Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified & fraudulent

Sun City Anthem misrepresented the record

Link to bookmarked SCA 176-643 Red Rock Foreclosure File disclosed by Sun City Anthem in 2018.

SCA misrepresented the Red Rock foreclosure file to Judge Kishner as if it represented the true, accurate, and complete records of the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage, despite SCA attorneys knowing full well that the file was the debt collector’s unverified, uncorroborated version of revisionist history.

SCA attorneys were not representing the interests of the HOA when they disclosed Red Rock’s fraudulent documents. SCA attorneys presented to the court Red Rock’s fantasy version of reality that was explicitly contradicted by SCA’s official, verified records of the enforcement actions taken in secret by the HOA Board between 2012-2014.

SCA attorneys withheld, concealed, and/or misrepresented the HOA’s official records related to this foreclosure and a dozen other foreclosures in the same time period.

Link to “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014“

Link to “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures conducted by Red Rock Financial Services“

Links to A-15-720032-C motions and orders that relied on the disputed Red Rock foreclosure file disclosed by SCA as SCA 176-643 are listed below.

Red Rock Foreclosure File as SCA 176-643 as SCA attorneys produced it.

2/5/19 (bookmarked) SCA MSJ filed against GBH Trust, but not against Tobin, the individual
3/6/19 SCA Reply to Tobin 3/5/19 OPPM See page 6, lines 26-27, where SCA 302 and SCA 276 (annotated) and SCA 277 (altered) were wrongly attributed to Craig Leidy, “requested the HOA waive thousands of dollars of the debt“
2/12/19 NSM limited joinder to SCA MSJ
4/17/19 Order (NEO 4/18/19) granting SCA MSJ
See #13 on Page 4 of 4/17/19 order that shows “payment was applied to the July 1, 2012 Quarterly Assessment and the Late Fee due on July 31, 2012.“
5/2/19 Summary of relevant points in SCA OPPS to Tobin motion to reconsider
5/2/19 filed SCA Opposition to Tobin motion to reconsider
5/3/19 Nationstar filed joinder to SCA Opposition
5/3/19 Hong filed a joinder to SCA Opposition
5/31/19 order denying motion to reconsider
6/24/19 annotated order granting quiet title to Jimijack and denying all claims of the GBH Trust

Links to Tobin’s evidence disputing material facts in the Red Rock foreclosure file, stricken or ignored by Judge Kishner, are listed below.

4/17/19 table of contents of exhibits to 4/17/19 reply
4/17/19 Reply in support of Tobin joinder to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack
4/24/19 motion to vacate SCA motion for summary judgment and Nationstar joinder and counter-motion for summary judgment for fraud on the court (NRCP 60(b)(3))
4/24/19 motion to vacate SCA motion for summary judgment and Nationstar joinder and counter-motion for summary judgment
5/23/19 Table of contents to Reply in support of moti0n to reconsider
5/23/19 Reply in support of moti0n to reconsider

Steven Scow produced Red Rock foreclosure file in response to Tobin 2/4/19 subpoena

RRFS 001-425 Red Rock foreclosure file as Steven Scow produced it was not properly verified as being a true, accurate and complete record contemporaneously produced by a person in the normal course of her occupation.

2/4/19 Tobin subpoena to Red Rock requested these documents

Steven Scow provided RRFS 001-425 that was deceptive, inaccurate, and incomplete with the obvious
mens rea and the specific intent to conceal the wrongdoing of his clients.

Steve Scow withheld all documents requested in items 4,5, and 6. The proofs of service provided in response to item 2 did not include any proofs of service for any of the notices that Tobin disputes were sent.

Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure file

9/17/12 SCA 642 RRFS letter to 2664 OH SCA 643 to 2763 notice of intent to lien – Tobin has no recollection nor Proudfit any record of this. No proof of service though alleged to se sent certified. Demanded $617.94 when it is undisputed that the account was PIF on 6/30/14. See SCA 642 and SCA 643.

