1/11/16 Nationstar started by filing to quiet title vs. the wrong buyer.
Opportunity Homes LLC was disinterested. Two others had recorded deeds on 6/9/15
1/11/16 Nationstar also lied about how it became the beneficiary of the 1st deed of trust that was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA foreclosure sale.
Jimijack somehow already had a default judgment by suing disinterested Bank of America.
How could that happen?
There were TWO banks with recorded claims that BANA gave its beneficial interest to it:
9/9/14 BANA recorded it assigned its interest, if any, to Wells Fargo on 8/21/14
12/1/14 Nationstar recorded it had BANA’s unrecorded power of attorney to assign BANA’s interest, if any, to itself on 10/23/14
Nationstar didn’t file any claims against me as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust or as an individual .
Nationstar got summary judgment by claiming BANA gifted the $389,000 loan balance to it 3 months after BANA gifted it to Wells Fargo immediately after it was extinguished by the HOA foreclosure.
How did that happen?
Neither Jimijack nor Nationstar nor the HOA have any filed claims but all got summary judgment by getting my claims precluded and my evidence stricken and their fraud undetected
Nationstar quietly dismissed all its filed claims without adjudication on 2/20/19, 3/12/19, 4/23/19, and 5/31/19
Nationstar covertly recorded a rescission of its claim to be BANA’s successor in interest
Nationstar’s attorney and Jimijack’s attorney told the judge to ignore all my evidence because I wasn’t really a party
Hong concealed from the court Jimijack covertly dumped its inadmissible deed
Joel Stokes encumbered the property with $355,000 CVS loan to launder Nationstar’s pay off for releasing the lien of the 1st DOT
Nationstar’s attorneys knew that Nationstar rescinded its claim that got its 2/12/19 joinder granted and knew its 3/8/19 claim recorded after discovery ended was fraudulently executed by a robosigner
Nationstar’s attorneys knew the PUD Rider prohibited turning the rejection of assessments into a de facto foreclosure and that’s what they were doing by this trick
Akerman still went all in two days before the trial with the quid pro quo
None of the elements for quiet title were met at the 6/5/19 trial as no party was at the trial who had any interest in the title to protect, and all documentary evidence was unfairly excluded.
The necessary elements of a declaratory relief or quiet title claim are as follows:
(1) there must exist a justiciable controversy; that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy, that is to say, a legally protectable interest; and
(4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.
Kress v. Corey, 189 P.2d 352, 364 (Nev. 1948)
The elements for a claim of quiet title were NOT met in the 1st action.
No claims were properly adjudicated based on judicial scrutiny of verified evidence supporting claims by parties with STANDING.
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;
Multiple Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct were allegedly violated by the acts
Nationstar allegedly used amenable attorneys to violate multiple Nevada laws in pursuit of collecting on a debt it was not owed.
NRS 111.175 Conveyances made to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers are void.
NRS 111.180 Bona fide purchaser: Conveyance not deemed fraudulent in favor of bona fide purchaser unless subsequent purchaser had actual knowledge, constructive notice or reasonable cause to know of fraud.
NRS 207.360 “Crime related to racketeering” defined. 9. Taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery 18. Grand larceny 28. Obtaining possession of money or property valued at >$650, or obtaining a signature by false pretenses 30. Offering false evidence 35. Any violation of NRS 205.377.
NRS 207.470 Civil actions for damages resulting from racketeering.
NRS 42.005 Exemplary and punitive damages: the amount of award determination in a subsequent proceeding.
NRS 18.010(2) Award of attorney’s fees as special damages for frivolous meritless harassing claims
EDCR 7.60(b)(1)&(3) Sanctions for presenting frivolous unwarranted motion or opposition
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.
Multi-State Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rider – Single Family Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument limits a lender’s recovery to adding delinquent assessments paid to outstanding loan due plus interest at note rate; prohibits a de facto foreclosure
NRS 357.040 Liability for damages and civil penalty for False Claims. (a) presents a false claim (b) makes a false record to support fraudulent claim (h) benefits from & conceals falsity of the claim (i) conspires to act
I accepted a $367,500 high bid from MZK Residential LLC to sell the property on auction.com on 5/8/14.
Red Rock’s most recent payoff demand for the HOA was sent to Chicago Title on 3/28/14 when I accepted a $340,000 cash offer from Red Rock Regional Investments that Nationstar rejected.
