Tyler A.
Lofall
Pro Se Plaintiff
tyleralofall@gmail.com
6880 NW 271st ave
Hillsboro, OR 97124
IN THE CIRCIUT COURT IN THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS
TYLER ALLEN LOFALL, Case No.: 21CV02575
Plaintiff,
vs. EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT
AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ESTATE OF JOANNA LEE BOZIAN, BASED UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT
REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT
Defendant
EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT
Comes now, the Plaintiff, brings to the court this Emergency Motion, pursuant to ORCP
14A, 17A and 26(A) and (71)(b)
Plaintiff requests this Court:
(1) Grant the Plaintiff with the ability to have access to his AOB proceeds.
(2) Void the Judgment, DISMISS The Defendants Counter
COMPLAINTS in case 21CV02575, and Discredit every response
within the Answer and Amended answer on case number 21CV02575
with prejudice, the final judgment and request an evidentiary hearing
based upon fraud on the Court;
1 and as grounds therefore included in THE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
2 AUTHORITIES, with Declarations included within Master Exhibit List Attached hereto.
3
4
Respectfully submitted by the plaintiff on his own behalf
this 2nd day of February, 2023
5
/s/ Tyler A. Lofall
6
___________________________________
7 TYLER ALLEN LOFALL
8 PLAINTIFF PRO SE
9 tyleralofall@gmail.com
(386) 262-3322
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 1
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I INTRODUCTION
3
Tyler Lofall (The “Plaintiff”) is the purported assignee of an insurance policy issued by Joanna Lee
4
Bozian (The “Decedent”) insurance policy insured by her homeowners insurance company (Assurant).
5
Where a claim had been executed in the amount agreed upon between the Plaintiff and Assurant for the
6 amount $111,943.56. Recognized by the decedent on the face of the assignment, that 90% of said claim as
7 of June 8th 2020 substantially complete. Assigned June 24th by the Decedent the rights to this Irrevocable
8 Assignment are due in full to the Plaintiff, and thus far have been fraudulently interjected upon.
9
II BACKGROUND
10
11
The Daughter and Son-In-Law of the “Decedent”, Joanna Lee Bozian, for the sake of brevity-
12 Hereinafter “the Heirs”, most recently, the Daughter Teague Bond, as the “Executor of the Estate” for her
13 mothers Estate, stepping foot back on the “Property” of the Estate for the first time in 20 years, I move the
court today to reveal the fraudulent misrepresentation the “Heirs” have harmed Plaintiff with, while at the
14
same time tainted the good people of Clackamas county with a Fraud upon the court,
15
16 This Damage not only is life changing for the Plaintiff, he is the rightful owner, the fraud upon the
17 court has cost the court and Plaintiff many unnecessary hours, Therefore Plaintiff Respectfully alleges
18 these short set of undeniable facts to show how the Heirs fraudulent direction was sent to mislead the
court. Plaintiff presents as follows:
19
20
III ARGUEMENT
21
22 1. VALID ASSIGNMENT - Assigned by Joanna Lee Bozian when she was alive June 24th
23 2020, (See AOB, Pages 11-12), In Said AOB states on the face as Follows:
24
“For good and valuable consideration received, I, Joanna Lee Bozian irrevocably
25
transfer and assign to Tyler Lofall interest decisions regarding Claim #
26 002010436667 a Fire at the insured's place of residence on DEC 10th 2018, at 22008
SE Edward Dr, Damascus, OR 97089; Policy of insurance standing in my name and
27 known as Policy No. MLR740987904 issued by the Assurant Insurance Company.
hereby assign all cash values, proceeds and benefits arising thereunder to Tyler
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 2
1 Lofall.”***
2
Joanna had Assigned the rights and benefits to Plaintiff of her homeowners insurance, owed and
3 due in the full amount, at the time it was paid.
