Hello,
I live in Oregon am representing myself in an Ejectment case that the Executor of my mother's estate filed against me since I cannot afford a retainer fee for an attorney. Can somebody please just tell me if I am on point with all of the Executor's breaches of fiduciary duties please? (Any feedback on the entire document would be greatly appreciated as well.) This is my Appellant's Briefing for the Oregon Court of Appeals:
I. JURISDICTION & CASE OVERVIEW
Jurisdiction: Oregon Court of Appeals under ORS 19.205(2)(a). Limited Judgment of Ejectment entered January 29, 2026, by Judge Robert Johnson (Douglas County). Corrected Notice of Appeal filed March 31, 2026.
Case Origin: Robin Ellen Duey died May 22, 2025. Respondent Regina Van Brunt (non-blood family associate, Will nominee) appointed PR September 15, 2025 (probate 25PB07998). Instead of administering for all beneficiaries, she immediately filed ejectment (Case No. 25CV55967) against Appellant John "Duke" Serowchak—Decedent's son, named beneficiary, and full-time caregiver of 7+ years—to remove him from his only home at 170 Church Street, Dillard, Oregon.
Outcome: Trial court granted summary judgment January 29, 2026. Writ of Assistance issued March 11, 2026; Sheriff's deputies forcibly removed Appellant. He is now unemployed, homeless, living in his travel trailer on BLM land, with no income or savings.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Residency & Caregiver Role
Lived at 170 Church Street 7+ years as primary caregiver; discovered mother's body
Girlfriend Kimberly Tadder (11 years) resided there; submitted sworn counter-declaration
Stepsister Zena Raner confirmed Decedent relied on Duke, welcomed his presence, and expressly wished he "never be made homeless"
Decedent actively sought nearby land for Duke to gain independence, planning to sell river property to fund it
B. The Will & Specific Bequest
Executed January 4, 2024; signed by Decedent and Respondent as witness
Specific bequest: Travel trailer and cargo trailer at 170 Church Street "go to Duke Serowchak" upon death
Residuary: bank accounts to Cal Duey; house/cars split three ways (Jason Cuevas, Duke, Cal Duey); $10,000 each to three grandchildren
Zena Raner testified Decedent purchased trailers specifically for Duke, keeping them in her name only to protect from creditors—always his. Dump trailer purchased by Duke with own funds.
C. Respondent's Admissions Authorizing Occupancy
Critical admission: In her own sworn declaration, Respondent admitted at May 31, 2025 family meeting she told Appellant he could use house to cook/shower—"commonplace when Robin Duey was alive"
June 1, 2025: Respondent arranged lock changes and provided Appellant a key directly
Appellant argues this creates genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment and supports equitable estoppel
Standard Oregon practice allows occupants to remain until closing in probate sales; immediate removal served no legitimate purpose
D. Pre-Appointment Misconduct
1.
"Babette" Incident: Directed non-relative to remove Decedent's purse, phone, wallet, laptop, tablet, address book (containing SSN/sensitive info)
2.
Jewelry Box Removal: Personally removed jewelry box at funeral viewing before Will admitted to probate or PR appointment—no legal authority. Inventory later listed jewelry at blanket "$1,000" with no itemization. Attempted recharacterization as daughter's July 2025 act contradicted by two sworn witnesses
3.
Mail Forwarding: Forwarded Decedent's mail to California before appointment, receiving all correspondence including overdue storage unit notices
4.
Loss of Storage Unit: Decedent paid for years on 10x10 unit at Storage Direct Roseville containing father's firefighting equipment, family heirlooms, photographs. PR received four written overdue notices (August 18, 21, 22, September 12, 2025). Took no action. Unit vacated ~October 27, 2025; all lost/auctioned. Never disclosed in probate inventory
5.
Nicole Gray's Seizure (August 5, 2025): At Respondent's direction, removed original deeds, vehicle titles, tax documents, and cremated remains of Robin and Dennis Duey—without court authorization, before PR appointment
E. Bad-Faith Conduct: Defamation & Financial Destruction
April 15, 2026 statement from neighbor's stepdaughter Rene describes Respondent:
Attempting to haul Appellant's trailers from neighboring property (lawfully parked with neighbor Connie Galivan's permission—confirmed in signed statement)
Disparaging Appellant, describing property as mess implying he caused neglect
Stating she would charge Duke cleanup costs and deduct from inheritance, "leaving him financially ruined"
Direct evidence of bad faith, retaliatory intent, unclean hands, abandonment of impartiality
F. Post-Appointment Fiduciary Breaches
1.
