fired back at her attempts to have his shocking lawsuit chopped down, In Touch can exclusively reveal.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, John scoffed at Shannon’s recent request to completely dismiss the claim of promissory fraud from his lawsuit along with his request for punitive damages and attorney fees.
As we previously reported, earlier this year, John sued Shannon claiming she refused to repay him two loans he provided her — totaling $75,000 — that she needed for plastic surgery.
Shannon, 60, and John dated for over three years before ending things for good in January 2023. John is currently dating Shannon’s costar Alexis Bellino.
In his lawsuit, John accused Shannon of breach of contract and promissory fraud. He said she approached him for a loan in 2022 to help fund a facelift. John said he wired his then-girlfriend $40,000.
In early 2023, he said he provided another $35,000 to Shannon. John said the RHOC star promised to repay the loans.
Albert L. Ortega / Getty
In his court papers, John said despite numerous demands Shannon has failed to pay him back.
After the case was filed, Shannon said she was “shocked” by John’s decision to bring the lawsuit.
Shannon claimed the money was a “gift” and not a loan. She said she tried to work out the issues with John prior to him filing suit.
“My attorney has been in constant communication with his counsel. I agreed to pay John what he wanted because I knew that attorney’s fees would surpass the amount sought, but more importantly to eliminate the negative emotional components that come with a lawsuit. It is important that I continue to focus on the positive aspects of my life and move forward,” she said.
“John declined the offer because he refused to sign a mutual non-disparagement agreement. I was hoping that if I met his baseless demand we could at least use this as an opportunity to bring complete closure to this chapter in my life,” she added.
A couple of days later, John fired back at the claims the money was a “gift.”
His lawyer said, “[Shannon] knew when she made her false promises and representations that [Shannon] did not intend to pay for such services. Despite promising to repay both Loans, [Shannon’s] subsequent actions have made clear that [Shannon’s] promises were fabricated, and she never intended to follow through on her promises. For example, in an attempt to avoid her obligations to repay the Loans, [Shannon] now asserts that the Loans were a ‘gift’ from Mr. Janssen, which is completely false.”
Shannon’s legal team then asked the court to dismiss John’s claim of fraud and remove his request for punitive damages.
Mindy Small / Getty
They argued he had not presented enough evidence to back up his claim of fraud and he was not entitled to the fees.
His lawyer argued, “Mr. Janssen’s request for punitive damages is warranted by the facts and claims alleged in the [complaint], which sufficiently allege malice and fraud by alleging that [Shannon] acted with the intent to induce Mr. Janssen to rely on her misrepresentations to defraud Mr. Janssen into loaning money to Defendant that she never intended to repay. [Shannon’s] fraudulent intent is further evidenced by her continued assurances to Mr. Janssen that she would repay the loans, and her recent attempt to characterize the loans — for the very first time — as “gifts” that she is not required to repay.”
In addition, John said he had presented enough to back up his fraud claim. A judge has yet to rule.
Most Popular
Comments / 0