4
***”As of 6/8/2020 an estimated 90% of the fire claim stated above has been
5 completed and all work completed at the property has been completed by Tyler Lofall
as well as all materials furnished in good faith under contractual agreement between
6
Joanna Lee Bozian and Tyler Lofall.”***
7
At the time the AOB was Crafted Joanna Alleged that 90% of the work had been done, and by the
8 time it was signed on June 24th, 2020 a Final invoice was ready to prepare and one was sent to Assurant
9 for approval. Without the invoice from the Plaintiff the amount shown on exhibit 3 in the amount of
10 $38,385.97 would have been all that would have been given (See Page 14 (Highlighted for convenience)),
and [See Page 52 highlighted for convenience) $111,943.56 was the negotiated amount COMPLETED
11
by the Plaintiff, APPROVED AND PAID by Assurant, At Plaintiffs direction sent directly to the
12
Mortgage Company JP Morgan, and THEN FRAUDULENTLY INTERCEPTED BY THE
13 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE TEAGUE BOND, BY FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF
14 FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES [ALLEGEDLY BY THE PLAINTIFF] (See page 208 section iii
15 highlighted for convenience).
16
As of the time Plaintiff was denied from receiving the assigned benefits here is how the claim
17
remained (See page 207 original version):
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 3
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Further
17
18
“I warrant that I, Joanna Lee Bozian have full authority, to my knowledge, to transfer
said policy, and shall execute all further documents as may be required, by Assurant
19 Insurance Co, the underwriter [integrity adjusters], or Chase Bank [JP MORGAN] in
regards to getting the funds released to Tyler A. Lofall for the work completed on this
20 claim.
21
THIS ASSIGNMENT SHALL BE BINDING UPON AND INURE TO THE BENEFIT
22 OF THE PARTIES, THEIR SUCCESSORS, ASSIGN[EES] AND PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES.”
23
24
It was Assigned, Approved, Consideration given in full, paid, as work completed, then inspected by
25 the mortgage company who had a large investment in the property. All of the areas of the house were not
26 the responsibility of the Plaintiff and thus far he has had those areas of the house be the excuse that he
was not paid.(See page 4 “video pre-fire walkthrough”) NONE-THE-LESS IRRELEVANT DUE TO
27
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN ASSIGNMENT, AND THAT ASSIGNMENT WAS
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 4
1 IRREVOCABLE.
2
3
Due to possible time restraints, it is important for this emergency motion to be Immediate.
4
5 2. BACKGROUND FACTS (OF FRAUD BY THE HEIRS)
6 Plaintiff had been putting in on a job where the homeowner died, (the “Decedent”) leaving
7 Plaintiff invested on a $111,943.56 assignment of benefit (“AOB”) claim. On said claim the Prosecutor’s
office directed Plaintiff to the Clackamas County Police Department who notified Plaintiff that it was a
8
civil matter, none-the-less refusal of preventing estate fraud, forcing the Plaintiff to litigate Pro se,
9
Plaintiff rendered homeless and had moved into his girlfriend’s house until he could be paid, and with
10 Covid 19 procedures completely controlling the courts, everything was taking a tremendous amount of
11 time.
12
Plaintiff represented the Decedent’s estate, in an insurance claim, and when she died, her
13
daughter and son-in-law (the “heirs”) used their fiduciary role to fraudulently intercept said AOB claim
14
that Plaintiff had given full consideration for by; contacting the Mortgage Co. After Plaintiff Directly
15 asked Defendants if there was going to be an issue in receiving Plaintiffs assigned money (page 112 at
16 line 114) and convincing them that Plaintiff had created the AOB Fraudulently, removing Plaintiffs
deposit information (page 114 line 190-196) at this time it was confirmed and Plaintiff sent his
17
documentation that was selectively removed to put the Heirs in position to steal the Assignment (page
18
113 line 141-142 & page 133 line 639), inserting their own (See page 208 section i & iii), secretively
19 submitting paperwork supposed to be submitted by the plaintiff, then breaking all Plaintiffs property by
20 pitching it out the door into the mud right before all knowledge (see page 195-196) of any denial had
21 even happened (See Page 208 section iv), completely immobilizing plaintiffs ability to defend his self.
Meanwhile simultaneously using false information to execute an unwarranted eviction just 7 days after
22
they unlawfully denied plaintiffs claim, Plaintiff remained unpaid, moreover all processes happening
23
while Plaintiff constantly requested any relief while only arbitrary and capricious responses from any
24 form of government agency always at the benefit of opposition due to direction being by an officer of the
25 Court who was “quarterbacking” the criminal theft, Joseph McDonald, attorney for the heirs.
26
Exhibit 6, shows more fraud when on October 19th Heir Zac Bond, communicates with Plaintiff
27
“Here’s where we are in the process: The limited Judgment has been filed with the probate court.