Utility Deprivation/Self-Help Eviction: Refused to pay/authorize water, electricity, garbage; refused written authorization for Appellant to restore water. Property without water for months. Appellant forced to put electricity in own name at own expense
2.
Disparate Treatment: Obtained court authorization to pay Cal Duey $1,500/month inheritance advance while estate had unpaid utilities in collections
3.
Vehicle Sale Without Notice: Sold 2018 Ford Escape without notifying Appellant or opportunity to object/purchase
4.
Unauthorized Civil Action: Filed ejectment without probate court authorization or notice to Appellant as interested party
5.
Identity Theft/EIN Fraud: Failure to safeguard SSN resulted in fraudulent EIN acquisition, preventing estate bank account and delaying administration
G. Human Consequences
Lost job due to absences for court hearings/litigation Respondent initiated
No income, no savings, cannot afford moving/housing
Forcibly removed; living in bequeathed travel trailer on BLM road awaiting RV park approval
Respondent's counsel's January 6, 2026 letter claimed housing was her "main concern"—contradicted by all facts
H. Summary Judgment & Due Process Violations
January 14, 2026 hearing: Appellant pro se submitted counter-declarations, raised disputed issues (authorized occupancy, bequest vesting, statutory notice, self-help eviction, unclean hands). Court granted judgment without findings on any affirmative defenses
March 11, 2026 hearing: Sought stay/waiver. Court silenced Appellant mid-sentence, accepted opposing counsel's "I don't think so" as sole basis for denial, made no indigence inquiry despite sworn declaration of unemployment, litigation-caused job loss, no savings
III. NINE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1.
Summary judgment improper—genuine issues remained (authorized use/key; fiduciary breaches; unclean hands)
2.
Failed to address statutory notice requirement under ORS 114.225(2) and ORS 111.215 (jurisdictional)
3.
Summary judgment improper where required notice not provided
4.
Failed to weigh unclean hands defense (utility deprivation, intermeddling, defamation, intent to ruin)
5.
Failed to consider equitable factors (beneficiary status, indigence, homelessness, Decedent's wishes)
6.
Granted summary judgment without findings on fiduciary duty breaches
7.
Due process violation at March 11 hearing—denied opportunity to present arguments
8.
Erred denying stay/waiver, rendering appeal futile under ORS 19.350(5); accepted conclusory statement without indigence inquiry
9.
Failed to consider fiduciary breaches under ORS 114.225 (waste, failure to maintain, self-dealing, disparate treatment)
IV. ARGUMENT HIGHLIGHTS
Genuine Issues of Fact: Authorized use/key creates material dispute and equitable estoppel; specific bequest vesting is disputed; PR misconduct unrebutted; good-faith belief objectively reasonable.
Statutory Notice: ORS 114.225(2) and ORS 111.215 require notice before ejecting beneficiary in possession—jurisdictional. Respondent filed without authorization, notice, or necessity showing. Trial court failed to address—reversible error.
Unclean Hands: Ejectment is equitable. Self-help eviction (ORS 105.005) confirmed by counsel's letter; stated intent to financially ruin beneficiary; attempted seizure of lawfully parked trailers; pre-appointment intermeddling.
Equitable Factors: Respondent authorized presence; Appellant is beneficiary; Decedent wished him never homeless; indigence and homelessness; standard practice allows occupancy through closing; seven-year caretaker relationship.
Fiduciary Breaches: Storage unit loss with actual notice—should be surcharged personally; waste (utilities in collections while paying other beneficiary); disparate treatment; unauthorized vehicle sale; identity theft from failure to safeguard information.
Due Process: Silenced mid-sentence; no indigence inquiry; conclusory denial despite sworn poverty declaration.
Stay Necessity: Imminent May 1, 2026 property disposal deadline; threatened inheritance depletion. ORS 19.350(5) authorizes stay/waiver for meritorious appeal + indigence + irreparable harm + no prejudice. All damages from bad-faith administration should be assessed against Respondent personally under ORS 116.123, not from estate assets.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
1.
REVERSE Limited Judgment and REMAND for trial
2.
Alternatively VACATE and REMAND with instructions to address statutory notice, weigh defenses, and make findings on equitable/fiduciary issues
3.
STAY enforcement and ENJOIN Respondent from disposing/declaring abandoned Appellant's property beyond May 1, 2026
4.
FREEZE any inheritance deductions for cleanup/moving/disposal costs
5.
WAIVE/reduce supersedeas undertaking
6.
ORDER all damages from bad-faith administration assessed against Respondent personally (not estate) under ORS 116.123
7.
AWARD costs on appeal
8.
