UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

Donna Dorsey Davis, ) 

as an individual and derivatively upon behalf ) 

of I-65 Properties, Inc. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs., ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:06cv766 

 ) 

Richard M. Dorsey, as an individual, ) 

and CD& O, LLC, as a necessary party, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

and ) 

 ) 

Richard M. Dorsey, ) 

Dorsey Motor Sales, Inc., ) 

and TD & O, Inc., ) 

 ) 

 Counter Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 

 ) 

Donna Dorsey Davis, ) 

 ) 

 Counter Defendant. ) 

Counter-Defendant’s Answer to Counter-Plaintiffs’ Counter Claim 

 Comes now the Counter-Defendant, Donna Dorsey Davis, as an individual, by and 

through the undersigned counsel, and files this Answer and states as grounds the following: (The 

numbered paragraph for the answer correlates to the numbered paragraph for the Counter claim.) 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 29 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 1 of 5
Answer 

1. Counter-Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph One. 

2. Counter-Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph Two. 

3. Counter-Defendant is without sufficient knowledge, information or belief to admit or 

deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Counter-Plaintiff’s CounterComplaint and therefore demands strict proof thereof. 

4. Counter-Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph Four.

5. Counter-Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph Five. 

6. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Six and demands strict proof 

thereof. 

7. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Seven and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

8. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Eight and demands strict proof 

thereof. 

9. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Nine and demands strict proof 

thereof. 

10. This paragraph does not require a substantive response by the Counter-Defendant. 

Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the Counter-Defendant reasserts her denial of all 

previous denials that have been pled. 

11. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Eleven and demands strict 

proof thereof. Furthermore, Counter-Defendant has no knowledge of any agreement 

whereby Davis promises to pay Counter-Plaintiffs the sum of $518,645.16. 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 29 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 2 of 5
12. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Twelve and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

13. This paragraph does not require a substantive response by the Counter-Defendant. 

Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the Counter-Defendant reasserts her denial of all 

previous denials that have been pled. 

14. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Fourteen and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

15. This paragraph does not require a substantive response by the Counter-Defendant. 

Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the Counter-Defendant reasserts her denial of all 

previous denials that have been pled. 

16. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Sixteen and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

17. This paragraph does not require a substantive response by the Counter-Defendant. 

Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the Counter-Defendant reasserts her denial of all 

previous denials that have been pled. 

18. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Eighteen and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

19. This paragraph does not require a substantive response by the Counter-Defendant. 

Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the Counter-Defendant reasserts her denial of all 

previous denials that have been pled. 

20. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Twenty and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 29 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 3 of 5
21. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Twenty-one and demands 

strict proof thereof. 

22. This paragraph does not require a substantive response by the Counter-Defendant. 

Therefore, for purposes of clarity, the Counter-Defendant reasserts her denial of all 

previous denials that have been pled. 

23. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Twenty-three and demands 

strict proof thereof. 

24. Counter-Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph Twenty-four and demands 

strict proof thereof. 

For further answer, the Counter-Defendant would additionally plead as follows: 

25. The Counter-Plaintiff’s Counter-claim is due to be dismissed under Ala. Code § 7-3-

118(b): “If no demand for payment is made to the maker, an action to enforce the note is 

barred if neither principal nor interest on the note has been paid for a continuous period of 10 

years.” (1975). 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

 By: _s/Lindsay B. Erwin_______ 

 Lindsay B. Erwin (ERW005) 

 ASB-5299-y59e 

Meacham, Earley & Fowler, P.C. 

5704 Veterans Parkway 

Columbus, GA 31904 

(706) 576-4064 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 29 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 6th day of April, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and have served a copy of same 

electronically and placing a copy of same in the Unites States Mail, postage prepaid and properly 

addressed to: 

Clifford W. Cleveland James E. Roberts 

Post Office Box 680689 4908 Cahaba River Road, Suite 204 

Prattville, Alabama 36068 Birmingham, Alabama 35243 

 __s/Lindsay B. Erwin______ 

 Of Counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 29 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 5 of 5