Servicer Nationstar didn’t pay $4,962.64 Red Rock demanded although arguably that’s what the PUD Rider Remedies F. required to prevent an HOA foreclosure since Nationstar had not foreclosed on the 1st deed of trust.
If servicer Nationstar, or its predecessor servicer BANA had recorded a notice of default on the 7/22/04 1st deed of trust, the HOA could not have foreclosed. Since they did not, BANA’s and Nationstar’s dirty tricks with tendering super-priority offers instead of paying the HOA assessments in full, is circumventing the PUD Rider to get a de facto foreclosure when they know that no lender has standing to foreclose. This is mortgage servicing fraud. They are covering up that there is no lender with standing to foreclose, and all the recorded claims to create the phony paper trail warrants felonies if convicted criminally, primarily under NRS 205.395 and NRS 205.377.
6. The association may not foreclose a lien by sale if:(a) The unit is owner-occupied housing encumbered by a deed of trust;(b) The beneficiary under the deed of trust, the successor in interest of the beneficiary or the trustee has recorded a notice of default and election to sell with respect to the unit pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 107.080.
NRS116.31162(6)(2013)
5/28/14 Servicer Nationstar offered to pay one-year assessments $1,100 to close the $367,500 auction.com sale
Red Rock covertly rejected Nationstar’s super-priority tender without telling the Sun City Anthem Board it ever came, but I didn’t find this out until five years later when I read the response to subpoena because all the Red Rock, Nationstar, and SCA attorneys agreed to cover it up. The scam will unfold from here.
Red Rock did not comply with NRS 116A.640A (9) that prohibits an HOA from rejecting assessment payments because other amounts are due.
NRS 116A.640 Community manager prohibited from engaging in certain acts; exceptions. In addition to the standards of practice for community managers set forth in NRS 116A.630 and any additional standards of practice adopted by the Commission by regulation pursuant to NRS 116A.400, a community manager shall not:
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.
NRS 116A.640 (9)
Red Rock did not comply with NRS 116A.630(a)(1) requirement to act as a fiduciary to the HOA always
NRS 116A.630Standards of practice for community managers.In addition to any additional standards of practice for community managers adopted by the Commission by regulation pursuant to NRS 116A.400, a community manager shall: 1. Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, at all times: (a) Act as a fiduciary in any client relationship
NRS 116A.630(1)(a)
6/9/14 Red Rock fraudulently misrepresented the superpriority tender to the HOA Board as owner request for waiver
Red Rock then faked notices to me and to my agent that were never sent to say the nonexistent request was rejected.
SCA 276 shows the Board accepted it and gave a deadline of 7/15/14 that neither I nor my agent knew about in 2014.
Nationstar said the beneficiary rejected the auction.com $367,500 offer and to put it back on the market at $390,000
Another $358,800 offer was pending lender approval when without notice Red Rock sold it for $63,100 to an insider
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
Implicated Attorney Joseph Hong (SBN 5995) initiated the quiet title action by suing the wrong bank.
Joseph Hong violated NRPC 3.1 by filing the original 6/16/15 quiet title claim against Bank of America (BANA) on behalf of Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees for Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, supporting it with a fraudulently notarized, fatally defective deed, recorded on 6/9/15, that was void, inadmissible as evidence of title (NRS 111.345) and legally insufficient for holding or transferring title.
Hong knew the title claim was meritless because
1) Jimijack Irrevocable Trust actually took possession of the property as the second owner, nine months earlier on 9/25/14, according to the HOA’s ownership records, concealed and doctored in discovery, (RTR Pg. 1337),
2) the defendant BANA was disinterested as it had assigned its interest in the 1st deed of trust to Wells Fargo on 9/9/14.
Hong never filed any title claim against Wells Fargo who had the 9/9/14 recorded title claim until after the end of discovery in the 1st action.
Hong never filed a quiet title claim against Nationstar who held a recorded adverse, albeit worthless, claim to be the beneficiary from 12/1/14 to 3/8/19.
Hong never was required to produce any evidence of title for his clients despite
NRS 40.110Court 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.
Hong never recorded a lis pendens nor a summons to the interested parties despite
NRS 14.010 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Recording.
NRS 14.015 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Hearing; cancellation; bond.
NRS 14.017 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Transferability of property after withdrawal or cancellation.
Hong got BANA’s default by serving the wrong corporate address.
