Summary of Allegations for Filing

Jurisdiction: Jackson County Circuit Court, Oregon

Case Name: Elisa Marie Baumgartner vs. David Alan Miles
Case Number:

Part 1
• The petitioner, Elisa, brings forth this legal action against the respondent, David, alleging a series of
egregious violations encompassing deception, coercion, and breaches of contract. The essence of
these allegations revolves around David’s deliberate manipulation and exploitation of Elisa’s trust
and legal rights. The narrative unfolds as follows.

• Deceptive Divorce Agreement (ORS 107.105): David (RESPONDENT), with permission, acted on
behalf of Elisa (PETITIONER), crafted a divorce agreement wherein he purported to assume sole
ownership and debt of the marital home as the RESPONDENT. Elisa agreed to this arrangement.
However, David misled Elisa into believing that he had fulfilled this commitment, despite having no
intent or means to do so do to his poor credit history. This misrepresentation was the cornerstone of
subsequent fraudulent actions listed below.

• Misrepresentation of Property Ownership: Leveraging the deceptive terms of the divorce agreement,
David falsely portrayed himself as the sole proprietor of the property, effectively denying Elisa her
rightful ownership interests. Despite the legal mandate for David to assume full responsibility for the
property's debt, he misrepresented this aspect to Elisa, leading her to believe that he had fulfilled his
obligations.

• Misrepresentation of Lease Option to Buy Contract: Exploiting Elisa's trust and the false premise of
his exclusive ownership misled Elisa into entering a lease option to buy contract under false
pretenses making her believe she had no financial obligation or interest in the property anymore. She
was led to believe she was a renter who had agreed would rent-to-own the property. By
misrepresenting himself as the sole owner of the property, David induced Elisa into an unequal and
disadvantageous agreement. This contractual arrangement was predicated on deceit and
manipulation, further exacerbating Elisa's vulnerability to David's deceptive tactics.

• Failure to Fulfill Financing Obligations (ORS 107.135): Despite affirming in the divorce agreement
his intent to assume sole ownership and debt of the property, David failed to undertake genuine
efforts to secure financing or discharge Elisa's financial responsibilities or remove her name from
the deed. His actions constituted a flagrant breach of trust and contractual duty, as he knowingly
misled Elisa into believing that he had fulfilled his obligations under the divorce agreement.
 Part 2
Coercion, Deception, and Misrepresentation
In tandem with his fraudulent machinations, David resorted to coercion, deception, and egregious
misrepresentation to further his illicit agenda and subjugate Elisa to his will. This section delineates
the multifaceted dimensions of David's coercive and deceitful conduct:

• Misrepresentation as Landlord: Despite his failure to fulfill the obligations delineated in the divorce
agreement, David brazenly portrayed himself as Elisa's landlord, leveraging this fictitious role to
extract unjust gains and exert control over Elisa's housing situation. Through this deceptive portrayal,
David sought to exploit Elisa for financial gain with no intent of keeping the house.

• Embezzlement of Mortgage Payments: Exploiting his false portrayal as landlord, David callously
embezzled 17 months' worth of mortgage payments made by Elisa, totaling approximately $43,000.
Because David had never followed the divorce decree securing full financial responsibility by
removing Elisa from the mortgage via refinance or loan assumption, Elisa’s credit was severely
damaged by the stolen payments. On several occasions Elisa has documented inquiring with David
about summons of foreclosure and seeing her credit score dropping. David assured her to keep
paying her rent, and that it wasn’t a concern, and he would take care of it. Elisa found out David had
not fulfilled the conditions of the Divorce Decree when she applied for a personal loan and was
denied based on a low credit score and a long string of missing payments dating all the way back to
the divorce when they entered into the Lease Option to Buy agreement. Realizing Elisa had never
been removed from the deed and was still responsible for the mortgage, she acted quickly and
stopped the foreclosure by securing a modification of the loan which David co-signed.

