“How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen? ”
How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen? was first published on 10/9/20 when Nona started trying (unsuccessfully) to use technology to level the playing field by naming and shaming.
“What happened after Sun City Anthem refused Nona’s 2017 offer to settle?”
“What happened after Sun City Anthem refused Nona’s 2017 offer to settle?” was published on 11/9/20 after Nona was subjected to four years of unwarranted, financially draining, and emotionally taxing litigation.
“The house that took over a life” was first published on SCAStrong.com on 1/14/18. Things have gotten considerably worse after three more years of grueling litigation.
The instant case: Red Rock Financial Services filed an unwarranted interpleader complaint over six years after the HOA sale
Red Rock did not face any liability, let alone liability for an amount that exceeded the proceeds unlawfully retained. Red Rock filed this complaint for the improper purpose of obstructing justice, i.e., trying to moot appeal case 82294 and to cover up the unlawful failure to distribute the proceeds of the sale in 2014 as mandated by statute. Five defendants were named when only one, Nona Tobin as an individual, has a recorded claim for the undistributed proceeds.NRS-116.31164-3-2013
Case Detail A-21-828840-C
Register of Actions as of 4/10/21
1st filed claim
2/3/21 Red Rock’s Complaint for 1 cause of action: interpleader
2/16/21 Red Rock Complaint was served on 5 defendants
Republic Services immediately filed a disclaimer of interest
2/17/21 Republic Services Disclaimer of Interest
Within 24 hours of service on Republic Services’ commercial agent in Carson City, an attorney in Las Vegas filed a Republic Services’ disclaimer of interest. According to the statute, Red Rock was required to distribute the sale proceeds to junior lien holders in 2014. Red Rock did not distribute the proceeds and so the three-year statute of limitations on statutory liens, Republic Services had already released its two liens in 2017. Given how very, very many times Red Rock has pulled this stunt, one would think Republic Services would have at least a little reluctant to disclaiming interest.
No one answered except Nona Tobin as an individual
The complaint was filed on 8/7/19 by Nona Tobin, Pro Se, in order to beat the 8/14/19 five-year statute of limitations. Causes of action: Quiet title & equitable relief (against all defendants), Cancellation of instruments; Unjust enrichment (against. Red Rock, Koch & Scow, Joel Stokes & Nationstar); Abuse of process (against Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, and David Ochoa)
Tobin hired an attorney who amended the complaint to narrow the issues to three claims for relief: Quiet Title (against all defendants); Unjust Enrichment (against Brian & Debora Chiesi, Joel Stokes, Jimijack irrevocable Trust, Red Rock Financial Services & Nationstar); Declaratory Relief (as to all defendants)
The abuse of process cause of action against the attorneys whose fraud on the court prevented adjudication of Tobin’s claims in the prior proceedings was bifurcated, on the advice of counsel, since it judges don’t like it when the attorneys are named as the culpable party vs. their clients.
Order granted attorneys fes and costs pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) on the grounds that Nona Tobin’s filing this quiet title complaint was unwarranted and “was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party.”
Red Rock’s motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) failure to state a claim by the legal doctrines of non-mutual claims preclusion and res judicata) and NRCP 12(b)(6) failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its alleged interest in the undistributed proceeds of the 2014 HOA sale. Judge Johnson granted the joinders of all other defendants, regardless of whether or not they were parties to the prior proceedings or when they recorded adverse claims to Nona Tobin. Link to 10-page case summaryLink to 10-page case summary
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.
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“
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.
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“
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 407Dan 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.
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.
3/4/14 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.
3/18/14 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 286alleges 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
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.
Steven Scow failed to distribute the proceeds of many sales. This is an example of a Spanish Trail foreclosure that was litigated in case A-14-710161-C. The proceeds wee not distributed until after the owner died, and it only happened then after five years of litigation.
Links to Other Documents Disputing RRFS file disclosed as SCA 176-643 and RRFS 001-425.
RRFS concealed that notice was given to the Ombudsman that the sale postponed to 5/1514 was cancelled. RRFS never provided a deed to the Ombudsman within 30 days after the sale as required by NRS 116.31164 (3)(b) (2013). This was not an innocent error. It allowed the enforcement officials to be duped as there was no record that the 8/15/14 sale occurred without a published notice of sale in effect.
4/20/19 Tobin DECL in support of motion to reconsider (23 pages not filed vs 12 pages in attachment to 4/29/19)
This ledger was concealed in discovery and SCA 255 below shows why.SCA 255 was also produced as RRFS 076. They both show that RRFS or Steven Scow falsified the accounts. See NRS 205.405 Falsifying accounts.
10/14/14 email excerpt re proceeds and lack of notice for the sale
8/13/14 Notice of Sanction was the only notice Tobin received related to 2763 White Sage after the 2/12/14 notice of sale was cancelled.
SCA concealed this and all other compliance documents related to 2763 White Sage.
See 9/14/16 email exchange where the HOA manager said a court order was required to provide any documents.
Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid $275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12 and $25 Late fee assessed on 7/31/12, for 2763 White Sage Drive. See annotated Resident Transaction Report Page 1335.
