Nationstar did not have standing


  1. NSM never was beneficiary of the Hansen 7/22/04 1st Deed of Trust, but recorded false claims to confiscate Tobin’s property without foreclosing.
  2. NSM was not BANA’s successor in interest and so even if Miles Bauer’s 5/9/13 tender of $825 preserved the security interest, NSM has no right to any benefit from the preservation of the security interest
  3. Tobin/Hansen trust did not file any claims against NSM in the first proceedings because she was joining NSM in its bid to void the defective sale in its entirety.
  4. NSM had no standing to claim that the sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the HOA’s lien because there was no sub-priority portion on 5/9/13, and NSM made that claim for the sole improper purpose of stealing the house from Tobin because NSM knew it had no standing to foreclose on Tobin if the sale were voided in its entirety.
  5. The PUD rider remedies provision limits any lender’s recovery of delinquent assessments on behalf of the borrower to adding the amount paid to the outstanding balance of the loan plus interest at the note rate, and NSM’s attempt to get relief by confiscating Tobin’s property without meeting the foreclosure requirements of NRS 107.080, as amended by AB 284 (2011) is fraud.
  6. NSM was not the servicing bank on behalf of Wells Fargo as it first claimed the hour before discovery ended, but whether it was or not, NSM did not protect the interest of the beneficiary by foreclosing on the Hansen deed of trust in 2012 after the owner died and payments stopped. should have protected t
  7. NSM did not have a recorded power of attorney for its agent Mohamed Hameed to execute an assignment of the Hansen 1st DOT from Wells Fargo to itself, recorded on 3/8/19 and disclosed two weeks after the end of discovery.
  8. it is not Wells Fargo’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the 1st DOT
  9. NSM concealed its 5/28/14 $1100 super-priority offer so it cannot now claim that its rejection by Red Rock
  10. it is judicially estopped by its false and inconsistent claims, concealing of evidence, and its unwarranted civil action, from claiming any of Tobin’s statements of fact are false.

Red Rock’s untimely motion to dismiss was filed 4/16/21

3/8/21 Tobin filed a counter-claim vs. Red Rock that Red Rock never answered

Instead of timely opposing Tobin’s Claims, Red Rock filed an unsupported, untimely motion to dismiss per NRCP (b)(5) failure to state a claim & claims preclusion

NRCP 12(a)(1)(B) deadline for opposing a counter-claim was 3/31/21: “Within  21  days  after  being  served  with  the pleading   that   states   the   counterclaim   or crossclaim.” 

Again seeking dismissal without adjudication on the merits continues Red Rock’s corrupt pattern & practice of evading accountability for wrong-doing

Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 61708, at *3 (Nev. May 1, 2014) (“Further, ‘public policy dictates that cases be adjudicated on their merits.’”)

Failure to oppose = admission of allegations

“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”)

 Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963)

Tobin asserted 19 affirmative defenses that Red Rock did not refute or claim were previously heard

(“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”)

Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)
  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395NRS 205.377NRS 205.330NRS 205.405NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  8. Priority
  9. False claims to title (NRS 205.395NRS 205.377)
  10. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  11. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  12. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  13. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  14. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405NRCP 11(b)
  15. Failure to mitigate damages
  16. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  17. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102NRS 116.31083NRS 116.31085NRS 38.310
  18. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  19. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation
Tobin asserted 5 causes of action – none of which meet the elements of claims preclusion and none of which were refuted

(“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)

Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)
  1. Distribute the interpleaded funds to Tobin as the sole claimant with interest ($91,000+)
  2. Conversion/unjust enrichment
  3. Fraud
  4. Lifting the corporate veil
  5. Racketeering
Facts do not support claims preclusion elements of same parties & claims
  1. 1/31/17 Tobin CRCM was Red Rock’s exhibit 1 and the sole “proof” provided to support the claim of claims preclusion.
  2. 1/31/17 CRCM had different parties (Nona Tobin, an individual and Nona Tobin, trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, were the counter-claimants vs. Sun City Anthem, DOEs and ROEs. Red Rock and its affiliates were identified as “HOA Agents” as there was no ability to separate their legal standing to name them as defendants.
  3. 1/31/17 CRCM had six different causes of action, five of which were unheard: Quiet title (sale was void for noncompliance with statutes; equitable relief (non-compliance with HOA governing documents notice & due process requirements); unjust enrichment (failure to distribute the proceeds); fraudulent concealment (foreclosure records and Ombudsman NRS 38.310 notice of sale process); breach of contract (HOA agents with the HOA), civil conspiracy
  4. 3/8/21 unanswered counterclaim vs. Red Rock was different party and different claims Fraud, conversion/unjust enrichment, lifting the corporate veil, Racketeering
  5. 3/8/21 unanswered cross-claims of Fraud, Racketeering and conversion/unjust enrichment vs. Nationstar & Wells Fargo were different parties and different, never heard claims
Red Rock has not demontrated that Tobin “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.”
  1. Sun City Anthem filed a motion for summary judgment solely as to the quiet title cause of action of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust without addressing the five other causes of action.
  2. None of the claims of Nona Tobin as an individual were ever heard, let alone given “a full and fair opportunity to litigate” as Tobin was unfairly, and without appeal, removed as a party on the ever of trial and all her pro se motions stricken unheard after Nationstar attorney Melanie Morgan and Jimijack attorney met ex parte with Judge Kishner.
  3. See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
  4. see Nona Tobin’s requests for judicial notice
Party asserting the defense of claims preclusion has the burden of proof that all the elements were met. Red Rock did not meet its burden.

Carrillo v. Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1204, 1211 (D.N.M. 2016) (“A party asserting the defense of claim preclusion must establish that: “1) there was a final judgment in an earlier action, 2) the earlier judgment was on the merits, 3) the parties in the two suits are the same, and 4) the cause of action is the same in both suits.” Id. Claim preclusion does not apply unless the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. Id. at 59. ”)

Fraud & racketeering charges were pled with particularity and will be summarized again here due to the extensive volume of facts

Nona Tobin filed four requests for judicial notice. How each RFJN identified with specificity the alleged criminal actions are summarized here.

3/15/21 RFJN the property record for APN 191-13-811-052. The fraudulent claims were summarized in Exhibit 1 to Tobin’s AACC contains a table that shows the multiple fraudulent recorded claims to title.