• When confronted by Elisa, David created a cover story claiming to have been scammed by a
refinancing company but didn’t tell Elisa because he felt “embarrassed”. David refused to cooperate
or provide any evidence that this happened, later admitting to Elisa, and David’s new wife, Alysha
Jones of 517 Sherman Way, Eagle Point, OR 97524 that he had intentionally redirected mail
concerning the house away from Elisa so she wouldn’t know he was keeping her rent payments and
that he had not in fact executed the divorce decree. David claims his act of deception on Elisa wasn’t
stealing or wrong in anyway because he was a landlord and owner of the property. However, he was
aware he had not fulfilled the necessary requirements to qualify the situation and actively took
measures to keep Elisa from finding out. Which meant he tricked a co-owner into giving her good
faith, on time payments to him, spending them elsewhere while withholding crucial information from
Elisa to continue the scam as long as possible. He also hadn’t been paying the insurance, or his
portion of the monthly payment. Elisa did not miss any payments during the time David was stealing
them. When the modified loan resumed, Elisa began making payments directly to the bank, this
included David’s portion along with the homeowner’s insurance he was responsible for as well. It
was agreed that Elisa was going to repair her credit that was destroyed, and David was to remain on
the loan until Elisa was able to secure a loan assumption to fulfill her exclusive option to purchase.
• David became impatient with the slow credit repair process he unfairly forced Elisa to navigate. He
resumed pretending to be a landlord, gaslighting Elisa with a myriad of false legal claims. These
claims instilled fear, making her wonder if he had done something legally enabling him to carry out
threats coercing her into selling the house instead of assuming the property, as they had been
working towards.

• Using duplicitous means to instill fear and coerce compliance, David issued fraudulent
eviction notices to Elisa by enlisting an unknown person to tape a notice on Elisa’s front
door. This notices falsely alleged non-payment of rent and asserted that he could sell the
house without her consent. On several other documented occasions, he threatened her with
imminent eviction and homelessness within 90 days (about 3 months). These spurious
eviction notices lacked any legal basis and served as instruments of intimidation and
coercion, intended to subdue Elisa and compel her submission to David’s unjust demands to
agreeing to sell the house.

• Additionally, David erected roadblocks to Elisa acquiring the home. He stated he would only
sign the loan assumption if Elisa paid him a lump sum of $50,000 USD and if she couldn’t
pay him he would sell the house and give her nothing. This demand came despite David
having already stolen the 17 months of payments and Elisa paying all the home expenses
since their divorce in June 2017. Elisa’s credit is still recovering from this theft, and the
stolen payments had been tacked on to the end of the loan she would be assuming.
Essentially, she would have to pay those stolen payments again someday as part of
assuming the loan. For him to demand more money from her on the false pretense that he
had acted on the divorce decree and had in fact completed the entire process to fully
assume ownership both financially AND through Quit Claim Deed is both fraudulent and
simple to verify.

• Preemptive Quit Claim Deed: In a calculated attempt to preemptively circumvent his obligations
under the divorce agreement, David executed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer ownership of
the property to himself, all while deliberately failing to assume the associated debt that would
release Elisa from her financial responsibilities with USAA. This premeditated act of deception and
coercion aimed to deprive Elisa of her rightful ownership interests and coerce her into relinquishing
her home under false pretenses.

Part 3

Possible Identity Theft & Insurance Fraud

• Misappropriation of Insurance Refunds: Further compounding his fraudulent activities, David

unlawfully misappropriated a recent insurance refund intended for Elisa to unlawfully enrich himself.
David received a refund check because he had cancelled the homeowner’s insurance without
 notifying Elisa. Elisa found out about this and started a new insurance policy. She was informed that
there was a check going to David that is meant to be applied to the new policy. Elisa and USAA
couldn’t do anything to stop David from cashing the check, both parties contacted him explaining the
check’s intended purpose. They both informed him that he would have to sign the check over to Elisa
as she was the new policy holder and the only person who could access the account to make
payments. David assured both parties he would do so. Instead, he informed Elisa he would make the
payment because he couldn’t trust her to make the payment. He began asking for her policy number
and other questions stating that he had gotten a quote and was going to use the check to secure a
cheaper insurance policy for the house. Elisa informed him he could not do this, because she already
had a new plan in action, she just needed the check so she wouldn’t have to pay out of pocket as the
check was going to go back into escrow and disperse automatically. Elisa decided to check her new
policy after this conversation with David and logged in to see details of her policy. She had to use her
social security number and other private info to log into this account. She noticed the account had a
different policy number, and the account said “Hello David Miles!” and listed an additional
homeowner as Elisa Marie Baumgartner. She logged out and typed in David’s name to see if he had
made a new policy under his name. Upon search of his name the search said “No Policy Holder”.
David must have started a second policy using her social security number and we believe he had to
use similar information to access her new policy and cancel it. He did this to be able to cash the
insurance check. He paid one month of the policy he started with her information and cancelled her
policy so he could keep the remainder of the $3450 check. He informed Elisa that he was doing this
and told her she would have to take over responsibility paying for it next month, because he was only
paying for one month. He also stated that he would pay a past debt for a previous home they rented
together using this check because “kinda” related to “house stuff”.