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 5
1 We got the letter on Friday. Now we have to post bond, and we will receive the letters of
2 Administration, naming Teague the Executor. We spoke to chase today. We aren’t authorized on
the account until we send them a death certificate and a copy of the letters of administration.” (see
3
page 116 line 250-260)
4
5 Fraudulent Misrepresentation without question.
6
7 The Bond was posted October 8th, and the letters of administration was granted on October
13th both a significant amount of time prior to the Heirs buying more time. It was at this time that
8
the Heirs were in the process of cutting the Plaintiff off by communicating with the mortgage
9
company, convincing them that there was fraud and there was at that time a three day window of
10 processing at chase bank so that if Plaintiff would have called he could have continued to get
11 through. It wasn’t until the following week when the plaintiff had attempted to check on the process
12
at the mortgage company he found out that the heirs already had fraudulently shut him down from
his own assignment. (See last 3 pages of attached documents)
13
14 Then on November 24th, 2020 Heir Zac Bond says twice in the same email, “We will send the
15 remainder soon as chase releases funds to us” (page 127 line 490) and “When chase releases the funds,
16 you will get the rest of what you are owed” (line 508-509) the entire situation had left the Plaintiff with
expectations that there wasn’t going to be any issues, and Plaintiff was going to be paid.
17
18
The inspection was then held, on November 31st, it passed, everything passed, and funds were
19 going to be released, and there very next point of communication was December 1st 2020, the following
20 day and that message was “if you want money from the insurance claim, you will need to file a claim
21
against Jolies estate like any other creditor.” (See page 132 line 611-612).
22
Followed by “[Plaintiffs] You are right we’re ignorant to the situation, because we haven’t been
23
around for years”; yet in August 2022, it was said on the stand when questioned by Plaintiff that he
24 was there the previous year (2019) (See page 137 line 720)
25
Then with everything lined up, point for point, how can a pro se litigant expect that the other side
26
was going to lie on every single answer they gave, send Plaintiff’s services to some street with no house
27
(ridge road NE, instead of 1907 Ridge road NE) number included in the address on every service for the
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 6
1 first nine months; except the Answer, and Motion for Summary Judgement, which they sent to their
2 selves and returned to sender after they evicted Plaintiff knowing Plaintiff wasn’t there. Plaintiff not
discovering this for weeks, the court put half Plaintiffs complaint on to the probate claim of Joanna Lee
3
Bozian, with even a note on the face of it, if the records got pulled people can see still today it states to:
4
“tag to *Civil Claim*”(21CV02575 and its 20PB05750(proof not included but on the case number
5 20pb05750))… Plaintiff is blown away…none-the-less making it ineffective in many ways, and making
6 litigation take the long route. Then when Plaintiff thinks that proving every answer that the heirs ever
7 gave was knowingly “fraud upon the court”, by proving them false by cross referencing them all to the
heirs own messages, emails, pictures, and movies (See submission in Jan 2022 for new trial)… Plaintiff
8
got a big “Whoopi” … no one cares, and they lied under oath. With finally after over a year, approval
9
from the court for another amendment before trial.
10
11 Plaintiff had 7 motions written and help ready to assist him on March 7th , [how dare he]
have/[had] all his stuff smashed on March 6th and literally gentle be as a teddy bear try and prevent
12
someone from irrationally spraying his computers with a hose and get hauled off to jail1.
13
14 Plaintiff had trial set for June 8th 2022, already moved back to almost the Statute of Limitations
15 due to Covid 19 slowing everything to a crawl, $180,000 on the line, and an AOB that someone didn’t
16 have potential rights to, consideration was given in full and Plaintiff was assigned it, should have been
guaranteed getting paid back his 401k he withdrew to finish the house, increasing the value of their house
17
by nearly $300,000 (See extras list Plaintiff did on the property on Page 221 &222, and value
18
increase on Page 223), yet Plaintiffs is at jeopardy of losing everything because West Linn officers want
19 to arrest Plaintiff without merit, then while in jail for false arrest caught covid and was forced to miss
20 trial.