4/4/21 RFJN unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims

4/7/21 RFJN relevant laws & regulations

4/9/21 RFJN NRCP 16.1 disclosures, subpoena responses & disputed fatcs in the court record

Instrument numberRecord
Document type
2021021200015492/12/21DEED of trust 12/28/20 quicken LLC $355,320 loan 2 Chiesi
2021020500004202/5/21 Substitution/reconveyance of quicken INC 12/27/19 $353,500 loan to switch 2 12/28/20 $355,320 dot quicken LLC 2 Chiesi
20201204000109712/4/20Order to expunge 8/8/19 LISP, 8/14/19 LISP & 8/14/19 LISP Tobin LIS pendens and to dismiss Tobin’s claims with prejudice recorded by quicken attorney maurice wood while appeals 82094, 82234, 82294 and 79295 are pending.
2020020600001992/6/20reconveyance of Joel Stokes’s $355,000 5/23/19 dot that masqueraded as Nationstar-Jimijack deal.   5/21/19 transcript Nationstar-Jimijack settlement docs status check.   T Dixon v-p 1st American Title executed reconveyance 2/5/20, > 1 month after quicken recorded 12/27/19 $353,500 loan 2 Chiesi and Driggs title allegedly insured the Chiesi title.
2020020600001982/6/20Substitution of trustee on Joel Stokes 5/23/19 $355,000 dot.   2/4/20 Tyson Christensen, v-p of fay servicing as if Morgan Stanley’s attorney in fact.   No recorded power of attorney.
20191227000134612/27/19  DEED of trust 12/26/19 $353,500 quicken loans INC 2 Brian & Debora Chiesi
20191227000134512/27/19  DEED grant, sale bargain (not quit claim) Joel Stokes, an individual, alleged he had a valid title to transfer to Brian & Debora Chiesi. Joel Stokes did not have a valid title as Jimijack had no valid title to transfer to Joel Stokes on 5/1/19.   Driggs title agency, INC. 7900 w sahara #100 lv 89117-7920. Escrow #19-11-120779jh DECLaration of value
20191227000134412/27/19  DEED Sandra 2 Joel Stokes, as spouses, not as Jimijack trustees. Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack transferred Jimijack’s defective title to Joel Stokes, as an individual, on 5/1/19,     RPTT exemption 5
20191203000315212/3/19  On 12/3/19 Hong recorded notice of 11/22/19 a-15-720032-c order that erroneously expunged Tobin 8/8/14 LIS pendens re a-19-799890-c 8/7/19 complaint and 7/23/19 appeal and 7/24/19 appeal into 79295   8/8/19 sca motion to strike Tobin’s pro se 8/7/19 nolp was granted on 9/3/19 rtran, but sua sponte 11/22/19 order was wrongly written to both expunge 8/8/19 LISP (outside judge kishner’s jurisdiction) and to strike 8/7/19 nolp from the a-15-720032-c court record 11/22/19 order, recorded 12/3/19, was unappealable per order 20-13346 wherein the nv supreme court claimed 11/22/19 order was outside its jurisdiction.   9/10/19 nv supreme court order 19-37846 denied Nona Tobin all rights to appeal any decision made by judge kishner.
2019081400030848/14/19  LIS pendens Tobin recorded 39 pages with a-19-799890-c complaint attached. On 8/13/19 Tobin filed nolp into a-19-799890-c
2019081400030838/14/19  LIS pendens related to Tobin/Hansen trust appeals 79295 7 pages plus receipt for recording both 8/14/19 LIS pendens
2019080800020978/8/19  LIS pendens (7 pages) related to 7/23/19 Hansen trust appeal & 7/24/19 appeals & 8/7/19 a-19-799890-c
2019072400033557/24/19  Judgment Hong recorded 6/24/19 order vs GBH trust on 7/24/19 after he received notice of two appeals filed on 7/23/19 and 7/24/19.   6/24/19 order expunged 56/19 LIS pendens which related to the claims of both Nona Tobin, an individual, and the Hansen trust , but Nona Tobin, an individual, ws excluded from the trial and removed as a party unfairly due to the misrepresentations joseph Hong made to judge kishner at a 4/23/19 hearing held ex parte due to Hong serving notice that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19.
2019071700029717/17/19Assignment Stokes 5/23/19 dot 2 morgan stanley No proper purpose, but served to cloud the title and attempted to cover the dirty money trail.
2019071000023527/10/19Akerman recorded (cover sheet) release of Nationstar’s 1/13/16 LISP re NSM vs op homes (ROLP page 2). Akerman did not serve any notice of the release into a-16-730078-c where my 4/24/19 motion to vacate the HOA’s MSJ and NSM’s joinder (per NRCP 60(b)(3) fraud) and motion for summary judgment vs all parties was still unheard.
2019060400007726/4/19Assignment of Joel Stokes DEED of trust had no proper purpose, but served to cloud the title and attempted to cover the dirty money trail.
2019060300015996/3/19substitution/ reconveyance release of LIEN of Hansen DEED of trust to Joel Stokes
2019052800028435/28/19LIS pendens release of Nationstar’s LIS pendens by Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack
2019052300035315/23/19DEED of trust Joel Stokes-$355,000 DEED of trust from civic financial services
2019050600010225/6/19LIS pendens Hansen trust/Tobin
2019050100033485/1/19DEED Joel a. Stokes & Sandra f. Stokes, as trustees of Jimijack irrevocable trust to Joel a. Stokes, individual.   The Joel Stokes’ DEED was recorded five weeks before the 6/5/19 trial.   The 6/6/19 trial allegedly adjudicated GBHt trustee Nona Tobin’s 2/1/17 counterclaim vs Jimijack for quiet title & equitable relief, fraudulent reconveyance (Jimijack’s DEED was inadmissible per NRS 111.345), unjust enrichment (collecting rent from 9/25/14, not 6/9/15 as Jimijack DEED claimed, after a fraudulent sale), civil conspiracy (bid suppression, selective notice of sale to speculators) and preliminary/permanent injunctions (prevent sale or transfer during pendency of proceedings).   The 6/6/19 trial also allegedly adjudicated 2/1/17 cross claim vs. Yuen k. Lee dba f. Bondurant LLC.    Jimijack did not have an admisible DEED.   No Jimijack irrevocable trust instrument was ever disclosed so there is no reason to believe there was any legal authority for trustees to revoke a title from an irrevocable trust and put it in the name of Joel a. Stokes, one of the trustees.    
2019030800027903/8/19Assignment Wells Fargo 2 Nationstar by Nationstar Mohamed Hameed executed as v-p of Wells Fargo On 3/12/19, two weeks after the end of discovery, akerman disclosed the rescission as NSM 409-NSM 411.
2019030800027893/8/193/8/19 NSM rescinded the 12/1/14 assignment of the Hansen DEED of trust from Bank of American 2 NSM by NSM. Mohamed Hameed executed it as v-p of Bank of American. No recorded power of attorney On 3/12/19, two weeks after the end of discovery, Akerman disclosed the rescission as NSM 412-NSM 413
2017033100030733/31/17Interest disclaimer lee/f Bondurant filed 3/8/17 NSM 222-227
2017033100030723/31/17Interest disclaimer Lucas/ophomes filed 3/8/17 NSM 218-211
2017033100030713/31/17Interest disclaimer STeve Hansen filed 3/28/17 NSM 212-217
2017033000038603/30/17Republic services released its 2nd garbage LIEN recorded 5/6/14 concealed by RRFS & NSM
2017033000038593/30/17Republic services released its 1st garbage LIEN recorded 9/23/13
2017032800014523/28/17DEED Gordon b Hansen trust, dated 8/22/08, 2 Nona Tobin, individual, NSM 208-211
2016060700014506/7/16LIS pendens re NSM 6/2/16 AACC vs Jimijack NSM 203-207
2016052300014175/23/16Request notice by Tobin 4 Hansen trust not disclosed by NSM
2016052300014165/23/16Certificate of INCumbency Nona Tobin 4 Hansen trust
2016011300010511/13/16LIS pendens re 1/11/16 complaint Nationstar vs opportunity homes
20151201000340212/1/15Judgment of default vs Bank of American 10/23/15 JDDF.   No notice of entry of the default judgment was served.   Instead, Joseph Hong recorded the 10/23/15 unnoticed default judgment.   Joseph Hong who knew, or should have known, that NRS 40.110Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default”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.”   Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust did not have an admissible DEED per NRS 111.345 and therefore had no standing to assert a quiet title claim against any lender.   Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that two other lenders,  Wells Fargo (9/9/14) and Nationstar (12/1/14), held recorded claims to be the beneficiaries of the 7/22/04 Hansen DEED of trust as Bank of America’s sole successor-in-interest.   Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that Bank of America did not hold any recorded claim to the Hansen DEED of trust after 9/9/14 and that Hong’s naming BANA as a defendant was for the corrupt purpose of getting a default by a lender who had no claim.   Nationstar NSM 192-194, but NSM denied knowing in 1/22/15 req notice, 4/12/15 AFFD, 4/12/16 mot