9/20/12 SCA 628 120920 SENDER’S copy of hearing notice SCA sent to 2664 Olivia Heights could not have been sent by Tobin to RRFS as alleged in 2/5/19 MSJ See SCA 628, SCA 635,

9/20/12 SCA 635 is duplicate of SCA 628 also alleged to be sent to 2664. No allegation that the notice was sent to 2763. No allegation that the hearing was actually ever held. See SCA 628, SCA 635,

10/18/12 See SCA 618 Payment Allocation Detail. Check 143 was applied to pay assessments from 7/1/12-9/30/12, but also called a “partial payment”

10/8/12 SCA 626 “CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED” SCA claimed the sender’s copy of the hearing notice was sent to RRFS by Tobin which is impossible.

SCA duplicated and misrepresented this document to falsely imply that SCA had complied with the notice requirements in SCA CC&Rs 7.4 prior to imposing the sanction of permanent revocation, rather than temporary suspension, of member benefits, for the alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments.

There was no hearing on 10/10/12 or any other date because check 143 cured the delinquency. Assessments were paid through 9/30/12. No other notice like this was ever sent and none of the other steps of due process required were ever provided. This “sender’s copy was NOT attached to Tobin’s 10/3/12 letter to the HOA that transmitted check 143.

SCA misrepresented this letter to claim it was evidence that Tobin was not entitled to any relief because it meant that she had unclean hands.

11/5/12 11/5/12 SCA 620 “Correspondence Response to Homeowner“

12/13/12 12/13/12 P/O DEMAND RECEIVED SCA 615

12/20/12 12/20/12 P/O DEMAND SENT See SCA 603

1/3/13 1/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT TO OWNER“. See annotated SCA 591-592

1/9/13 1/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND RECEIVED See SCA 586

1/16/13 SCA 578 “P/O DEMAND SENT” See SCA 579

3/7/13 3/7/13 SCA 572 Send NOD to Title Company

4/2/13 SCA 378 Endorsement, effective 4/2/13, relates to 9/23/13 Republic Lien and “plant date of 2/5/14”?? Unclear

4/4/13 4/4/13 SCA SCA 552 NOD Notice of Rescission

4/16/13 4/16/13 SCA 525 “Payoff Demand Received”

See SCA 513-530 to see how SCA handled the rejection of the Miles Bauer tender .

Note that check 143 paid the assessments from 7/1/12-9/30/12.

See SCA 618 “Association Allocation Detail” and #13 on Page 4 of 4/17/19 order that states “payment was applied to the July 1, 2012 Quarterly Assessment and the Late Fee due on July 31, 2012.“

The foreclosure deed recitals are false because they state that the default began on 7/1/12. The association detail shows that Red Rock knew the proper way to account for payments according to NRS 116A.640(8), but simply chose to ignore the law and keep two sets of books.

Therefore, the Miles Bauer $825 tendered on 5/9/13 satisfied the debt of $825 assessment due and payable for the quarters from 10/1/12 to 6/30/13.

Nationstar relied on this to commit its fraud on the court. Nationstar was never Bank of America’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the disputed Hansen deed of trust. Nationstar rescinded that 12/1/14 fraudulent claim on 3/8/19. Further, Nationstar concealed SCA 302 which is clear proof of its specific intent to steal this property from Nona Tobin.

5/10/13 rejection of the $825 tendered was sufficient to void the entire sale. RRFS covertly rejected this tender without legal authority. $825 was the exact amount of assessments that were then delinquent. The 5/16/13 entry implicates the attorneys as co-conspirators.

The only remaining debt at the time of the Miles Bauer tender were fines: $75 late fees authorized by the SCA Board as a fine for non-payment of installments within 30 days of their due date and whatever fines RRFS-added on their own initiative. An HOA cannot foreclose if the assessments are brought current and only fines, including collecting fees remain.

NRS 116.31162(5)(2013) prohibits the HOA from foreclosing on fines or penalties. See Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs. Saticoy Bay LLC series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev. Advance Opinion 91, 405 P.3rd 641 cited in 4/17 order. See #1 irregularity cited by NSM, page 9.