8/17/12
Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid $275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12 and $25 Late fee assessed on 7/31/12, for 2664 Olivia Heights. See Resident Transaction Report Page 12859
On unsent 9/17/12 RRFS notice of intent to lien, RRFS claimed $617.94 was due when only $275 assessments and a $25 late fee were authorized for 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter. See SCA 642 and SCA 643.
SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the sender’s copy of certified letters, item number 71603901984964087011.
Both sender’s copies are stamped as received by RRFS on 10/8/12. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any proofs of service for SCA 628 and SCA 635.
Tobin has no record or recollection of ever receiving it. SCA alleged in its MSJ that Tobin had sent it to RRFS with a 10/3/12 letter she sent to SCA transmitting check 143 and Hansen’s death certificate. No evidence supports this claim.
All evidence supports that RMI sent SCA 628 and SCA 635 to RRFS at which time RRFS stamped them received. The effect of this was to unfairly impose unauthorized and unnecessary collection fees on the estate of a deceased homeowner without the executor’s knowledge.
9/20/12
SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the same notice of hearing on 10/8/12 for temporary suspension of Gordon Hansen’s privileges for the alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments. SCA may have sent this notice. However, Tobin did not receive it. There never was a hearing on 10/10/12. Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid assessments through 9/30/12 are rendered it moot.
9/30/12
$275 Assessments due for 7/1/12
– 9/30/12 quarter plus $25 late fee assessed on 7/31/12 were paid by $300
check 143
Per SCA 631, Tobin gave notice to SCA that the owner had died. Enclosed were 1) 1/14/12 death certificate and 2) “Check for $300 HOA dues” Tobin’s notice was sent to the HOA. She indicated the late payment of the deceased owner’s assessments was an error, that the property was in escrow, that the prospective purchasers were moving in shortly, that further payments would be made out of escrow, and that the HOA should work with Doug/Proudfit Realty or new owners to collect future assessments. SCA’s claims that Tobin acted in bad faith, had “unclean hands” and that she was “barred by equitable principles from recovering” for not knowing or remembering that check 143 was not delivered on 8/17/12 when it was written. Tobin had no recollection of writing the 10/3/12 letter and only became aware of it on 12/26/18 when PDFs of documents disclosed by SCA on 5/31/18 as a picture of a CD, were given to her by attorney Joe Coppedge.
10/3/12
Page 1335 Resident Transaction Report does not have an entry to acknowledge that check 143 for $300 was submitted to pay the assessments for the quarter from 7/1/12 – 9/30/12 as was reported in SCA 618..
10/8/12
RRFS stamped on a paper with a picture of check 143 as received by RRFS on 10/8/12. There is no date stamp on check 143 to indicate when SCA received it or when RRFS received it. It is more probable, given the many alterations/ misrepresentations of other documents RRFS/SCA disclosed, that Tobin’s recollection that she submitted check 143 with check 142 on 8/17/12 was correct. and RRFS altered the date on the transmittal letter from 8/17/12 to 10/3/12 to conceal that FSR forwarding the account to collections on 9/13/12 was an error.
10/8/12
SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the same SCA compliance letter, dated 9/20/12, to Gordon Hansen, at 2664 Olivia Heights. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any proofs of service for SCA 628 and SCA 635. Tobin has no record or recollection of ever receiving it. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any letter to 2763 White Sage which would have been required it this was supposed to be the first step of the due process required before imposing a penalty on the homeowner for delinquent assessments.
10/10/12
The 10/10/12 hearing noticed allegedly by the 9/20/12 letter in SCA 628 and SCA 635 did not occur. No notice of sanction followed it equivalent to the 8/13/14 Notice of Fines Tobin received after a hearing was held to give notice of a $25 fine for dead plants.
10/18/12
RRFS ledger did not apply check 143 to pay the 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter. On 10/18/12 RRFS ledger entered that check 143 left a balance $369.15 instead of the $275 that was actually due and payable for the quarter of 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/18/12
SCA 618 PAY ALLOCATION shows check 143 was both allocated as payment of the quarter 7/1/12-9/30/12 or was a partial payment that left a balance as of 10/18/12 comprised of all RRFS-added charges.
10/18/12
RRFS ledger SCA 623-625 called check 143 a partial payment
10/31/12
$25 late fee for 10/1/12-12/31/12 delinquent installment was assessed. As of 10/31/12, amount due and owing was $300.
10/31/12
Balance due on 10/31/12 as listed in SCA resident transaction report instead of the $275 assessments and $25 late fee actually authorized and due and payable as of 10/31/12.
10/31/12
On 11/5/12 RRFS ledgeer sent to 2763 White Sage and forwarded by Proudfit Realty to Ticor Title claimed $495.36 was due when $300 would have paid through 12/31/12 the $300 assessment and late fee authorized for the quarter 10/1/12-12/31/12
SCA Board published a schedule of fees that conformed to the NRS 116.310313(2) limits set by the CIC Commission except for the sentence “Fees and costs may change without notice. Schedule of fees may not be all inclusive.”