2015081700010568/17/15Substitution of trustee Joan H. Anderson to NSM co-conspirator American Trustee Servicing Solutions by Nationstar, claiming without legal authority to be “attorney-in-fact” for Wells Fargo. No recorded Power of Attorney. Nationstar disclosed as NSM 270-272 is an unrecorded, inapplicable Wells Fargo Power of Attorney. Contradicted by NSM 6/3/19 sub/reconvey.
2015060900015456/9/15DEED F. Bondurant LLC to Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust Inadmissible per NRS 111.345.   1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary violations and exhibits re notary CluAynne M. Corwin’s involvement with several other questionable subsequent transfers of HOA foreclosures  involving Joseph Hong, Joel Stokes, Pam at Linear Title, and Peter Mortenson   No legal capacity to transfer title to Jimijack as notary CluAynne M. Corwin “witnessed” Yuen K. Lee’s signature but used her notary stamp to affirm that Thomas Lucas, manager of Opportunity Homes No notary record that CluAynne M. Corwin witnessed any deed executed on 6/8/15. No purchase agreement was disclosed to show how, when, from whom or for how much Joel and Sandra Stokes acquired the property. NRS 240.120, NRS 240.155, NRS 240.075 violations.  Incompetent acknowledgment per NRS 111.125.   Jimijack had no DEED with legal capacity to hold or transfer title, but transferred to Joel Stokes, an individual on 5/1/19. Jimijack’s defective deed was disclosed as NSM 189-191. Nationstar knew that the two deeds recorded on 6/9/15 alleged title claims that replaced Opportunity Homes LLC as an interested party.   For unknown reasons, Nationstar chose not to name either F. Bondurant LLC or Jimijack, who both had recorded deeds on 6/9/15, when Nationstar sued disinterested Opportunity Homes in its 1/11/16 complaint in A-16-730078-C.   Nationstar voluntarily dismissed its 1/11/16 claims against Opportunity Homes and its non-existent claims vs. F. Bondurant LLC by a stipulation and order entered on 2/20/19. Neither evidence nor trial were required to prevail.   Nationstar never produced any evidence to support its filed claims against Jimijack and was excused from the 6/6/19 trial at the 4/25/19 pre-trial conference after Nationstar withdrew its 3/21/19 motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack.   Nationstar’s claims against Jimijack were dismissed by stipulation and order entered on 5/31/19. Again, neither evidence nor trial were required to prevail.  
2015060900015376/9/15  DEED, from Opportunity Homes to F. Bondurant LLC, a sham entity controlled by Joseph Hong, was executed on 6/4/19, and witnessed by Joseph Hong’s employee, Debra Batsel.   Batesel witnessed at the same time Thomas Lucas and some unknown party execute a purchase agreement to transfer title from Opportunity Homes.   Joseph Hong did not participate in discovery and entered no evidence into the record at any time from 6/16/15. To the present to support any of his clients’ claims, but still won quiet title at the 6/6/19 trial from which all documentary evidence was excluded due to Hong’s misconduct.
2015031200022853/12/15  Substitution/
reconveyance Wells Fargo 2nd open-ended deed of trust
2015022300006082/23/15RPTT refund 2 Thomas Lucas
2015012200018501/22/15request notice Nationstar
20141201000051812/1/14Nationstar’s assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust from Bank of America to Nationstar, was recorded three months after BANA had no interest to assign on 12/1/14.   Nationstar refused to respond in good faith to Tobin’s interrogatories and requests for documents   12/1/14 was executed by Nationstar’s robo-signer in Nebraska and was rescinded by Nationstar’s robo-signer in Texas on 2/25/19, and recorded on 3/8/19. Nationstar disclosed the rescission two weeks after the end of discovery on 3/12/19.   Because the sale was void by reasons of fraud, unfairness and oppression, neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale.   However, 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the  owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
2014090900009749/9/14  On 9/9/14, Bank of American recorded that it had assigned its interest in the Hansen deed of trust, if any, to Wells Fargo, effective 8/21/14, the day before the foreclosure deed was recorded.
2014082200025488/22/14DEED HOA foreclosure 2 opportunity homes
2014050600043575/6/14LIEN 2nd garbage was recorded on 5/6/14 and released on 3/30/17
2014021200015272/12/14notice of 3/7/14 HOA sale
2013092300013699/23/13LIEN 1st garbage
2013040800010874/8/13default 2nd HOA notice of default,
2013040300015694/3/13notice of rescission of HOA 1st notice of default
2013031200008473/12/13default HOA 1st notice of default
20121214000133812/14/12LIEN $ 925.76 when $300 was due & owing
2012041200018834/12/12assignment mers 2 Bank of American by Bank of American
2008082700036278/27/08  DEED Gordon Hansen B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, was recorded when the GBH Trust was created.   Title was extinguished by the 8/22/14 recording of a foreclosure deed as was the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust.   Neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale. The 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the  owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
2007051000011275/10/07  DEED of trust 2nd open ended DEED of trust by Wells Fargo 2 Gordon Hansen, recorded on 5/10/07, was released on 3/30/17
2004090100072979/1/04  Declaration of Homestead by Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man
2004083100075638/31/04  Sub trustee/reconveyance of paid in full 7/31/03 DEED of trust Gordon & Marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot assigned 2 Washington Mutual by City First Mortgage   7/31/03 lien was released on 8/31//04.
2004081700022848/17/04  Reconveyance of 11/20/03 Wells Fargo $55,000 2nd DOT To Hansen . The 11/20/03 lien was released on 8/17/04  
2004072200035077/22/04DEED OF TRUST is the disputed Hansen DOT.   Nationstar disclosed  the Hansen deed of trust and the Planned Unit Development Rider as NSM 141-162 $436,000 loaned on 7/15/04 Due in full on 8/1/2034 Borrower: Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man Lender: Western Thrift & loan Trustee: Joan H. Anderson PUD rider remedies f. that lenders are contractually authorized only to add delinquent HOA assessments to the outstanding loan balance and add interest at the note rate (here 6.25%). Lenders are prohibited from using the tender of delinquent assessments, rejected or not, as a de facto foreclosure without due process.   Nationstar disclosed the PUD Rider Remedies section was disclosed as NSM 160 so ignorance cannot be an excuse.   Nationstar disclosed that it does not hold the origInal note by disclosing a copy as NSM 158-160.   NSM’s copy of the note shows Nationstar, Wells Fargo and bank of Amercia are not in the chain of title of endorsements.   All recorded assignments of the Hansen DEED of trust that culminated in Nationstar reconveying the Hansen DEED of trust to Joel stoke, an individual, on 6/3/19, were false claims to title in the meaning of NRS 205.395.   National banking associations’ corrupt business practices were revealed in 12/7/20 national settlement agreement and consent order, its 8/17/18 settlement and release,  the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Bank of America, the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Wells Fargo.   Violations of NRS 205.395, NRS 207.360, and other statutes in this particular case are documented in 11/10/20 complaint to the Nevada Attorney General (See TOC of AG exhibits), 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Servicing Division (See TOC 12/16/20 complaint), NCJD 2021-026,
20031120000403011/20/03DEED of trust $55,000 Wells Fargo 2nd deed of trust to Gordon & Marilyn Hansen
2003091000005889/10/03DEED of trust assign 7/31/03 dot city first mortgage 2 washington mutual
2003073100044447/31/03DEED of trust Gordon & marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot from city first mortgage
2003073100044437/31/03power of attorney Marilyn 2 Gordon Hansen   “limited to executing loan documents for purchase of home located at 2763 white sage…power of attorney is null & void after execution.”   Marilyn 2 Gordon Hansen Power of Attorney is the only recorded power of attorney in this property record from 2003 to the present. Nationstar did not record Power of Attorneys for the claims NSM recorded as “attorney-in-fact” on 12/1/14 (Bank of American), 8/17/15 (Wells Fargo),  3/8/19 (Bank of American), 3/8/19 (Wells Fargo) or 6/3/19 (American trustee servicing solutions)
2003073100044427/31/03DEED Del Webb 2 Marilyn & Gordon Hansen