4/17/13 4/17/13 SCA 527 Request reviewed

4/30/13 4/30/13 SCA payoff Demand Sent

5/16/13 5/16/13 SCA Payoff Demand Received

5/29/13 5/29/13 SCA 504 payoff Demand See SCA 504

8/15/13 8/15/13 See SCA 491 for notice sent to 2664

8/15/13 SCA 401 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “deceased”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 287 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board on 6/9/14 was denied.

See SCA 401-403

8/15/13 SCA 403 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “Return to sender Not deliverable as addressed. Unable to forward.”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 278 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board in SCA 295 on 6/9/14 was denied.

10/16/13 10/16/13 SCA 450 “Followed Up POP“

10/16/13 SCA 468 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” to 10/16/13 does not show any BOD approval. See 468 is duplicated in annotated SCA 415-416 Homeowner Progress Report to 01/3/14.

1/3/14 1/03/14 SCA 407 Followed Up POP

1/3/14 SCA 406 “Permission for publication of foreclosure sale and authority to conduct foreclosure sale”, RRFS form letter signed by Dan Folgeron on 1/9/14. According to this form, RRFS had the ability to move the sale date without specific instruction from the BOD.

Note that this contradicts SCA 377 and SCA 407.

By RRFS being able to unilaterally move a sale date, RRFS can suppress bidding, particularly when this is compounded by RRFS giving the SCA BOD the false instruction that

“The Board of Directors agrees that in the event that the homeowner makes any claim regarding the loss of its property through this foreclosure action, the association shall have the exclusive duty to defend and to pay all defense costs of all such claims...”.

More importantly, it violated the 4/27/12 RRFS debt collection contract Indemnity clause on page 3, #7 of the RRFS-SCA contract signed on 4/27/12. Both RRFS and SCA refused to produce this contract in discovery. SCA deceptively disclosed the inapplicable 2007 contract that does not contain the provision that RRFS must indemnify SCA.

SCA homeowners have been forced to pay over $100,000 in costs that contractually were the responsibility of RedRock.

1/3/14 RRFS transmittal memo to SCA, dated 1/3/14, gave Permission for Publication packet to SCA BOD which contained the sentence. “If the Board does not want to proceed with the foreclosure sale please return the packet unsigned.” Note that there are multiple unsigned documents in SCA 176-643. Note also that there is no Board decision to proceed or not in any Board minutes.

See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014“

See “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws“

1/3/14 SCA 415 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” from 9/13/12 -4/10/13

1/3/14 SCA 416 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” from 4/10/13 – 1/3/14. Note neither RRFS nor SCA disclosed this form for the period from 1/3/14 – 8/15/14 when RRFS sold the property without notice after the property had already been sold on auction.com on 5/8/14.

1/9/14 SCA 377 and SCA 407 Dan Folgeron signed RRFS form” Association Foreclosure sale Approval” for “Property Address” Dan wrote in “All twelve properties attached”. Neither SCA nor RRFS listed the properties nor was there any attachment.

NO SCA BOARD APPROVAL OF THE SALE IS ON ANY AGENDA.

1/9/14 SCA 407 Dan Folgeron signed RRFS form” Association Foreclosure sale Approval” for “Property Address” Dan wrote in “All twelve properties attached”. Neither SCA nor RRFS listed the properties nor was there any attachment. This is a duplicate of SCA 377. According to the box checked RRFS was not given authority to postpone the sale without discussing with the Board.

1/10/14 1/10/14 SCA 405 “Board Approved POP” is contradicted by the HOA records that were concealed in discovery.

1/29/14 1/29/14 SCA 389 “Supporting Documents“

2/11/14 SCA 382- 384 disclosed the Resident Transaction Report from 1/1/6-2/11/14. SCA refused to disclose the Resident Transaction Report when requested in discovery. The part that shows the RTR does not include any indication that the property was foreclosed, that $63,100 was collected for the sale, or that there were any other owners between Hansen and Jimijack, shows in the time period after 2/11/14.

See Resident Transaction Report Page 133 4 -1339 that was provided in response to Nona Tobin’s records request to CAM Lori Martin in May 2016.

2/24/14 2/24/14 SCA 338 Invoice (Priority Posting)

See “Deceptive disclosures: SCA Board 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 128“

2/27/14 See SCA 315 President signed that Board approved 3/7/14 sale on 12/5/13 by BOD resolution [R05-120213]. See pg. 2 12/5/13 SCA BOD minutes for [R05-120213].