11/5/12
SCA 620 11/5/12 “Correspondence Response Sent to Homeowner” “(RRFS) is in receipt of the correspondence that the homeowner has passed away. Our records have been updated…” RRFS claimed $495.36 was due as of 10/31/12 instead of the $300 actually due.
11/9/12
Per 11/9/12 into SCA resident transaction report after a $300 collection payment was credited from check 143, there was a $351.21 balance reported on Page 1335 because two unauthorized monthly late fees had been added. $300 was due, $275 for assessments for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter plus the $25 late fee due on 10/31/12.)
SCA 617 “Payment Allocation
11/9/12” information as of 10/18/12. Check 143 for $300 was received as
a “partial payment”. “Association Allocation detai”l:
$300 check was allocated to $275 assessments due 7/1/12.and 7/31/12 to $25
late fee assessed..
12/5/12
On 12/14/12, RRFS recorded a
lien the falsely stated $925.76 was due and payable. RRFS recited on the lien
that the HOA had verified that $925.76 was due and payable as of 12/5/12. As
of 12/5/12, $275 for assessments for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter were
delinquent and a $25 late fee was authorized t be imposed on 10/31/12. All
other charges were unnecessary as the account should have not been sent to
collections when the only delinquent assessments were for a quarter that had
not even ended. Once check 143 was paid, the account should have been removed
from collections. Once the HOA received notice that future assessments would
be paid out of escrow, adding $625.76 in collection fees over what was due
and payable was predatory and unfair.
12/20/12
On 12/2012, Ticor Title
requested payoff figures from RRFS to be paid out of Sparkman 8/10/12 escrow
1/1/13
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/13
1/1/13
According to the HOA Resident Transaction Report, on 1/1/13, there was an outstanding balance of $677.31. This is a variance of $102.31 over what was due and payable on 1/1/13, i.e, $275 assessments for 10/1/12-12/31/12 + $25 late fee plus $275 for 1/1/13-3/31/13 quarter. Note that $575 was due. RMI, as SCA’s managing agent, recorded in SCA’s oficial accounting records that $677.31 was due. RMI d/b/a RRFS, SCA’s debt collector, demanded $1,355.60 from the deceased owner’s estate. RMI d/b/a RRFS, SCA’s debt collector, demanded $1,451.75 from the prospective purchasers’ escrow.
1/1/13
On 1/1/13, $275 assessments came
due for quarter 1/1/13-3/31/13. There was a $300 ourstanding balance for the
10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter that resulted in a $575 balance due and
payable.
1/3/13
RRFS sent a notice, dated
1/3/13, the GBH Hansen estate that a lien had been recorded on 12/14/12 for
$976.25, but that on 1/3/13 $1355.60
was then due. The $925.76 l12/14/12 lien overstated the amount due by
$625.76. The claim that $1355.60 was due on 1//3/13 overstated the amount
actually due and owing by $780.60.
1/3/13
1/3/13 SCA 587 LIEN SENT TO
OWNER
1/3/13
1/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT
TO OWNER”
1/9/13
1/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND
RECEIVED1/16/13 SCA 578 P/O DEMAND SENT
1/16/13
On 1/16/13, RRFS responded to Ticor Title’s request for updated payoff figures with a pay off demand to the Sparkman escrow of $1451.75. This demand overstated the amount actually due and payable on 1/16/13 by $876.75.
RRFS claimed on the rescinded
3/12/13 (NODES) Notice of Default and election to Sell that, as of 3/7/13,
$2,475.35 was due, not the $702.31 reported on the SCA resident transaction report Page 1335
3/27/13
Effective 3/27/13, RRFS
rescinded the 3/12/13 notice of default.
As of 4/4/13, $2752.66 Due and payable per RRFS on the recorded 4/8/13 NODES vs. $825 assessments ($275 x 3 quarters from 10/1/12-6/30/13) and $50 for late fees ($25 for the 4/1/13-6/30/13 quarter was not due until the for the 4/1/13-6/30/13 quarterly installment was 30 days past due on 4/30/13.
4/16/13
SCA 525 4/16/13 “Payoff Demand Received”. See SCA 415-416 for RRFS work log entries related to RRFS refusal of Miles Bauer tender.
4/17/13
SCA 527 4/17/13 Request reviewed
4/30/13
$25 late fee was assessed for 4/1/13-6/30/13 delinquent installment
SCA 513 Miles Bauer check for $825, the exact amount of assessments then delinquent. See SCA 513-530 for RRFS disclosures re rejection of the first super-priority tender. (SCA 302 was the second.)
5/16/13
5/16/13 SCA 512 is a request for payoff figures from Proudfit Realty “We are expecting a short-sale approval letter to be issued in the name of the new buyers. Escrow is expected to close no later than June 28, 2013.” See SCA 504-512.
If Miles Baur tender of $875 had been accepted and correctly applied, assessments would have been paid through 6/30/13. There were unpaid late fees for the three quarters then delinquent ($25 x 3= $75 due for the quarters from 10/1/12-6/30/13).