Table of Violations was rejected without appeal by the Nevada Supreme Court on 9/10/19

NRS 116.3116Super-priorityMiles Bauer tendered $825 that SCA agents rejected
NRS 116A.640 (8)HOA Manager can’t: “8.  Intentionally apply a payment of an assessment from a unit’s owner towards any fine, fee or other charge that is due.”   “check (142) for HOA dues”  was applied first to fees 10/18/12 by RRFS as partial payment; 11/9/12 applied as “RRFS collection payment” in Resident Transaction Report   See “RRFS Claims vs Actual”  
NRS 116A.640(9)HOA Manager can’t: “9.  Refuse to accept from a unit’s owner payment of any assessment, fine, fee or other charge that is due because there is an outstanding payment due.”  RRFS refused BANA’s 5/9/13 tender of $825. RRFS did not present Nationstar’s $1100 offer to close the escrow opened on 5/8/14 on the $350,000 sale (SCA 302) rejection of BANA tender was when only nine months were delinquent as of 4/30/13 NSM $1100 offer rejected as if it was an owner request for waiver
NRS 116A.640(10)HOA Manager can’t: “10.  Collect any fees or other charges from a client not specified in the management agreement.”    Managing agent FSR (fka RMI) held the NRS 649 debt collection license dba Red Rock Financial Services (RRFS)       4/27/12 RRFS debt collection agreement   2/26/10 RMI management agreement   3/31/14 FSR management agreement   Red Rock’s response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena concealed the 4/27/12 contract. The lack of enforcement of the 4/27/12. contract’s indemnification provision has resulted in over $100,000 in charges to be forced onto HOA homeowners and unlawfully avoided by Red Rock for cases stemming from 2014 foreclosures, i.e.,   A-15-720032. Jimijack Irrevocable Trust v. BANA, N.A. & SCACAI   A-14-707237-C LN Management LLC series Pine Prairie v. Deutsche Bank   A-15-711883-C My Global Village LLC v BAC Home Servicing   A-15-724233-C TRP Fund IV LLC v Bank of Mellon et al   A-14-702071 Citi-mortgage, Inc v. SCA, (SCA paid $55K to settle in 2017)   2:17-cv-1800-JAD-GWF FNMA v SCACAI   2:17-cv-02161-APG-PAL Bank of NY Mellon v. SCACAI   A-16-735894-C TRP FUND IV v. HSBC Bank  
NRS 116.31162 –   SCA Board Resolution Delinquent Assessment Policy and Procedure           Can’t file a notice of intent to lien “or take any other action to collect prior to “60 days after the obligation becomes due’.