2/27/14 There is a 2/27/14 email on the bottom of SCA 332 that informs them that she received a request from the realtor for a reduction in fees because the owner is dead and there is no money left in the estate. See annotated SCA 332.

This was Craig Leidy’s only request. SCA and RRFS misrepresent this to cover up SCA 302 and SCA 295.

3/4/14 See SCA 324-325 email Leidy-RRFS Marling exchange where Leidy had asked for a copy of the fees and to speak to the Board about a fee reduction. Marling says she’ll let him know if they want him to attend.

3/3/14 3/3/14 SCA 336 priority posting confirmations

3/4/14 3/04/14 SCA 329 “Sale Postponed“

3/4/14 SCA 332 (top) is a 3/4/14 email from RRFS to Gary Leopold, FSR employee serving as the SCA CAM, to state that she had received a request from the 3/7/14 sale was postponed to 4/8/14. There is a 2/27/14 email on the bottom of the page that informs them that she received a request from the realtor for a reduction in fees because the owner is dead and there is no money left in the estate. See annotated SCA 332.

3/7/14 3/7/14 “Request Form sent to Board“

3/18/14 3/18/14 “Payoff Demand Received“

3/18/14 SCA 312-13 Chicago Title payoff request

3/18/14 SCA 310 contains two emails dated 3/18/14 which clearly indicate RRFS received a request for payoff figure on 3/18/14, but the SCA BOD was scheduled to review Leidy’s requests at the 3/27/14 meeting. Note RRFS and SCA both failed to disclose the 3/28/14 RRFS response to Chicago title in which the ledger shows that the SCA BOD approved a $400 fee waiver on Page 6. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail that allegedly was accurate and complete from 2/11/14-8/15/14.

This 3/28/14 RRFS payoff demand was concealed in discovery. Both SCA and RRFs produced the false evidence of doctored ledgers as shown below.

3/28/14 SCA 277 Undated email RRFS to Leidy “Please see response regarding the settlement request for $1000.00” (Note there was no settlement request for $1000. Leidy did not receive this. Not clear what was supposedly attached as it does not relate to the 6/5/14 email Leidy sent to RRFS to forward the NSM 5/28/14 offer.

5/6/14 5/6/14 “Supporting Documents“

5/13/14 5/13/14 “Sale Postponed“

5/15/14 SCA 307 is an unsigned approval form to conduct the sale on 5/15/14. Note there was no BOD approval in SCA 176-643 to conduct the sale on 5/15/14, the date that the Ombudsman received notice that the 5/15/14 sale was cancelled as the owner was retained.

5/15/14 SCA 308 is another email alleging final approval of the 5/15/14 sale from which the date has been scrubbed and there is no signature

5/28/14 5/28/14 SCA 302 NSM Equator message to Leidy “please be advised the max I will be able to pay the HOA is $1100”

Nationstar concealed this in discovery. RRFS was obviously complicit as can be seen by SCA’s fraudulently misrepresenting it to the SCA Board in SCA 295 as an owner request for waiver.

5/28/14 5/28/14 SCA 302 NSM Equator message to Leidy that was mischaracterized by SCA/RRFS as a non-existent new request from Leidy. See SCA 277. See also SCA 295 and SCA 276

6/5/14 SCA 277 Leidy forwarded NSM’s 5/28/14 offer (SCA 302) but SCA concealed it at the bottom of the page

SCA 277 and RRFS 095 are how this doctored evidence was produced.

6/9/14 SCA 275 “Request Sent to Board“

6/26/14 SCA 276 Jean Capillupo signed the 6/9/14RRFS waiver form from SCA 295. 6/26/14 SCA 276 (Signed 6/9/14 RRFS Form “Waiver or Reduction in Fees” found in SCA 295. Note no BOD response to SCA 302 was disclosed.

7/2/14 SCA 275 “7/2/14 Received Board response“

7/2/14 SCA 278 alleges RRFS sent a letter to 2763 stating the BOD “has denied your request for a settlement of $1,000.” SCA 279 is a blank owner request form. SCA 280-285 is a ledger. SCA/RRFS did not produce any proof of service. No RTS like in SCA 401-405. Tobin has said under oath she never received this. Tobin-Leidy emails never mention it.