It was unfair for Miles Bauer to tender the $825 for the nine months then delinquent after its principal, servicing bank BANA, refused to let the escrow (8/10/12-4/8/13) close on Sparkman’s FMV arms-length offer.
Ticor Title had been instructed to pay the $1,451.75 RRFS had demanded on 1/16/13 on COE. It was also unfair that BANA’s agent Miles Bauer tendered the $825 super-priority directly to RRFS without notifying Ticor Title, Proudfit or Tobin.
RRFS did not notify the SCA Board, or more importantly, request Board approval, of its rejection of the tender of 100% of the assessments then delinquent.
$825 delinquent through 6/30/13 +$275 assessments due for 7/1/13-9/30/13 quarter equated to $1100, one year of assessments due because of RRFS’s unilateral rejection of the Miles Bauer tender and because of BANA’s unilateral rejection of the Mazzeo’s 5/10/13 $395,000 offer.
7/10/13
Tobin removed the property from the market, turned off the electricity, and initiated a deed in lieu process with BANA. See Tobin’s 2013 deed in lieu handwritten notes.
7/31/13
$25 late fee due bringing to $1100 the assessments that were delinquent plus$100 in late fees that were authorized=$1,200.
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 Return to Senders
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 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.
10/1/13
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 12/31/13
10/1/13
Balance per RRFS account detail
in SCA 254
10/1/13
Assessments due for 10 /1/13-12/31/13
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
10/31/13
$25 late fee due
1/1/14
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/14
1/1/14
Balance per RRFS account detail
in SCA 254
1/1/14
Assessments due for
1/1/14-3/31/14
1/31/14
$25 late fee due
2/11/14
Effective 2/11/14, RRFS claimed that $5,081.45 was due and payable on the Notice of Sale published on 2/12/14 (cancelled on 5/15/14 and not replaced).
Note that RRFS did not ever update the 2/11/14 $5,081.45 figure a a second published NOS. RRFS concealed its 3/28/14 payoff demand to Chicago Title in which RRFS stated that as of 3/28/14 $4,962.24 was due as of 3/28/14. The discrepancy ($5,081.45 on 2/11/14 vs. $4,962.24 on 3/28/14 is explained on page 6 of the 3/28/14 demand.
RRFS and SCA obfuscated that on 3/28/14 the SCA BOD instructed RRFS to reduce $400 in late fees and $18.81 in interest of the $5,083.45 RRFS claimed was due on 2/11/14.) Note that SCA 275-SCA 315 includes significant alterations of the RRFS accounts and records to obfuscate this action by the SCA BOD and to misrepresent the 5/28/14 NSM offer (one year of assessments ($1100) to close the MZK 5/8/14 auction.com sale) as a fee waiver request from the owner. Further, SCA 254, RRFS’s 8/15/14 Account Detail fails to accurately account for the 3/28/14 fee and interest waiver authorized by the SCA BOD.
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. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail from 2/11/14-8/15/14
3/28/14
On 3/28/14 RRFS demanded $3,055.47 was due in response to Chicago Title’s 3/18/14 request for pay off figures found in SCA 312 -313. RRFS, NSM, and SCA concealed RRFS’s 3/28/14 demand. On 10/14/14, Leidy provided it to Tobin. Leidy informed Tobin on 10/14/14 that it was the only ledger he had ever received.
3/28/14 Page 6 shows a $400 fee reduction was approved by the SCA board pursuant to Leidy’s 3/7/14 only fee reduction request found buried in SCA . 6/9/14 Page 6 of RRFS 6/9/14 ledger scrubs the $400 Board approved reduction and reports that RRFS billed no collection costs from 2/11/14 to 5/30/14 (See SCA 301). A further accounting discrepancy in found in SCA 250
4/1/14
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 6/30/14
4/1/14
$275 Assessments due for 4/1/14-6/30/14
4/24/14
4/30/14
$25 late fee due for
delinquent 4/1/14-6/30/14 installment
SCA 307 is an unsigned approval form to conduct the sale on 5/15/14. No signed BOD approval was disclosed in SCA 176-643 or exists in the 4/26/14 minutes of Board approval to conduct the sale on 5/15/14.
On 5/15/14, the Ombudsman received notice that the 5/15/14 sale was cancelled as the owner was retained.
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 that is on the
bottom of the page SCA 277
7/2/14
unsent RRFS ledger falsely alleged to have been sent to 2664 OH and 2763 WS
Collection payment entered to pay Gordon Hansen’s account in full on Page 1336
9/25/14
Page 1337 Resident Transaction Report shows an entry on 9/25/14 that Jimijack Irr Tr paid $225.00 new owner setup fee. Jimijack’s Resident ID was 0480-02. SCA’s ownership record shows Jimijack was the second owner of the property.
12/5/13 Executive Session – Items related to the Board enforcing the governing documents
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors. 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
President’s Report is the minutes of actions taken in executive session
President Jean Capillupo’s report: “At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result.
I plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
“17. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts. ACTION ITEM 1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. [R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
Note the inconsistency with how write-offs and waivers of fees are handled.
