On 2/16/21, Red Rock Financial Services served a notice on Nona Tobin that Red Rock was suing her over the money Red Rock stole from her over six years ago.

Why is Nona being sued? What relief could Nona give Red Rock?

Short answer. Nothing.

Red Rock sued Nona to obstruct a fair adjudication of her claims and to cover up its criminal conduct by suppressing evidence.

Nona still had to do a lot of work to deal with it.

The significance of Red Rock’s abusive, predatory debt collector’s corrupt business practices is that virtually none of its victims have the resources to fight back.

Poor people just lose by default because they don’t know what to do, and they don’t have anyone to help them.

Nona is fighting back.

These 19 affirmative defenses published here are one section of what Nona filed on 3/8/21 to get the money that Red Rock stole and to get penalties and damages.

Red Rock ignored the statute governing the distribution of the proceeds of the HOA sale in 2014 & also refused requests to distribute in 2014 & 2016 and in civil actions in 2017, 2019, & 2020.

3/8/21 Nona filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim against Red Rock

Nona’s 19 affirmative defenses say why Red Rock is not entitled to any requested relief
First Affirmative Defense: (Failure to State a Claim)

Plaintiff RRFS’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Nona Tobin upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to say what possible relief Nona Tobin could provide RRFS for its failure to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale in the manner proscribed by the statute.

Second Affirmative Defense: (Estoppel)

Each and every one of the Plaintiff’s alleged rights, claims, and obligations which it seeks to enforce against Defendant is, by Plaintiff’s conduct, agreement, or otherwise, barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

Third Affirmative Defense: (Fraud)

Plaintiff RRFS’s claims, and Nationstar’s claims, and each of them, are barred due to fraud.

Fourth AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: (Illegality)

Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a result of its prior wrongful conduct. The HOA sale at issue is void, as it involved agreements to commit illegal acts.

Fifth Affirmative Defense: (Waiver)

Each and all of Plaintiff’s rights, claims, and obligations as set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, has, or have, by conduct, agreement or otherwise been waived.

Sixth Affirmative Defense: (Failure to join the HOA as an alleged necessary party per to NRCP (b)(6))

Plaintiff alleged in its 6/23/20 motion to dismiss into A-19-799890-C that Nona Tobin’s failure to join the HOA as a necessary party under NRCP 19 to protect its interest in the proceeds was grounds pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(6) to dismiss her unjust enrichment claim against RRFS for failure to distribute the proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale.

In its 2/15/21 complaint for interpleader, RRFS falsely stated on page 3

10. In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law.

2/16/21 Red Rock interpleader complaint, page 3, paragraph 10
Seventh AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:(General and Equitable Defenses Applicable to All Claims)
  • Plaintiff has suffered no damages and, therefore, is not entitled to relief.
  • Plaintiff has suffered no harm as a result of Defendant NONA TOBIN’s conduct.
  • Any damages suffered by Plaintiff were not the direct or proximate result of Defendant NONA TOBIN’s actions. If Plaintiff sustained any injuries, economic or otherwise, its injuries were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages and/or to take corrective action.  Accordingly, any and all recovery is barred or should be limited to the extent or degree of Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
  • Plaintiff RRFS’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and Plaintiff RRFS’s failure to do equity.
  • Plaintiff RRFS’s claims, if valid, are offset by the claims which Defendant has against Plaintiff. Defendant is not jointly or severally liable for any of the damages alleged in the claims.
  • At all times, Defendant NONA TOBIN acted in a legally permissible way.
Eighth Affirmative Defense: (Priority)

Red Rock and its attorneys know there are no recorded liens with priority over Nona Tobin’s claim as an individual with a deed recorded on 3/28/17 the sole beneficiary and successor in interest to the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08.

