under the doctrine of estoppel.
5. Plaintiff consented to the conduct complained of.

As and for separate, affirmative defenses to the sixth cause of
action, defendant alleges the following:
1. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action.
2. The action is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to
accounting actions.
3. The action is barred under the doctrine of estoppel.
4. The action is barred under the doctrine of laches.

As and for separate, affirmative defenses to the seventh cause of
action, defendant alleges the following:
1. Plaintiff waived the right to partition.
2. Defendant is entitled to an offset in an amount equal to the
value of plaintiff's interest due to plaintiff's failure to
contribute any funds to the retirement of the debt on the real
property as to which plaintiff seeks partition.

Dated June 1, 1989
/s/ Owen Mayer, attorney for defendant Anton LaVey

VERIFICATION

I, Anton LaVey, declare:

1. I am a named defendant in the above-entitled action.

2. I have read the Verified Answer to the Verified First Amended
Complaint filed by plaintiff Diane Hegarty, and the same is true of
my own knowledge except as to those matters stated on information
and belief; and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June 1, 1989 at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Anton S. LaVey

[back to menu]