SCA Board did not vote in June 2014 to write off the amount in excess of NSM’s $1,100 offer.
See SCA 302 – NSM’s 5/28/14 offer of $1,100 (one year of assessments) See SCA 295 – RRFS presented SCA 302 to BOD as an owner request of waiver of $459.32 of interest and late fees while telling the Board that RRFS $3,037.64 collection fees cannot be waived.
5. Must be uniformly enforced under the same or similar circumstances against all units’ owners. Any rule that is not so uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any unit’s owner.
SCA 315 implied that the sale was approved on 12/5/13 [R05-120513]
The only disclosure made by SCA or RRFS to prove that the SCA Board approved the sale was SCA 315. which implied that the Board approved the 3/7/14 sale at the 12/5/13 meeting by approving resolution “R05-120513”
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
SCA 315 was the only evidence proffered of Board action to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive on March 7, 2014.
SCA 315 alleges that Jean Capillupo, Board President, signed on February 27, 2014 a statement on RRFS letterhead, dated February 14, 2014,
“The
Board of Directors of Sun City Anthem Community Association approves that Red
Rock Financial Services is to proceed with the foreclosure of the property
address 2763 White Sage Dr., Henderson NV 89052 on March 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM
pursuant to this authorization and the conditions set forth in the Permission
for Publication of Foreclosure Sale and Authority to Conduct Foreclosure Sale.”
SCA
315 also includes a note, handwritten by an unknown author, that stated
“approved
12/5
R05-120513”
Item R05 – 120513 on page 2 did not authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive.
“(R05-120513) UPON motion duly made by Dan
Forgeron and Jim Mayfield, the Board
unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study group for analysis and
recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.”
2012 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
9/27/12 Minutes
At today’s executive session, our Board considered six requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for a payment plan, and one request for variance of age requirement.
9/27/12 minutes page 10 of 13 Attachment 1 President’s report
10/25/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for credit, one request for a payment plan, and one request for write off of bad debt outside of the nine month super-priority.”
10/25/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
11/15/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines”
11/15/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
“Write off bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the 1/24/13 executive session meeting in the amount of $3,431.39 and for one account reviewed at the February 28, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $13,395.48, for a total of $16,826.87 that is outside the nine (9) month super priority lien.”
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines by Committee and take action on appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“There were no bad debt or write-offs considered at the Executive Session held earlier today. The Board considered three appeals for wavers of fines, and one appeal was returned to the committee.”
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“The Board will discuss the collectability from particular owners and the potential write off of same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors 6. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“At today’s our Board considered two requests for payment plans of delinquent assessments or waivers of fees and/or fines. We approved foreclosure proceedings on fiveproperties and took no action on bad debt.“
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors. 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts.
ACTION ITEM
1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien.
[R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo andseconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
“At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result. plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
Page 2 Resolution [R05-120213] that SCA 315 alleged was approval of the sale
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
2014 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
SCA board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May BeTaken)
7. UPDATE ON PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE8.
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
“”In our executive session held this morning, our Board heard appeals from residents regarding assessment payments and other issues of enforcement and acted to write off bad debts in the amount of $18,349.17”
[R25-012314] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Dan Folgeron, the Board unanimously approved the write-off of bad debt for accounts reviewed at the January 23, 2014 meeting in the amount of $18,349.17.“
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5.STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF PRE-COLLECTION ACCOUNTS (Action May be Taken)
7.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
8.REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9.REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. (Action May be Taken)
5. STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken) 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. RED ROCK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
4/24/14 minutes of open session item 16 approved the action the Board took in executive session under agenda item 8.
4/24/14 SCA BOD minutes President’s Report on page 9 of 10 did not include any report of the action the Board took, or the information the Board received, under items 5, 6, or 7.
President’s report (Pg 9 of 10 4/24/14 minutes) does not report on action the Board took, or on information the Board received from RRFS, in closed session under items 5, 6, or 7.
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
5.STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS (Action May Be Taken)
6. RED RECK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
8. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session
5/22/14 on page 7 of 14 of open Board meeting minutes, item 17, documents Board action agendized as #9 of the closed session agenda, “Review of Bad Debt” (Page 2 of 6)
5/22/14 President Report on page 9 of 14 is the same as 4/24/14 Page 9 of 10. There are no minutes related to Board action or discussion on items 4 (appeals & hearing), 5 (reconciliation of all SCA accounts), 6 (RRFS foreclosure report), 7 (review of potential foreclosures) or 8 (review of properties previously actioned for foreclosure)
President’s report (Pg 9 of 14 5/22/14 minutes) does not report on action the Board took, or on information the Board received from RRFS, in closed session under items 5, 6, or 7.