RRFS lied about sending this letter and the one in SCA 286 to Tobin’s residence and there are many documents that prove the falsity of this claim beyond the fact that neither RRFS nor SCa disclosed any proofs of service.

See also SCA 286 alleges RRFS sent a letter to 2664 OH stating the BOD “has denied your request for a settlement of $1,000.” Tobin has said under oath she never received this. Tobin-Leidy emails never mention it or the ledger in SCA 287-292. Obviously, she never signed the blank owner request form in SCA 287 and SCA 279.

7/2/14 SCA 280-285 RRFS allegedly sent this ledger to Tobin at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave and to the vacant property at 2763 White Sage. There are no proofs of service. There are no returns to sender like RRFS got when a notice was sent to the vacant property on 8/15/13 (See SCA 401 and 403. Notably, RRFS does not charge for any collection activity, any mailings, any sale guarantee, nothing after 2/11/14.

See annotated SCA 275- SCA 293. There is no document that shows how NSM was informed that SCA 302 was rejected.

Also, see on SCA 285 RRFS did not charge $150 to produce pay off figures requested by Chicago Title on 3/18/14 (SCA 310). RRFS and SCA both concealed that RRFS demanded $3,055.47 in a letter to Chicago Title, dated 3/28/14. SCA 285 does not include the $400 fee waiver requested by Leidy and authorized by the SCA Board on 3/27/14 that is accounted for on pg 6 of the 3/28/14 demand.

8/1/14 8/1/14 Emails

8/5/14 SCA 271 Jean Capillupo signed to approve the sale of 2763 White sage subject to the conditions set forth in the permission for Publication of foreclosure Sale and Authority to conduct foreclosure sale. No record of any BOD action to authorize her signing this.

8/6/14 8/6/14 “Supporting Documents“

8/15/14 SCA 242 Sent at 10:12 AM to report to Christie Marling, RRFS, that the property had been sold at an auction conducted at 10:11 AM at which three people allegedly bid and 45 people were in attendance

See SCA 250-262 for RRFS account detail as of 8/15/14 (SCA 250-255), RRFS attempts to rectify the numbers (SCA 256-259) and Resident Transaction Report to 7/30/14 (SCA 260-262) all that fail to account for the $400 Board approved waiver)

8/15/14 SCA 250 RRFS account detail 1/1/06–6/25/08. not relevant

8/15/14 SCA 251 RRFS account detail 7/1/08-8/18/11 not relevant

8/15/14 SCA 252 RRFS account detail 10/1/11- 12/5/12

8/15/14 SCA 253 RRFS account detail 12/5/1 – 4/4/13

8/15/14 SCA 254 RRFS account detail 4/4/13 – 1/30/14

8/15/14 RRFS account detail 2/11/14 – 8/15/14. See annotated SCA 255 for major discrepancies with 3/28/14 RRFS demand pg. 6

8/15/14 SCA 274 is an email with the date scrubbed that alleges sale was approved and the amount due on 8/15/14 would be $5,738.68

8/18/14 8/18/14 SCA 228 deed sent to 3rd party

8/21/14 SCA 217 and SCA 224 $57,282.32 check #49909, made out to Clark County District Court on Red Rock Financial Services Trust Account 4775 W. Teco Ave suite 140 #121201694 153751166148. USBank 94-0169/1212

Steven Scow had no legal authority to retain the proceeds of the sale after Christie marling instructed him to interplead them. If not distributed according to NRS 116.31164(3)(2013), they should have been given to the HOA Board for distribution. SCA bylaws prohibit the HOA Board from delegating proprietary control of these funds to Red rock or to Scow.

8/28/14 SCA 223 and SCA 224 RRFS memo to Steve Scow, Koch & Scow, from Christie Marlow re Foreclosure excess funds “please have these funds interpleaded in regards to the below properties“. See SCA 223, SCA 224, SCA 217, and documents showing RRFS pattern and practice of retaining excess proceeds.