21
The first week of March 2022, Plaintiff had seven filings he had just submitted, was going to
22
submit, or was being repaired and ready to resubmit, had worked out getting help, and most certainly had
23
hearings on the way that Plaintiff needed to submit before trial came to prevail on the AOB.(all shown
24
25
26 1 PLAINTIFF WAS FALSE ARRESTED ON MARCH 6TH AND HAS A CURRENT OPEN LAWSUIT AGAINST
WEST LINN POLICE OFFICERS ON CASE NUMBER 22CV39627 (CIVIL CASE DUE TO FALSE ARREST) REGARDS
27
TO CASE NUMBER 22CR10908 (FALSE ARRESTED CASE NUMBER)
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 7
1 under Odysseys e-file records)
2
On March 6th Plaintiff was arrested and spent four months in jail due to a false arrest, crippling
3
the final go at the claim. Unable to have this AOB wrapped up in the same claim (21CV02575), he still
4
has full rights to the said assignment as shown above out of the $111,943.56 only $33,385.97 has been
5 paid (First check subtract $5,000).
6
7
IV. AUTHORITIES
8
79.0107 UCC 9-107. Control of letter-of-credit right. A secured party has control of
9 a letter-of-credit right to the extent of any right to payment or performance by the issuer
or any nominated person if the issuer or nominated person has consented to an
10 assignment of proceeds of the letter of credit under ORS 75.1140 (3) or otherwise
11 applicable law or practice.
12 In claim number 21CV02575, the Heirs, (then “the Defendants”) contended that Plaintiff had no
13 license in the state of Oregon, as per ORS chapter 701 requires; and although this has no merit behind
convincing the mortgage company that Plaintiff had fraudulently introduced the Assignment of Benefits,
14
the initial reason the heirs even became in control of the proceeds, none-the-less the heirs reasoning
15
cannot hold, for the following (three) reasons:
16
17 “A Person performing work on a property that
person owns or performing work as the owner's
18 employee, whether the property is occupied by
the owner or not, or a person performing work
19 on that person's residence, whether or not that
person owns the residence. [subsection 701 does
1. ORS 701.010 (7) - [PLAINTIFF] EXEMPTION FROM not apply to a person performing work on a
20
LICENSURE; RULES structure owned by that person or the owner's
employee, if the work is performed in the pursuit of
21 an independent business with the intent of offering
the structure for sale before, upon, or after
22 completion.]”
23 ORS 701.010 (7)
24 DOES NOT REQUIRE A LICENSE NOR DO
THEY INSPECT FOR ONE.
25 AS PER CLACKAMAS COUNTY BUILDING
2. DAMASCUS IS UNINCORPORATED - INSPECTORS
26
None-the-less Plaintiff had all hired and had all
27 inspections that would have been forced to come
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 8
1
out had he been within the inspection zone and
those inspections passed.
2
AN ASSIGNMENT CAN BE GIVEN TO
3 ANYONE REGAURDLESS OF LICENSE IT IS
IRREVOKABLE AND ASSIGNS INSTANTLY,
4 3. THERE IS AN ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS THEREFOR WAS ASSIGNED ON JUNE 24th,
2020. by the Decedent while alive, therefore not the
ASSIGNING THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ASSURANT Defendants to inherit.
5
AND THE DECEDENT TO THE PLAINTIFF.
6 ORS 79.0203 UCC 9-203.
(SEE BELOW)
ORS 75.114
7
8 Plaintiff being a resident of the house that was repaired made it perfectly legal for him to do the
9 work that he did, the Heirs/Defendants defense is moot.