SCA 7/24/14board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”
In Nevada, the elements for a claim of quiet title are:
1. Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;2. Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;
3. Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;
4. Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;
5. Copy of the Summons must be posted on the property within 30 days after the summons is issued, and an affidavit of posting must be filed with the court. NRS 40.100-2;
6. Disclaimer must be filed. NRS 40.020;
7. Affidavit to unknown heirs must be filed. NRS 14.040(3);
8. Court must hold a hearing on the evidence in order to issue judgment.
9. Quiet title may not be obtained through default judgment. NRS
40.110; and
10. Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(0).
foyner v. Bank of America Home Loans. Case No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ 2010 Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev.1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co . 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916) No. 2:09-CV-00567-RCJ-LRL, 2009 WL 5039495 (D. Nev. 2009); Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp. v. Tolman. 44 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1109-10 (D. Nev 1999); Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D. Nev. 1897); Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044, 1046 n. 1 (Nev. 2008); Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co .. 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916)
NRS 40.010 Actions may be brought against adverse claimants.
An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.
NRS 40.010
NRS 40.020 Plaintiff not entitled to costs on default judgment or disclaimer.
If the defendant in such action disclaim in the defendant’s answer any interest or estate in the property, or suffer judgment to be taken against the defendant without answer, the plaintiff shall not recover costs.
A mortgage of real property shall not be deemed a conveyance, whatever its terms, so as to enable the owner of the mortgage to take possession of the real property in the absence of a foreclosure sale or in accordance with NRS 32.100 to 32.370, inclusive, NRS 107.100 or chapter 107A of NRS.
NRS 40.050
NRS 40.090 Action by person in adverse possession: Verified complaint; defendants; notice of pending litigation.
1. An action may be brought to determine the adverse claims to and clouds upon title to real property by a person who, personally or in combination with the person’s predecessors in interest, has been in the actual, exclusive and adverse possession of such property continuously for more than 15 years prior to the filing of the complaint, claiming to own the same in fee, or by any other freehold estate, against the whole world, and who has, personally or through the person’s predecessors in interest, paid all taxes of every kind levied or assessed and due against the property during the period of 5 years next preceding the filing of the complaint, except that where clouds upon title to real property have been created by such person, and the action is brought to remove such clouds, or any of them, such period of actual, exclusive and adverse possession of such property shall be for more than 10 years. The action shall be commenced by the filing of a verified complaint averring the matters above enumerated.
2. The complaint must include as defendants in such action, in addition to such persons as appear of record to have some claim, all other persons who are known, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could be known, to plaintiff to have some claim to an estate, interest, right, title, lien or cloud in or on the land described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership; and the complaint may also include as defendants any and all other persons, unknown, claiming any estate, right, title, interest or lien in such lands, or cloud upon the title of plaintiff thereto; and the plaintiff may describe such unknown defendants in the complaint as follows: “Also all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s ownership, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto.”
3. Within 10 days after the filing of the complaint, plaintiff shall file or cause to be filed in the office of the county recorder of the county where the property is situated, a notice of the pendency of the action containing the matters required by NRS 14.010.
NRS 40.100 Action by person in adverse possession: Issuance, service and posting of summons; rights of unknown persons.
1. Within 1 year after the filing of the complaint, as required by NRS 40.090, a summons must be issued in the manner and form prescribed in the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition to other requirements, the summons shall contain a description of the property described in the complaint. In the summons the unknown defendants shall be designated as in the complaint. Service of summons, whether personal or otherwise, shall be effected in the manner prescribed in the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; and the times for completion of service and appearance by the defendant shall be as prescribed therein.
2. Within 30 days after the issuance of the summons, the plaintiff shall post or cause to be posted a copy thereof in a conspicuous place, on each separate parcel of the property described in the complaint, and each parcel of the land upon which a copy of the summons is posted shall be deemed to be in the possession of the court for all the purposes of and pending the determination of the action. All such unknown persons so served shall have the same rights as are provided by law in cases of all other defendants named, upon whom service is made by publication or personally, and the action shall proceed against such unknown persons in the same manner as against the defendants who are named, upon whom service is made by publication or personally, and with like effect; and any such unknown person who has or claims to have any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property, or cloud on the title thereto, adverse to plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of the action, who has been duly served as aforesaid, and anyone claiming title under the unknown person shall be concluded by the judgment in such action as effectually as if the action had been brought against the person by his or her name and personal service of process obtained, notwithstanding any such unknown person may be under legal disability.
NRS 40.110 Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default; effect of final judgment.
1. When the summons has been served as provided in NRS 40.100 and the time for answering has expired, the court shall proceed to hear the case as in other cases and shall have jurisdiction to examine into and determine the legality of plaintiff’s title and of the title and claim of all the defendants and of all unknown persons, and to that end must not enter any judgment by default, but must in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and possession and receive such legal evidence as may be offered respecting the claims and title of any of the defendants and must thereafter direct judgment to be entered in accordance with the evidence and the law. The court, before proceeding to hear the case, must require proof to be made that the summons has been served and posted as hereinbefore directed and that the required notice of pendency of action has been filed.