7/30/12 was date “obligation was past due’ for quarter ending 9/30/12   10/3/12 check 143 for $300 submitted & ID’d as “check for HOA dues” to pay $275 assessments and $25 late fee   lien recorded with no prior notice for $925.76 when only $300 was due     See annotated SCA 168-SCA 175  SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy  
NRS 116.31162 (4)Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + proceduresNo schedule of fees, repay plan, or hearing provided ever. No exception exists in the law to providing these notices or holding a hearing if an account has been sent to collections as claimed by SCA.   See 3/26/19 RTRAN, pgs. 23-24.
NRS 116.311635NOS – publish 3 times. Date & time & place of sale, mail certified to owner,2/12/14 NOS  complied with NRS 116.311635, but the single complaint notice was cancelled by notice to Ombudsman  on 5/15/14. See Ombudsman NOS compliance record of HOA notice published 2/12/14 for a 3/7/14 sale. No new compliant NOS was published prior to the 8/15/14 sale. All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were explicitly excluded from notice of the sale and were given no notice after it was sold. See
NRS 116.311365(2b3)Give NOS to OMBNo 2nd NOS – 8/15/14 sale held without notice to any party with a known interest.   RRFS did provide a 2nd NOS in two other SCA foreclosures where the 1st NOS was cancelled  
NRS 116.31164(3)(b)Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale8/15/14 sale was held without having a 2nd NOS and without giving the OMB the foreclosure deed EVER   All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were not given any notice after the property was sold
NRS 116.31164(3)(c)Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributedOn 11/30/18, Steve Scow said that the funds were still in the Red Rock Financial Services account.   SCA 217 & SCA 223-224 were deceptive.     SCA 224 disclosed a $57,282 check, dated 8/27/14, to Clark County District Court, to create to mis-perception that the funds had been distributed.   In 2014, RRFS misled Tobin so she could not submit a claim for the proceeds through interpleader.   Tobin has been prevented from making the claim that she is entitled to the proceeds because NSM is not entitled to them as NSM’s claims to be the beneficial owner of the Western Thrift deed of trust are provably false.  
NRS 116.31166Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemptionDeed recitals were false.   The HOA & its agents failed to comply with all legal requirements that were conditions precedent to a valid sale.   The default did not occur as was stated on the 3/12/13 rescinded Notice of default (NOD).   Payments were made after 7/1/1, i.e. check 143 was credited as paying all the quarter ending 9/30/12.   The Miles Bauer tender of $825 on 5/9/13 would have paid all delinquent assessments through 6/30/13.   RRFS misrepresented SCA 302 (NSM 5/28/14 offer of $1100) and called it an owner request for waiver in SCA 295 .  
NRS 116.1113Obligation of good faithFSR d/b/a RRFS had a financial conflict of interest serving both as the HOA’s managing agent and as its debt collector. FSR and RRFS advised the HOA BOD that it was required to handle collections and foreclosure in secret meetings.   FSR/RRFS falsely advised the HOA BOD that all BOD decisions related to “public” auctions of foreclosed properties were confidential by law.   FSR/RRFS did not act in good faith when it advised the BOD that there was an exception to due process requirements and owner protections in the law and in the deed restrictions if the proposed sanction was foreclosure.   FSR/RRFS prevented the BOD from complying with the requirements for taking valid corporate actions by getting the BOD to make all the decisions leading up to the sale of the property in unnoticed, closed meetings and without giving the owner an opportunity to prevent the sale.  
NRS 116.3102 (m)(1) (m) May impose reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents of the association only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.  FSR/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that this provision did not apply when the HOA was imposing fines that were mis-named collection costs.   FRS/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that selling an owner’s home for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments was not a fine or a sanction.
NRS 116.3102 (3)(4) 3.  The executive board may determine whether to take enforcement action by exercising the association’s power to impose sanctions or commence an action for a violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules, including whether to compromise any claim for unpaid assessments or other claim made by or against it. The executive board does not have a duty to take enforcement action if it determines that, under the facts and circumstances presented:       (a) The association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action;       (b) The covenant, restriction or rule being enforced is, or is likely to be construed as, inconsistent with current law;       (c) Although a violation may exist or may have occurred, it is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or       (d) It is not in the association’s best interests to pursue an enforcement action.  
NRS 116.3102 (3)(4)Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious4.  The executive board’s decision under subsection 3 not to pursue enforcement under one set of circumstances does not prevent the executive board from taking enforcement action under another set of circumstances, but the executive board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.   The BOD was arbitrary and capricious in its decision to make foreclosure decisions based solely on the allegations of its financially-conflicted agents,.   The HOA BOD allowed non-uniform enforcement and unjust enrichment of the agents to occur without supervising or auditing the agents’ actions or allowing owners to know what actions the agents were taking.  
NRS 116.3103BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOAHOA agents were unjustly enriched by usurping the policy authority and duties the SCA Board is prohibited from delegating by its governing documents.   It is not in the best interests of the HOA for the Board to allow agents to give higher priority to their own business interests than to the interests of the SCA membership given that the HOA a mutual-benefit association that exists solely to protect the common good (common areas and general property values) of the homeowners.   SCA agents have no statutory or contractual authority independent of the association.   The Association owes no duty to its agents.  
NRS 116.31031   CC&Rs 7.4   Bylaws 3.26   Resolution Establishing the Governing Documents Enforcement Policy & ProcessLimits on BOD power to impose sanctions   HOA BOD must provide:   Notice of violation Notice of hearing and procedures Notice of sanction & chance to appeal Notice of appeal hearing procedures AppealSCA alleged it sent a 9/20/12 notice of hearing for proposed sanction of suspension of membership privileges, but there was no hearing and no notice of sanctions alleged.   None of the contractually-defined  notice requirements guaranteed to all SCA homeowners prior to the imposition of a sanction for an alleged violation of any kind were met:   No Notice of violation (also no quarterly delinquency report as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v))   No Notice of hearing and proceduresNo Notice of sanction & chance to appealNo Notice of appeal hearing proceduresNo Appeal hearing held   Check 143 for $300 was submitted on 10/3/12 to pay $275 assessments through 9/30/12 plus $25 late fee authorized (SCA170).   RRFS credited $300 on 10/18/12 to unauthorized fees instead of to cure the delinquency as the owner stated was her intention.  
NRS 116.310313An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agentRRFS claims to have independent authority to charge fees unlimited by this provision.   SCA BOD has abdicated to that view and memorialized it in SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA168-175).  
NRS 116.116.3106 (1)(d)HOA must define in its bylaw which of BODs duties SHALL not be delegated  FSR/RRFS misled the HOA Board
SCA Bylaws 3.20/ 3.18a, b, e, f, g, i Adopted pursuant to NRS 116.3106(d)Can’t delegate (a) budget; (b) levying or collecting assessments, (e) deposit in approved institutions for HOA’s behalf, (f) making/ amending use rules, (g) opening bank accounts and controlling signatories, (i) enforcing governing documentsFSR/RRFS usurped the collection and foreclosure process by asserting total proprietary control over all financial records. They structured a system that excluded the HOA Board from ability to supervise or audit the agents’ work.   FSR/RRFS had signatory control over SCA accounts covering all assessments collected.   SCA maintained no independent records to document that the sale occurred in the manner claimed by FSR/RRFS (or occurred at all).   SCA’s ownership records (Resident Transaction Report) show only two owners of the property (Hansen and Jimijack before 2016 while RRFS shows three owners and Jimijack claims there were four.    SCA has no record that the property was sold on 8/15/14 or on any other date.   The HOA has no record that $63,100, or for any other amount, was collected from selling the property.   The HOA has no records of what happened to whatever money was collected for whatever properties were sold by agents exercising the HOA’s statutory right to foreclose in whatever unknown manner they chose.
NRS 116.31083Defines Requires HOA BOD meetings to be open to all owners except in four limited circumstances  No notice to the membership when any decision to foreclose a particular property was made.   The Board meets in closed session to discuss and act on topics outside the four permissible ones.
NRS 116.31083 (6)   NRS 116.3108(4)  agenda must clearly describe topicsThis property was never on any Board agenda for any reason.   NRS 116.3108 (4) 4.  The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of:       (a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, including, without limitation, any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any fees or assessments to be imposed or increased by the association, any budgetary changes and any proposal to remove an officer of the association or member of the executive board.       (b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.       (c) A period devoted to comments by units’ owners regarding any matter affecting the common-interest community or the association and discussion of those comments. Except in emergencies, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to paragraph (b).  
NRS 116.31083 (9)minutes must include date, time and place of meeting; directors present, substance of matters discussed, record of vote, owners’ commentsNothing in any minutes indicate the SCA Board authorized this property to be sold.   No Board vote on record related to this property at all.
NRS 116.31065Rules must be uniformly enforced or not at allSCA asserts that foreclosure is a statutory right that exempts the HOA Board & its agents from providing an owner the notice and due process required by NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 prior to the Board’s imposing any sanction against an owner for an alleged infraction of the HOA’s governing documents.   Tobin asserts that there is no exception in the law that exempts an HOA from providing all of the notice and due process delineated in NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 when the Board imposes any sanction. It is ludicrous for an HOA Board to assert that the ONLY exception to an owner’s rights to due process was when an unsupervised agent imposed the harshest possible sanction, i.e., permanent revocation of membership privileges, 100% of the owner’s title rights and a fine 200 times the debt, for an alleged violation of the governing documents fo delinquent assessments.
NRS 116.31175     SCA bylaws 6.4 SCA bylaws 3.26  HOA agents do not control HOA records. The Board controls the records and must provide owners access to all BOD agendas, minutes, & all HOA records (with statutorily-defined exceptions), including contracts, court filings when HOA is a party. which must be reported quarterly by nameThe HOA and its agents did not put provide any agenda that specified any proposed action to sanction the owner of 2763 White Sage for delinquent assessments or to sell the property to collect.   SCA did not  provide any minutes of meetings where those actions are taken and does not allow access to court records or contracts so they allow people to basically steal. There is no record of which houses are taken and sold or where the money went.   SCA withheld compliance records requested in 2016 unless they received a request from the court.   SCA withheld all minutes of Board meetings at which the owner or the property or Nona Tobin were discussed or actions taken to impose sanctions (See Request for Judicial Notice filed 4/9/21).   SCA withheld all the documents requested in discovery.   SCA withheld reports given to the Ombudsman and told Tobin she had to obtain them from the Ombudsman. Then, SCA falsely told the court that the unverified, uncorroborated, falsified Red Rock foreclosure file was SCA’s official record, and that the Ombudsman’s contemporaneously logged compliance records were inadmissible.    
NRS 116.31175   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…”  FSR f/k/a RMI, as the HOA’s managing agent, never provided a quarterly delinquency report to the HOA BOD.