10
ORS 79.0203 UCC 9-203. Attachment and enforceability of security interest; proceeds;
11 supporting obligations; formal requisites
12
13 Except as otherwise provided in subsections (3) to (9) of this section, a security interest is
enforceable against the debtor and third parties with respect to the collateral only if:
14
15
a. Value has been given;
16
b. The debtor has rights in the collateral or the power to transfer rights in
17 the collateral to a secured party; and
18 c. One of the following conditions is met:
19 A. The debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the
collateral and, if the security interest covers timber to be cut, a description of the land
20 concerned;
21 B. The collateral is not a certificated security and is in the possession of the secured party
under ORS 79.0313 pursuant to the debtor’s security agreement;
22
C. The collateral is a certificated security in registered form and the security certificate has
23 been delivered to the secured party under ORS 78.3010 pursuant to the debtor’s security
agreement; or
24
D. The collateral is deposit accounts, electronic chattel paper, investment property, letter-
25 of-credit rights or electronic documents, and the secured party has control under ORS
77.1060, 79.0104, 79.0105, 79.0106 or 79.0107 pursuant to the debtor’s security
26 agreement.
27
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 9
1 As required by ORS 79.2030 (2) Plaintiff has given the consideration for this claim, in the amount of $111,943.56
and only $33,385.97 has been paid. There for the remainder still due in the amount of $78,557.59 from the AOB.
2
That amount has been fraudulently interjected and the heirs have tried to skate around the Rules of Civil Procedure
3
in order to hide behind the Plaintiffs now harmed status in order to try and shield the plaintiff from his earned
4 wages, by the Heirs, as demonstrated above and in case 21CV02575.
5
Building on the recent precedent established in Ryerson inc. V. Federal insurance co. ,
the seventh circuit again limited the application of the mend-the-hold doctrine in the
6
context of an insurance-coverage dispute.
The mend-the-hold doctrine, which acquired its name from a 19th century wrestling term,
7
prevents a defendant from changing its defense strategy in the middle of litigation. Parties,
particularly policyholders, have attempted to use an expanded form of the doctrine to
8
prevent insurers from raising defenses in coverage litigation that were not included in pre-
litigation correspondence sent by the insurer.
9
In Amerisure insurance co. V. National surety corp., the appellant-insurers sought
10
contribution from another insurer, Scottsdale insurance company (“Scottsdale”), for an
underlying settlement. The district court granted Scottsdale’s motion for summary
11
judgment and held that Scottsdale had no coverage obligations because of a cross-liability
exclusion in its policy. On appeal, the appellants argued, inter alia, that the mend-the-hold
12
doctrine prevented Scottsdale from asserting a defense based on the cross-liability
exclusion because Scottsdale’s pre-trial communications did not indicate its intent to rely
13
on the exclusion but, rather, had only mentioned different defenses.
14
15 Regarding ORCP 19 (A) Defendants without proper standing to do so, and made material
misrepresentations in their pleadings.
16
(SEE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL SUBMITTED JANUARY 2022, EVERY MATERIAL LINE ITEM THE
17
HEIRS ANSWERED WITH PROVEN A LIE)
18
(§11.11) third-party beneficiary contracts an action may be brought by a party with whom or in whose
19 name a contract has been made for the benefit of another. Frcp 17(a)(1)(f). Thus, the maker of a third-
party beneficiary contract is a real party in interest. The beneficiary is also a real party in interest.
20 Advisory committee note, frcp 17 (1966). Oregon law recognizes the right of a third-party beneficiary
to maintain an action on the contract. Crapper v. Berliner’s, inc., 269 or 117, 123 n 4, 523 p2d 1025
21 (1974); hale v. Groce, 304 or 281, 286, 744 p2d 1289 (1987).
22 Assignment of rights is a “complete transfer of rights to receive benefits” accruing to one party under a
contract. Performance of a contract may be assigned as long as the contracting parties provide their
23 consent towards the assignment. However, the act of assignment needs to be looked at from the
perspective of the contracting parties. Essentially, there are three parties involved, namely, the assignor,
24 assignee and obligor.”
25 An important principle affecting assignments is that the burden or liability under a contract cannot be
assigned. Essentially, the moot question that often arises is with respect to [the] assignment of “rights”
26 [&] by [the] assignment of “obligations”. The supreme court distinguished between assignment of
“rights” and “obligations”. The court upheld that:
27
“An assignment of a contract might result by transfer either of the rights or of the
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 10
1 obligations thereunder. But there is a well-recognized distinction between these two
classes of assignments. As a rule, obligations under a contract cannot be assigned except
2 with the consent of the “promisee”, and when such consent is given, it is really a
novation resulting in substitution of liabilities. On the other hand, rights under a contract
3 are assignable unless the contract is (A) personal in its nature, (or B) the rights are
incapable of assignment either under the law or under an agreement between the
4 parties”.