2. The judgment after it has become final shall be conclusive against all the persons named in the summons and complaint who have been served personally, or by publication, and against all unknown persons as stated in the complaint and summons who have been served by publication, but shall not be conclusive against the State of Nevada or the United States. The judgment shall have the effect of a judgment in rem except as against the State of Nevada and the United States; and the judgment shall not bind or be conclusive against any person claiming any recorded estate, title, right, possession or lien in or to the property under the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s predecessors in interest, which claim, lien, estate, title, right or possession has arisen or been created by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest within 10 years prior to the filing of the complaint.
The remedy provided in NRS 40.090, 40.100 and 40.110 shall be construed as cumulative and not exclusive of any other remedy, form or right of action or proceeding now allowed by law.
Lis Pendens
NRS 14.010 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Recording.
1. In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property, or affecting the title or possession of real property, the plaintiff, at the time of filing the complaint, and the defendant, at the time of filing his or her answer, if affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, shall record with the recorder of the county in which the property, or some part thereof, is situated, a notice of the pendency of the action, containing the names of the parties, the object of the action and a description of the property in that county affected thereby, and the defendant shall also in the notice state the nature and extent of the relief claimed in the answer.
2. A notice of an action affecting real property, which is pending in any United States District Court for the District of Nevada may be recorded and indexed in the same manner and in the same place as provided with respect to actions pending in courts of this state.
3. From the time of recording only, except as otherwise provided in NRS 14.017, the pendency of the action is constructive notice to a purchaser or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby. In case of the foreclosure of the mortgage, all purchasers or encumbrancers, by unrecorded deed or other instrument in writing made before the recording of the notice, and after the date of the mortgage, shall be deemed purchasers or encumbrancers after the recording of the notice, and subject thereto, unless NRS 14.017 is applicable or they can show that, at the time of recording the notice, the plaintiff had actual notice of the purchase or encumbrance.
NRS 14.015 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Hearing; cancellation; bond.
1. After a notice of pendency of an action has been recorded with the recorder of the county, the defendant or, if affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, the plaintiff, may request that the court hold a hearing on the notice, and such a hearing must be set as soon as is practicable, taking precedence over all other civil matters except a motion for a preliminary injunction.
2. Upon 15 days’ notice, the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action must appear at the hearing and, through affidavits and other evidence which the court may permit, establish to the satisfaction of the court that:
(a) The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the real property described in the notice or affects the title or possession of the real property described in the notice;
(b) The action was not brought in bad faith or for an improper motive;
(c) The party who recorded the notice will be able to perform any conditions precedent to the relief sought in the action insofar as it affects the title or possession of the real property; and
(d) The party who recorded the notice would be injured by any transfer of an interest in the property before the action is concluded.
3. In addition to the matters enumerated in subsection 2, the party who recorded the notice must establish to the satisfaction of the court either:
(a) That the party who recorded the notice is likely to prevail in the action; or
(b) That the party who recorded the notice has a fair chance of success on the merits in the action and the injury described in paragraph (d) of subsection 2 would be sufficiently serious that the hardship on him or her in the event of a transfer would be greater than the hardship on the defendant resulting from the notice of pendency,
Ê and that if the party who recorded the notice prevails he or she will be entitled to relief affecting the title or possession of the real property.
4. The party opposing the notice of the pendency of an action may submit counter-affidavits and other evidence which the court permits.
5. If the court finds that the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action has failed to establish any of the matters required by subsection 2, the court shall order the cancellation of the notice of pendency and shall order the party who recorded the notice to record with the recorder of the county a copy of the order of cancellation. The order must state that the cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.
6. If the court finds that the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action has established the matters required by subsection 2, the party opposing the notice may request the court to determine whether a bond in an amount to be determined by the court would provide adequate security for any damages which the party who recorded the notice might incur if the notice were so cancelled and the party opposing the notice did not prevail in the action. If the court determines that a bond would provide adequate security, the party opposing the notice may post a bond or other security in the amount determined by the court. The court shall then order the cancellation of the notice of pendency and shall order the party opposing the notice to record with the recorder of the county a copy of the order of cancellation. The order must state that the cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.
NRS 14.017 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Transferability of property after withdrawal or cancellation
1. Upon the withdrawal of a notice of the pendency of an action affecting real property, or upon the recordation of a certified copy of a court order for the cancellation of a notice of the pendency of such an action with the recorder of the county in which the notice was recorded, each person who thereafter acquires an interest in the property as a purchaser, transferee, mortgagee or other encumbrancer for a valuable consideration, except a party to the action who is not designated by a fictitious name at the time of the withdrawal or order of cancellation, shall be deemed to be without knowledge of the action or of any matter, claim or allegation contained therein, irrespective of whether the person has or at any time had actual knowledge of the action or of any matter, claim or allegation contained therein.
2. The purpose of this section is to provide for the absolute and complete transferability of real property after the withdrawal or cancellation of a notice of the pendency of an action affecting the property.
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
NRS 30.030
NRS 30.040 Questions of construction or validity of instruments, contracts and statutes.
1. Any person interested under a deed, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.
The enumeration in NRS 30.040, 30.050 and 30.060 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in NRS 30.030 in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.
NRS 30.070
NRS 30.080 Discretion of court to render or enter judgment.
The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.
