Tye v. Tye CA4/2

── Tye v. Tye CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 Tye v. Tye CA4/2 See concurring opinion. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MATTHEW TYE, Plaintiff and Appellant, E083021 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1601882) JUSTIN TYE, et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Carol A. Greene, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Tye, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Respondents. Plaintiff and appellant Matthew Tye (Matthew)1 files this appeal regarding a lawsuit involving a $100,000 loan that his grandparents Myron and Mary Jane Matika 1 We use first names for clarity due to shared last names. 1 (Grandparents) made to defendant and respondent Justin Tye (Justin), who is Matthew’s brother. Justin was involved in flipping houses for profit. Christopher Bowen (Bowen) owned GF Services, LLC (GF), and Justin owned Empire Financial Services, Inc. (Empire); they purchased properties through these companies. They enlisted private investors to loan money to purchase the properties promising that the loans would be secured by second trust deeds on properties owned by GF. Justin borrowed $100,000 from Grandparents; he never paid them back and the loan was transferred to Matthew to attempt to collect the money. Matthew also loaned money to GF secured by properties owned by GF but was never paid back on his loan. Matthew filed a lawsuit against Justin, Bowen, GF and other defendants, including Empire, seeking the return of his money and the $100,000 loan made by Grandparents. Eventually, Matthew signed back the loan to Grandparents, and they joined in the lawsuit against Justin and Empire as intervenors. This appeal involves the grant of a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) in favor of Empire on Matthew’s loan, and the grant of Justin’s motion for summary adjudication (MSA) as to some of the causes of action on Matthew’s loan. A subsequent trial was held, which involved claims by Grandparents for the $100,000 loan payback and claims of fraud by Matthew against Justin. The jury awarded Grandparents the $100,000 loan plus interest. The jury rejected the claim of fraud brought by Matthew against Justin. Matthew was awarded nothing by the jury. On appeal, Matthew claims: (1) the trial court erred by granting the MSJ brought by Empire and instead should have declared the MSJ moot; (2) the trial court erred by 2 granting Justin’s MSA on the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence; (3) the trial court prejudicially erred by admitting evidence at trial of a settlement between Matthew, GF, and Bowen; and (4) the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding Matthew’s evidence at trial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Matthew has provided very few facts on the proceedings below. He simply provides background that the dispute involved him, Justin, Empire and Grandparents over Justin and Empire never paying back the $100,000 loan. There was also a dispute between Justin and Matthew pertaining to notes on other properties. Matthew provides that Justin and Empire filed