5 Primarily, the court clarified that obtaining prior consent to assign “obligations” under a contract would
be considered as novation as it will result into q of liabilities and obligations to the assignee.
6 Moreover, introduction of a new party into an existing contract will result into novation of a contract
i.e. Creation of a new contract between original party and new party. As the courts have interpreted that
7 transfer of obligations can be undertaken through novation, the assignment clause in a contract must
clearly deal with novation, if the intention is to transfer obligations.
8
9 Since the Decedent/Assignor had no obligations owed to the insurance company, [as it has been
10 upheld many times by the Supreme Courts primarily in the states that are subject to hailstorms] that even
11 in the case of [a] “no assignment clause” [as long as the assignment is “POST LOSS”], the rights to the
claim are in fact assignable.
12
13
ORCP 26(A) provides, in pertinent part:
14
• Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, but a personal
15
representative, administrator, guardian, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose
16
name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party expressly authorized by
statute may sue in that person's own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action
17 is brought... The Defendants, meets none of these standing and pleading criteria.
18 a. The Defendants have failed to provide any documentation whatsoever that they are in
fact the real party in interest in this Matter, and have in fact skated around the fact that
19 there was an Assignment of Benefits the entire time. Consideration was given, the
assignment was assigned by the Decedent before her death and therefore the
20 Heirs/Defendants have never been the real party in interest.
21
b. Plaintiff has provided an exorbitant amount of documentation that proves he is in fact the
22 real party in interest in the matter in Case Number 21CV02575.
23 2. ORCP 71 (B) provides that it gives relief from judgment, decrees or
orders if:
24
25
there is merit to the case, which there is in this case. On motion and upon
such terms that are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative
26 from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
27 a. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 11
1 b. Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial or rehearing; and
2
c. Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
3
misconduct of an adverse party.
4
The rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a
5 party from a judgment, decree, order or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the
6 court. From the defendants own answers when looked with references of their own communications,
7 agreed that they were the actual conversations in trial, it is easy to see where Zac Bond and Teague Bond
have been both used fraud and misrepresentation in this case.
8
9
Plaintiff had waited to file this here emergency motion believing he was going to have his claim
10 21CN02575 accepted and have it included all in one yet due to being false arrested for four months before
11 Plaintiff was released, Plaintiff couldn’t get must needed amendment off in time for and couldn’t properly
12
defend his claim rights. None-the-less Plaintiff willing to fight the rest of the claim in the court of appeals,
the assignment is something that Plaintiff is rightfully owed and therefore Before the fund being held in
13
probate court get released to the Heirs, the Plaintiff would ask for the funds that were assigned with
14
consideration given, Inspected by the mortgage company, funds released due to said completion to be
15 given to the Plaintiff who has already suffered enough… and in a few more days those funds may be
16 unreachable.
17
18 V CONCLUSION
19 Due to the Aforementioned reasons Plaintiff respectfully reasons and where the defendants have no more
20 defense in these matters and therefore it would be in all fairness to not allow the defendants to further
objections and compensate the plaintiff for all the harms they have caused.
21
22
Due to not receiving the AOB plaintiff has endured an additional amount of damages that would not have
23 harmed the plaintiff without the fraudulently introduced damages from the heirs, and therefore upon the
24 acceptance of this here motion it is only fair that the court on its own behalf review the claims set forth on
25 claim 21cv02575.
26
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Tyler A. Lofall Moves this court to,
27
1. Grant the Plaintiff with the ability to have access to his AOB proceeds.
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 12
1 2. void the Judgment, DISMISS The Defendants Counter COMPLAINTS in case 21CV02575, and
2 discredit every response within the Answer and Amended answer on case number 21CV02575
with prejudice due to fraud upon the court.
3
4
RESPECTUFLLY SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF,
5
On this 2nd day of February 2023,
6
7 /s/ Tyler A. Lofall
____________________________
8 BY: Tyler A. Lofall
Plaintiff
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VOID JUDGEMENT AND REQUEST AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING BASED
UPON FRAUD ON THE COURT - NOT REQUTING ORAL ARGUEMENT - 13