GRANT other just relief
I live in Oregon am representing myself in an Ejectment case that the Executor of my mother's estate filed against me since I cannot afford a retainer fee for an attorney. Can somebody please just tell me if I am on point with all of the Executor's breaches of fiduciary duties please? (Any feedback on the entire document would be greatly appreciated as well.) This is my Appellant's Briefing for the Oregon Court of Appeals:
I. JURISDICTION & CASE OVERVIEW
Jurisdiction: Oregon Court of Appeals under ORS 19.205(2)(a). Limited Judgment of Ejectment entered January 29, 2026, by Judge Robert Johnson (Douglas County). Corrected Notice of Appeal filed March 31, 2026.
Case Origin: Robin Ellen Duey died May 22, 2025. Respondent Regina Van Brunt (non-blood family associate, Will nominee) appointed PR September 15, 2025 (probate 25PB07998). Instead of administering for all beneficiaries, she immediately filed ejectment (Case No. 25CV55967) against Appellant John "Duke" Serowchak—Decedent's son, named beneficiary, and full-time caregiver of 7+ years—to remove him from his only home at 170 Church Street, Dillard, Oregon.
Outcome: Trial court granted summary judgment January 29, 2026. Writ of Assistance issued March 11, 2026; Sheriff's deputies forcibly removed Appellant. He is now unemployed, homeless, living in his travel trailer on BLM land, with no income or savings.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Residency & Caregiver Role
Lived at 170 Church Street 7+ years as primary caregiver; discovered mother's body
Girlfriend Kimberly Tadder (11 years) resided there; submitted sworn counter-declaration
Stepsister Zena Raner confirmed Decedent relied on Duke, welcomed his presence, and expressly wished he "never be made homeless"
Decedent actively sought nearby land for Duke to gain independence, planning to sell river property to fund it
B. The Will & Specific Bequest
Executed January 4, 2024; signed by Decedent and Respondent as witness
Specific bequest: Travel trailer and cargo trailer at 170 Church Street "go to Duke Serowchak" upon death
Residuary: bank accounts to Cal Duey; house/cars split three ways (Jason Cuevas, Duke, Cal Duey); $10,000 each to three grandchildren
Zena Raner testified Decedent purchased trailers specifically for Duke, keeping them in her name only to protect from creditors—always his. Dump trailer purchased by Duke with own funds.
C. Respondent's Admissions Authorizing Occupancy
Critical admission: In her own sworn declaration, Respondent admitted at May 31, 2025 family meeting she told Appellant he could use house to cook/shower—"commonplace when Robin Duey was alive"
June 1, 2025: Respondent arranged lock changes and provided Appellant a key directly
Appellant argues this creates genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment and supports equitable estoppel
Standard Oregon practice allows occupants to remain until closing in probate sales; immediate removal served no legitimate purpose
D. Pre-Appointment Misconduct
1.
"Babette" Incident: Directed non-relative to remove Decedent's purse, phone, wallet, laptop, tablet, address book (containing SSN/sensitive info)
2.
Jewelry Box Removal: Personally removed jewelry box at funeral viewing before Will admitted to probate or PR appointment—no legal authority. Inventory later listed jewelry at blanket "$1,000" with no itemization. Attempted recharacterization as daughter's July 2025 act contradicted by two sworn witnesses
3.
Mail Forwarding: Forwarded Decedent's mail to California before appointment, receiving all correspondence including overdue storage unit notices
4.
Loss of Storage Unit: Decedent paid for years on 10x10 unit at Storage Direct Roseville containing father's firefighting equipment, family heirlooms, photographs. PR received four written overdue notices (August 18, 21, 22, September 12, 2025). Took no action. Unit vacated ~October 27, 2025; all lost/auctioned. Never disclosed in probate inventory
5.
Nicole Gray's Seizure (August 5, 2025): At Respondent's direction, removed original deeds, vehicle titles, tax documents, and cremated remains of Robin and Dennis Duey—without court authorization, before PR appointment
E. Bad-Faith Conduct: Defamation & Financial Destruction
April 15, 2026 statement from neighbor's stepdaughter Rene describes Respondent:
Attempting to haul Appellant's trailers from neighboring property (lawfully parked with neighbor Connie Galivan's permission—confirmed in signed statement)
Disparaging Appellant, describing property as mess implying he caused neglect
Stating she would charge Duke cleanup costs and deduct from inheritance, "leaving him financially ruined"
Direct evidence of bad faith, retaliatory intent, unclean hands, abandonment of impartiality
F. Post-Appointment Fiduciary Breaches
1.