David's coercive and deceitful conduct, characterized by misrepresentation, embezzlement,

fraudulent eviction tactics, and preemptive property transfers, epitomizes a pattern of calculated
exploitation and abuse. Elisa, along with her vulnerable dependents and her home-based business,
has been subjected to undue hardship and distress because of David's reprehensible actions. It is
imperative that the court adjudicate this matter with utmost scrutiny and impartiality, holding David
accountable for his egregious transgressions and affording Elisa the justice and restitution she
rightfully deserves.

Prayer
The petitioner respectfully requests the following relief from the court:
1. Modification of the Divorce Decree:
o To be awarded sole ownership of the property located at 2425 Bell Ct, Medford, OR 97504.
o Reason: David (RESPONDENT) failed to fulfill his obligation to refinance the property and relieve me
(PETITIONER) of financial responsibility.
o David’s actions were deliberate and constituted Theft by Deception (ORS 164.085).
o His coercive threats have severely impacted my credit and caused extreme emotional distress.
2. Additional Considerations:
o I have resided in the home since the divorce.
o David misled me into assuming the loan through a Lease Option Contract, falsely claiming he had
fulfilled the duties outlined in the Divorce Decree.
o I have borne all expenses and repairs for this home since June 2017.
o My business operates from this property.
o Selling the property would significantly disrupt the lives of family members with disabilities, causing
undue hardship.
3. Credit Repair:
o I respectfully request that the court take the necessary actions to strike David’s stolen payments
from my credit report.
o These payments occurred between July 2017 and November 2018.
o David’s actions have severely impacted my credit, causing significant harm and emotional distress.
4. Financial Compensation:
o Considering that I will need to assume the loan if awarded the home, I seek financial payback for the
stolen payments.
o I currently pay $2,022 per month for the property.
o I ask for compensation to account for the 17 months of payments that David wrongfully kept.
o Total Payments Embezzled: $34,502.53
o FEES INCURED DUE TO THEFT: $7,165.53
o TOTAL: $41,668.06

Emotional Distress Compensation

David’s fraudulent behavior has caused me immense torment, stress, and emotional turmoil. His
actions have pushed me to the brink of suicide and triggered ongoing health issues, including
anxiety and depression. His deception and coercion have affected my relationships and quality of
life, making me feel hopeless and helpless. His constant gas lighting, lies, and emotional abuse has
caused me to have ongoing trust issues. I constantly feel as if my home and my business I've put my
life into for 7 years is being used as an instrument to satisfy his greed. I have done the best I can to
describe my experience of this situation, but words simply cannot express, and David has proven
that he does not hold the capacity to feel guilty or ashamed of what his actions have done and
continue to do.
I am not able to think of how this can ever be repaid to me. I do not know what a person in my
situation would ask for to fill this void. I humbly ask the court to recommend what they feel is fair
based on my plea, their respected knowledge and experience, and their understanding of the case
I’ve presented. I will gratefully accept the court's recommendation of compensation that accounts
for 7 years of my life, health, and finances being destroyed and used against me to leverage
fraudulent gains to my severe, all-encompassing detriment.
If the court has no recommendation on this, I would like to use the multiplier method to determine a
monetary value of compensation. I chose this method as it was best fitting for my situation and
understand it is a commonly used method to determine emotional damages compensation. Below
are my calculations:
On a scale of 1.5 to 5 in level of possible fathomable suffering in relation to my experiences in life to
this point
I feel I have suffered to a level of 4
o Total economic damages estimated at $41,668.06
o NOT INCLUDING DAMAGES TO MY CREDIT

4 X $41,668.06 = $166,672.24

I, Elisa Marie Baumgartner and Ryan Christopher Cox-Bedsworth, hereby declare that the statements
made in this summary are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have evidence
to support all the claims that I have made against the defendant(s) in this civil action. I understand
that any false or misleading statements may result in sanctions, penalties, or dismissal of my case.

Plaintiff Printed Name

Plaintiff Signature Date

Plaintiff Printed Name

Plaintiff Signature Date