The absence of this mandated report facilitated FSR d/b/a RRFS’s predatory collection practices which included adding unauthorized fees and charges as “fines” misnamed as collection costs.
NRS 116.31085(4)BOD SHALL meet in exec session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who is about to be sanctioned requests an open hearing by the BOD. If the person requests in writing that an open hearing be conductedNo hearing was ever provided because no notice was ever given to the owner that the Board intended to impose a sanction of permanent revocation of membership privileges by selling the house.   SCA alleges that it offered on 9/20/12 a hearing scheduled for 10/8/12 prior to the imposition of a sanction of the temporary loss of membership privileges because, as of 9/20/12, the $275 assessment payment for the quarter ending 9/30/12  had not yet been received.
NRS 116.31085(4a)Owner who is being sanctioned for an alleged violation is entitled to attend all portions of the Board hearing, including the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnessesNo notice to attend
NRS 116.31085(4b)Owner is entitled to due process which must include without limitation the right to counsel, right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel (BOD)No due process provided
NRS 116.31085(5)subsection 4 establishes the MINIMUM protections the BOD must provide before it makes a decisionSCA didn’t provide the minimum protections
NRS 116.31085(6f)any matter discussed in exec session must be noted briefly in the minutes of the Executive Board. The Board shall maintain minutes of any decision related to subsection concerning the alleged violation and upon request shall provide a copy of the decision to the owner subject to being sanctioned or repNever gave info that could be considered actual or constructive notice
NRS 116.31087(1)right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BODTobin was blocked multiple times from telling the HOA BOD that their agents were stealing.   Tobin was told she would have to get a court order to even see the records about the sanctions they took sanctioning for dead trees at the property  
NRS 116.31087(2)Board has 10 business days to place on next regular BOD meetingDidn’t do it

Tobin motion for summary judgment vs. Red Rock, Nationstar & Wells Fargo

Comes now, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin, an individual, in proper person, to hereby move for summary judgment vs. counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, and cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo and moves that relief be granted to Nona Tobin as requested, including punitive damages and sanctions, pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.