Ninth Affirmative Defense: (False claims to title)
  1. RRFS recorded defective and unauthorized claims against title on 12/14/12, 3/12/13, 4/3/13, 4/8/13, and caused a foreclosure deed to be recorded that contained false recitals so Defendant’s right of redemption was not lost.
  2. RRFS knows that Nationstar has recorded multiple unauthorized, false, and conflicting claims regarding the Hansen deed of trust and is judicially estopped from claiming a portion of the proceeds.
  3. Exhibit 1 is the Clark County 2003-2021 property record for the subject property, APN 191-13-811-052,  with false claims identified.
Tenth Affirmative Defense: (Violation of Covenant of Good Faith – NRS 116.1113)

Plaintiff did not conduct a fair, valid sale; did not participate in mediation in good faith; falsified records to create the deception that mandatory notices had been sent, misappropriated the HOA’s money; filed the NRCP 22 interpleader complaint and the 6/23/20 motion to dismiss into A-19-799890-C in bad faith for the improper purpose of preventing judicial scrutiny of the evidence. See Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

Eleventh Affirmative Defense: (Equitable Doctrines)

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, unclean hands, and failure to do equity by obstructing judicial scrutiny of the evidence to evade detection of the criminal conspiracy, racketeering, bid suppression, and other fraudulent conduct of the co-conspirators; provided falsified evidence in response to subpoena; withheld and misrepresented materials facts; conspired with others to commit a fraud on the court.

Twelfth Affirmative Defense: (Acceptance)

Any acceptance of any portion of the excess proceeds does not “satisfy” the amount due and owing to  Defendant NONA TOBIN as the result of the unfair and fraudulent foreclosure sale conducted by RRFS, and acceptance would not constitute a waiver of her rights under Nevada law or Sun City Anthem’s governing documents.

Thirteenth Affirmative Defense: Waiver and Estoppel

By reason of Plaintiff RRFS’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff RRFS has waived its rights and is estopped from asserting any claims against NONA TOBIN, either as an individual or as the trustee of the Hansen Trust.

By reason of Plaintiff RRFS’s acts and omissions, and conspiracy with Nationstar, RRFS is judicially estopped from claiming that Nationstar has any rights to the proceeds, as it was never was the Hansen promissory noteholder or the beneficiary or the trustee with power of sale

 By virtue of its false evidence entered into the court record in response to subpoena, Plaintiff RRFS has waived its rights and is estopped from asserting that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish NONA TOBIN’s rights, privileges and title.

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment

Plaintiff RRFS concealed that it had covertly, unilaterally rejected two super-priority tenders, either one of which RRFS knows, voided the sale in its entirety.

RRFS 047, 8/28/14 memo to Steven Scow, and RRFS 048, 8/21/14 $57,282.32 check made out to Clark County District Court, were not interpleaded in 2014, were retained in the wrong trust fund, violated RRFS’s fiduciary duty as Sun City Anthem’s agent, and were deceptive disclosures, following the same corrupt modus operandi as Koch & Scow have employed with multiple other undistributed proceeds.

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense: (Failure to Mitigate Damages)

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because of the Plaintiffs’ failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense: Unconstitutional

The HOA sale is void as noncompliant with the Property Clause of the United States Constitution.

Defendant NONA TOBIN cannot be deprived of her property interest in violation of the Procedural Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sec. 8, of the Nevada Constitution.

Seventeenth Affirmative Defense: (Statutory Violations)

The HOA sale is void or otherwise does not operate to extinguish the title rights of Nona Tobin, an individual, as the successor in interest to the Hansen Trust or of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/2/08, property owner at the time of the defective HOA sale as the due process and notices required pursuant to NRS 116.31031 and/or NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31164 were provided to Nona Tobin prior to or subsequent to the sale and non-compliance with applicable Nevada statutes, inter alia, NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310, NRS 116.31162 -NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.1112, NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31087, NRS 116.31175, NRS 116.31185, NRS 116.31187, NRS 116.4117

Eighteenth Affirmative Defense: (Rejections of two super-priority payments)

RRFS and Nationstar concealed that RRFS covertly rejected Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s 5/28/14 offer to pay the HOA $1100 three months over the super-priority portion of the HOA lien to close the 5/8/14 $367,500 sale to MZK Properties to the HOA and/or its agents and therefore discharged the super-priority portion of the HOA’s lien, so that title by foreclosure passed to the buyer subject to the deed of trust.

Nineteenth Affirmative Defense:(Violations of HOA CC&Rs Owner Protections)

The HOA sale is void as noncompliant with the CC&Rs 7.4 Clause that defines the due process required before a sanction can be imposed against a homeowner for an alleged violation of the governing documents.

Litigation was only required because SCA’s manager, RRFS, and the HOA’s insurance carrier’s attorneys obstructed Nona Tobin’s access to the HOA CC&Rs XVI Limitations on Litigation provision. SeeWhy Alternate Dispute Resolution?”