Utility Deprivation/Self-Help Eviction: Refused to pay/authorize water, electricity, garbage; refused written authorization for Appellant to restore water. Property without water for months. Appellant forced to put electricity in own name at own expense
2.
Disparate Treatment: Obtained court authorization to pay Cal Duey $1,500/month inheritance advance while estate had unpaid utilities in collections
3.
Vehicle Sale Without Notice: Sold 2018 Ford Escape without notifying Appellant or opportunity to object/purchase
4.
Unauthorized Civil Action: Filed ejectment without probate court authorization or notice to Appellant as interested party
5.
Identity Theft/EIN Fraud: Failure to safeguard SSN resulted in fraudulent EIN acquisition, preventing estate bank account and delaying administration
G. Human Consequences
Lost job due to absences for court hearings/litigation Respondent initiated
No income, no savings, cannot afford moving/housing
Forcibly removed; living in bequeathed travel trailer on BLM road awaiting RV park approval
Respondent's counsel's January 6, 2026 letter claimed housing was her "main concern"—contradicted by all facts
H. Summary Judgment & Due Process Violations
January 14, 2026 hearing: Appellant pro se submitted counter-declarations, raised disputed issues (authorized occupancy, bequest vesting, statutory notice, self-help eviction, unclean hands). Court granted judgment without findings on any affirmative defenses
March 11, 2026 hearing: Sought stay/waiver. Court silenced Appellant mid-sentence, accepted opposing counsel's "I don't think so" as sole basis for denial, made no indigence inquiry despite sworn declaration of unemployment, litigation-caused job loss, no savings
III. NINE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1.
Summary judgment improper—genuine issues remained (authorized use/key; fiduciary breaches; unclean hands)
2.
Failed to address statutory notice requirement under ORS 114.225(2) and ORS 111.215 (jurisdictional)
3.
Summary judgment improper where required notice not provided
4.
Failed to weigh unclean hands defense (utility deprivation, intermeddling, defamation, intent to ruin)
5.
Failed to consider equitable factors (beneficiary status, indigence, homelessness, Decedent's wishes)
6.
Granted summary judgment without findings on fiduciary duty breaches
7.
Due process violation at March 11 hearing—denied opportunity to present arguments
8.
Erred denying stay/waiver, rendering appeal futile under ORS 19.350(5); accepted conclusory statement without indigence inquiry
9.
Failed to consider fiduciary breaches under ORS 114.225 (waste, failure to maintain, self-dealing, disparate treatment)
IV. ARGUMENT HIGHLIGHTS
Genuine Issues of Fact: Authorized use/key creates material dispute and equitable estoppel; specific bequest vesting is disputed; PR misconduct unrebutted; good-faith belief objectively reasonable.
Statutory Notice: ORS 114.225(2) and ORS 111.215 require notice before ejecting beneficiary in possession—jurisdictional. Respondent filed without authorization, notice, or necessity showing. Trial court failed to address—reversible error.
Unclean Hands: Ejectment is equitable. Self-help eviction (ORS 105.005) confirmed by counsel's letter; stated intent to financially ruin beneficiary; attempted seizure of lawfully parked trailers; pre-appointment intermeddling.
Equitable Factors: Respondent authorized presence; Appellant is beneficiary; Decedent wished him never homeless; indigence and homelessness; standard practice allows occupancy through closing; seven-year caretaker relationship.
Fiduciary Breaches: Storage unit loss with actual notice—should be surcharged personally; waste (utilities in collections while paying other beneficiary); disparate treatment; unauthorized vehicle sale; identity theft from failure to safeguard information.
Due Process: Silenced mid-sentence; no indigence inquiry; conclusory denial despite sworn poverty declaration.
Stay Necessity: Imminent May 1, 2026 property disposal deadline; threatened inheritance depletion. ORS 19.350(5) authorizes stay/waiver for meritorious appeal + indigence + irreparable harm + no prejudice. All damages from bad-faith administration should be assessed against Respondent personally under ORS 116.123, not from estate assets.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
1.
REVERSE Limited Judgment and REMAND for trial
2.
Alternatively VACATE and REMAND with instructions to address statutory notice, weigh defenses, and make findings on equitable/fiduciary issues
3.
STAY enforcement and ENJOIN Respondent from disposing/declaring abandoned Appellant's property beyond May 1, 2026
4.
FREEZE any inheritance deductions for cleanup/moving/disposal costs
5.
WAIVE/reduce supersedeas undertaking
6.
ORDER all damages from bad-faith administration assessed against Respondent personally (not estate) under ORS 116.123
7.
AWARD costs on appeal
8.
GRANT other just relief