  1. On 2/16/21 Red Rock served its complaint with one cause of action: interpleader to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage.
  3. As there has been no timely responsive pleading from Red Rock, Nationstar, or Wells Fargo denying Tobin’s allegations, the court has the discretion to deem their silence as admission.
  4. However, out of an abundance of caution, Tobin moves herein for summary judgment and sanctions to obtain relief instead of filing a notice of intent to take default.
  5. Due to the seriousness of  the allegations and the high level of declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages sought, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests a hearing to allow defendants an opportunity to reply and to show cause why the relief, sanctions and punitive damages requested should not be imposed.

“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”

 Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963) 

“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”

Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)

“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)

Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)


  1. Counter-claimant/cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests the court judicially notice the Requests for Judicial Notice Tobin filed into this case on 3/15/21 (APN 191-13-811052 Clark County complete property record), 4/4/21 (unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims), 4/7/21 (relevant laws, regulations and HOA governing document provisions) and 4/9/21 (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record).
  2. NRS 47.130(2) (b) permits courts to judicially notice facts “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, so that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute.”
  3. Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”
  4. Pursuant to NRS 47.160 “A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be noticed.”

Nona Tobin’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed into this case on 3/15/21, 4/4/21, 4/7/21 and 4/9/21, are proper for judicial notice because they were 1) recorded against the property and are part of the Clark County Recorder’s Office records, or 2) were filed at some point into the court records of prior proceedings, or 3) fit the definition of NRS 47.140 (matters of law), and 4) are timely pursuant to NRS 47.150.  Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).


  1. The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud. Red Rock, Nationstar and Sun City Anthem withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
  2. Defendants, acting alone or in conspiracy with others, covered up the fraud and successfully suppressed Tobin’s evidence so the courts acted on false evidence to rule against her and deny her access to the appellate courts.
  3. On 6/24/19 she lost title by being denied access to the trial and all documentary evidence excluded. See A-15-720032-C case summary without stricken documents vs. annotated summary and annotated 5/4/19 case info file.
  4. On 9/10/19 the Supreme Court denied her individual right to appeal.
  5. On 11/22/19 Tobin’s 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54b and NRCP 59a(1)ABCDF and 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310 were stricken unheard along with all her pro se filings and motions stricken by 4/23/19 ex parte bench order
  6. On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
  7. On 7/1/20 Sun City Anthem, Nationstar and Jimijack filed a joint respondents’ brief that was based on the false evidence from the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) and (SCA 176-643 ignoring SCA 168-175) in response to the Gordon B. Hansen 12/19/19 opening brief.
  8. On 12/3/20 her A-19-799890-C complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata/non-mutual claims preclusion and three of her lis pendens (recorded on 8/7/14, 8/14/19, and 8/14/19) were expunged as if they had never been recorded.
  9. Dismissal of her A-19-799890-C complaint occurred after two order imposing sanctions on her for filing a quiet title complaint as an individual, , had been entered on 10/8/20 and 11/17/20 ($3,455 to Joseph Hong pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) &/or (3) and $12,849 to Brittany Wood per NRS 18.010(2))
  10. On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.


  1. Tobin’s AACC ANSWER basically denied that Red Rock had any proper purpose for filing a claim for interpleader after holding the funds, without legal authority, all the while obstructing Tobin’s multiple efforts for over the six years to stake a claim.
  2. Related to Tobin’s opinion of Red Rock’s motives, Tobin published on her blog “Interpleader complaint was filed with an ulterior motive” and “Cause of Action: Abuse of Process” and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation


Tobin’s AACC had nineteen affirmative defenses:

  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.330, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  8. Priority
  9. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  10. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  11. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  12. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  13. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  14. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11(b)
  15. Failure to mitigate damages
  16. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  17. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  18. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  19. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation


Tobin’s AACC had five causes of action in the counter-claim vs. RRFS: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering. See also published “Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services”.

First Cause of Action: Interpleader

  1. The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale.
  2. There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.
  3. Using the Nevada legal rate of interest table, total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”
  4. Alternatively, if the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount due to Tobin presently is $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the total undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.
  5. Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.
  6. No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.

Second COA: Conversion

See the published “Cause of Action: Conversion” and “Cause of Action: Misappropriation of money” and “Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy

Third COA: Fraud

  1. See the published “Cause of Action: Fraud” and “What’s being human got to do with it?
  2. See the published “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014
  3. See the published “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock
  4. See the published “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  5. See the published “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148
  6. See the published “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws
  7. See the published Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  8. See the published “Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated

Fourth Cause of Action: Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil

See Exhibit 22 Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

Fifth COA: Racketeering

  1. See the published “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering
  2. Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.
  3. Sun City Anthem disclosed the same unverified, uncorroborated Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643) and misrepresented it to the court as the HOA’s official records of the collection and foreclosure process.
  4. Sun City Anthem concealed all the HOA’s records of what actually occurred, including but not limited to all the SCA Board agendas and minutes, un-doctored Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage, and all the HOA’s compliance and enforcement records for the foreclosures conducted by Red Rock under the HOA statutory authority.
  5. See 4/9/21 Request for Judicial Notice  (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record) which contains:


  1. 5/31/18 SCA Initial disclosures
  2. SCA 001-116 Sun City Anthem CC&Rs 2008 3rd restatement
  3. SCA 117-145 Sun City Anthem bylaws 2008 3rd restatement
  4. SCA 146-163 Sun City Anthem Rules and Regulations
  5. SCA 164-167 Sun City Anthem 2007 Red Rock Financial Services Debt Collection contract
  6. SCA 168-175 Sun City Anthem 2013 Delinquent Assessment Policy
  7. SCA 176-643 Red Rock Financial Services Foreclosure File redacted
  8. 2/11/19 SCA 1st supplemental disclosures
  9. 2/26/19 SCA response to Tobin interrogatories
  10. 2/26/19 SCA Response to Tobin Request for Documents
  11. 2/26/19 SCA response to Tobin Request for documents annotated
  1. In addition to refusing to provide HOA records of probative value to Tobin’s case, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson required Nona Tobin, as an elected, sitting member of the HOA Board to recuse herself from all SCA collection matters, past or present, instead of relying on NRS 116.31084 (Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.) See 6/5/17 recusal acknowledgement.
  2. Because Tobin was a party to this quiet title litigation, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson deemed her elected Board seat vacant “by operation of law” and removed her from her elected Board seat without an NRS 116.31036 removal election.
  3. See 8/24/17 Clarkson letter that accused Nona Tobin of profiting from her elected seat on the Board by being party to this quiet title litigation.
  4. See 8/16/17 Complaint to the Nevada State Bar vs. Clarkson and 9/12/17 rejection letter.
  5. See the 9/7/17 Complaint to NRED Ombudsman and 8/9/18 rejection letter.
  6. See the published “Why can’t I be a candidate for the Board?” and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think” and “Fire the debt collector” and “Elder Abuse: Part II – SCA Agents” and “On the advice of counsel is no defense”.
  7. SCA attorney/debt collector has ruled without legal authority (NRS  that Nona Tobin is ineligible to run for election or return to her elected Board seat as long as the quiet title litigation is in the appellate courts, even if Sun City Anthem is not a party. See Clarkson “notice(s) of ineligibility” dated 2/9/18, 2/12/19, 2/06/20, and 2/12/21. See also 11/9/20 Tobin email to the HOA Board to fill vacant Board seat with 2017-2020 timeline and links. See the published “No 2021 Board election
  8. SCA attorneys Adam Clarkson and David Ochoa published quarterly litigation reports that falsely claimed that Nona Tobin had been removed from her elected Board seat “for cause”.
  9. See also the published “Election committee was inhospitable, angry even. Nevertheless I persisted
  10. SCA disclosed, and RRFS provided in response to Tobin’s subpoena, misleading and falsified documents to deceive the court into concluding that the sale had been fair and properly noticed and the proceeds properly handled, including but not limited to SCA 276, SCA 277, SCA 278, SCA 286, SCA 635, SCA 642 , SCA 643. SCA 277, SCA 628, RRFS 071-083 (SCA 250-262), RRFS 047-048 (SCA 223-224), RRFS 119 (SCA 302), RRFS 128 (SCA 315), RRFS 238-244, RRFS 218-219 (SCA 415-416), RRFS 298-299, RRFS 312-326 (SCA 513-530), RRFS 398-399; RRFS 402 (SCA 618), RRFS 409-423, RRFS 424-425, RRFS 123, RRFS 124,


  1. Tobin’s AACC had three causes of action vs. cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.
  2. See “Nona Tobin’s cross-claim vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo” See “Nationstar Mortgage’s Fraud” and “Black letter law: anti-foreclosure fraud
  3. See “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering
  4. Cross-defendant Nationstar’s fraudulent misrepresentations and presentation of false evidence to two district courts obstructed a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims in prior proceedings and before the Nevada Supreme Court.
  5. Cross-defendant Nationstar’s ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19  damaged Nona Tobin and caused her pro se filings to be stricken unheard.
  6. See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
  7. Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.
  8. Cross-defendant Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that it ever was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. See Complaint against Melanie Morgan.


Nona Tobin’s AACC Prayer for relief is quoted here with links added to laws, regulations, documentary evidence or argument to support claims for relief and punitive damages. See the published “Nona Tobin’s, Red Rock’s & Nationstar’s prayers for relief

This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).


  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title; See “Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury” and Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds; See “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure to distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3): (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence,  defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
  10. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its misappropriation of funds, covert rejection of assessments, falsification of records that allowed the unjust enrichment of undisclosed partners and co-conspirators; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  11. that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages for the fraudulent confiscation of the subject property, valued on 12/27/19 at $505,000 property pursuant to NRS 207.470(1) as RRFS’s actions on the dozen 2014 unnoticed foreclosures constitute racketeering; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  12. that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345; (See 1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary fraud)
  15. that the Joel Stokes-Civic Financial Services “agreement”, recorded on 5/23/19, and misrepresented to Judge Kishner on 5/21/19 as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement was fraud on the court and sanctionable conduct pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4);
  16. that sanctions are appropriate vs. Nationstar and its Akerman attorneys pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) (misrepresentations in court filings), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
  17.  To declare that Joel Stokes’ deed, recorded on 5/1/19, was void as Jimijack had no interest to convey and that this transfer prior to the 6/5/19 trial was for the corrupt purpose of deceiving the court into allowing Joel Stokes and Nationstar to perpetrate a fraud on the court;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395NRS 205.377NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480; See “All Declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin” and “Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud” and “Why Nationstar’s attorneys must be sanctioned and pay damages” and “Complaint against Melanie Morgan” and “1st complaint to the Nevada AG” and “2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
  22. that attorneys pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(3) and/or NRS 18.010(2).

Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC had 22 Exhibits

  1. APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all opposing parties
  2. the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
  3. The alleged default was cured three times,
  4. SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
  5. Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to cover it up
  6. SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process 
  7. Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed DOT
  8. Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
  9. Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
  10. the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
  12. attorney interference in the administration of justice
  13. lack of professional ethics and good faith
  14. Presented false evidence to cover up crime
  15. Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
  16. Republic Services lien releases
  17. Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Relevant statutes and regulations
  20. Administrative Complaints related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  21. Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  22. Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents


Motion for summary judgment

MSJ must be granted because counter and cross defendants didn’t file a responsive pleading to disput

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24106 S.Ct. 254891 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion,” and can do so in either of two ways: by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. A ‘genuine issue’ of material fact arises if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248106 S.Ct. 250591 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Conversely, where the evidence could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue exists for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587106 S.Ct. 134889 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28988 S.Ct. 157520 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).

The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006). The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987). The nonmoving party must instead set forth “significant probative evidence” in support of its position. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting First Nat’l, 391 U.S. at 29088 S.Ct. 1575).Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630–31. Accordingly, if “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment will be denied. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250–51106 S.Ct. 2505.

Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)