When a proceeding under NRS 30.010 to 30.160, inclusive, involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of fact are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending.
When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding
NRS 30.010 to 30.160, inclusive, are declared to be remedial; their purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations; and are to be liberally construed and administered.
To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in this title.
NRS 52.235
NRS 52.260Record made in course of regularly conducted activity; affidavit required.
1. The contents of a record made in the course of a regularly conducted activity in accordance with NRS 51.135, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by the original or a copy of the record which is authenticated by a custodian of the record or another qualified person in a signed affidavit.
2. The custodian of the record or other qualified person must verify in the affidavit that the record was made:
(a) At or near the time of the act, event, condition, opinion or diagnosis concerning which the information was recorded, by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge of the act or event; and
(b) In the course of the regularly conducted activity.
NRS 207.470 actions for damages resulting from racketeering.
1. Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.400 has a cause of action against a person causing such injury for three times the actual damages sustained. An injured person may also recover attorney’s fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The defendant or any injured person in the action may demand a trial by jury in any civil action brought pursuant to this section. Any injured person has a claim to forfeited property or the proceeds derived therefrom and this claim is superior to any claim the State may have to the same property or proceeds if the injured person’s claim is asserted before a final decree is issued which grants forfeiture of the property or proceeds to the State.
2. A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the State in any criminal proceeding under NRS 205.322 or 207.400 estops the defendant in any subsequent civil action or proceeding from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense.
3. Any civil action or proceeding under this section must be instituted in the district court of the State in the county in which the prospective defendant resides or has committed any act which subjects him or her to criminal or civil liability under this section or NRS 205.322, 207.400 or 207.460.
4. Any civil remedy provided pursuant to this section is not exclusive of any other available remedy or penalty.
NRS 207.480 Order of court upon determination of civil liability.
A district court may, following a determination of civil liability under NRS 207.470 or 207.490, take such actions as it deems proper, including ordering the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of the proceedings.
NRS 207.480
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
NRS 38.310 Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions.
NRS 38.320 Submission of claim for mediation or referral to program of dispute resolution; contents of claim; fees; service of claim; written answer.
NRS 38.330 Procedure for mediation or arbitration of claim; payment of costs and fees upon failure to obtain a more favorable award or judgment in court.
Sun City Anthem CC&Rs XVI: DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND LIMITATION ON LITIGATION
NRS 116.4117 Effect of violations on rights of action; civil action for damages for failure or refusal to comply with provisions of chapter or governing documents; members of executive board not personally liable to victims of crimes; circumstances under which punitive damages may be awarded; attorney’s fees.
1. Subject to the requirements set forth in subsection 2, if a declarant, community manager or any other person subject to this chapter fails to comply with any of its provisions or any provision of the declaration or bylaws, any person or class of persons suffering actual damages from the failure to comply may bring a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief.
2. Subject to the requirements set forth in NRS 38.310 and except as otherwise provided in NRS 116.3111, a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief for a failure or refusal to comply with any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of an association may be brought:
4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, punitive damages may be awarded for a willful and material failure to comply with any provision of this chapter if the failure is established by clear and convincing evidence.
6. The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
7. The civil remedy provided by this section is in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other available remedy or penalty.
NRCP 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(b) Representations to the Court.
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
NRCP 11(b)
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred for presenting or opposing the motion.
(3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a
penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
2. In addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute, the court may make an allowance of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party:
(b) Without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party. The court shall liberally construe the provisions of this paragraph in favor of awarding attorney’s fees in all appropriate situations. It is the intent of the Legislature that the court award attorney’s fees pursuant to this paragraph and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to the public
NRS 18.010(2)(b)
NRS 42.005 Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. Except as otherwise provided in this section or by specific statute, an award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant to this section may not exceed:
(a) Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more;
3. If punitive damages are claimed pursuant to this section, the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed. The trier of fact shall make a finding of the amount to be assessed according to the provisions of this section. The findings required by this section, if made by a jury, must be made by special verdict along with any other required findings. The jury must not be instructed, or otherwise advised, of the limitations on the amount of an award of punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1.
NRS 42.005 (1) (3)
NRS 41.1395 Action for damages for injury or loss suffered by older or vulnerable person from abuse, neglect or exploitation; double damages; attorney’s fees and costs.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, if an older person or a vulnerable person suffers a personal injury or death that is caused by abuse or neglect or suffers a loss of money or property caused by exploitation, the person who caused the injury, death or loss is liable to the older person or vulnerable person for two times the actual damages incurred by the older person or vulnerable person.
2. If it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that a person who is liable for damages pursuant to this section acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice, the court shall order the person to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the person who initiated the lawsuit.
4. For the purposes of this section:
(b) “Exploitation” means any act taken by a person who has the trust and confidence of an older person or a vulnerable person or any use of the power of attorney or guardianship of an older person or a vulnerable person to:
(1) Obtain control, through deception, intimidation or undue influence, over the money, assets or property of the older person or vulnerable person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property; or
(2) Convert money, assets or property of the older person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property.
(d) “Older person” means a person who is 60 years of age or older.