Hong filed no notice of entry of the default judgment against BANA.
Hong never filed any other claim and never answered any claims against any of his clients. They just collected rent without paying a mortgage for four years and then covertly transferred the deed before the trial and paid Akerman $355,000 to record a lien release to give the property free and clear to Joel Stokes by both Joel Stokes and Nationstar getting to skipp the trial and Nona Tobin as an individual and my evidence being barred from going to trial.
Hong filed no claims against me in either of my capacities, and he completely fabricated the story that I had not filed claims as an individual in the first action to cover up that he had orchestrated that ex parte hearing in order to get my pro se MSJ and evidence stricken by unappealable bench order so the court would not see that neither his clients nor Nationstar had any evidence of title. Red Rock and the HOA were glad to help them because Red Rock and the HOA knew that the HOA sale had not been properly approved by the HOA Board at an open meeting of the Board because Red Rock and the HOA attorneys and managers had been misinforming the HOA Board about what their requirements were for
Link to the PDF of the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Formal Complaint vs. Sidney Powell et al. for filing a complaint that alleged widespread voter fraud and sought to decertify the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Michigan Attorney Discipline Board correctly made 9 attorneys pay the victim $153,285 attorney fees incurred for defending against a baseless complaint
The City of Detroit filed a complaint to sanction attorneys whose unethical conduct damaged the City by their knowingly filing meritless claims to attempt to reverse the ceritified results of the 2020 election not supported by law or evidence.
The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, according to its legal duty to assist its State Supreme Court to govern the legal profession in Michigan, accepted the complaint, conducted an investigation, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, to support an order for the attorneys to pay the City of Detroit $153,285 that the City of Detroit had been forced to incur defending against this frivolous lawsuit.
Nevada allowed pro se victim to be declared vexatious litigant for objecting to accruing $36,210 in attorney fees to collect $57,282 wrongfully withheld from her for 8+ years
Nevada State Bar just refused all complaints at intake without investigation.
Victim Nona Tobin, President of Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., filed verified complaints to the State Bar of Nevada that were all fully supported by verified forensically audited documentary evidence. All cited specific provisions of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct that had been violated by specific actions taken by the named attorneys on specific dates. Many of the allegations specifically charged that the attorneys of concealing evidence of criminal conduct and recording false claims to title which would be felonies if convicted.
Assistant Bar Counsel Philip Pattee rejected all her complaints at intake without Nevada law: 1) the victim’s complaint must provide evidence that meets the clear and convincing standard and 2) the victim must provide the Bar Counsel with a court order that includes written findings of attorney misconduct before the Bar Counsel will open an investigation file or even send the matter to the attorney to require the attorney to refute the allegations in the complaint
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in Michigan Case should be emulated here
Quoted below is Forrest Quinn’s excellent NextDoor June 22, 2023 post about Adam Clarkson’s adding his own requirements for residents to serve on the SCA Board. Since I am the poster child of this particular form of homeowner abuse, I thought I’d give you the back story of how it all started and how much, much worse it’s become since 2017.
Backstory
Sun City Anthem was managed from the time it went from developer (Del Webb) control to “self-management” by a contract manager, FirstService Residential (FSR) that also held the Nevada NRS 649 debt collector license and using a wholly owned subsidiary doing business as Red Rock Financial Services was the HOA’s debt collector and foreclosure sale trustee. Remember that all HOA managers are fiduciaries by law even when they are performing debt collection functions. Attorneys are also supposed to be fiduciaries even when they are acting as HOA debt collectors. (You have to remember that because they have forgotten.)
During the transition to “self-management” Sandy Seddon was hired 11/1/15 to overlap with FSR as a shadow manager to transition the systems at a base salary of $250,000, $100,000 more than the Sun City Summerlin full-time manager who was hired at the same time. Many people objected, including me, when six months after she took over after FSR’s departure in late 2016, the Board gave her a $20,000 bonus. I went to the HOA office and found that we actually had a separate Community Association Manager, Lori Martin, besides Sandy Seddon who was called the General Manager at that time. I requested a copy of the HOA’s management performance compensation policies and to see if any market surveys that had been done to set her salary. CAM Martin informed me that there were no policies, that the Board had essentially unfettered discretion to set the pay. When I asked, “so they could pay her a million bucks a year?” The answer was yes.
I ran for the Board in 2017 and was elected on 5/1/17 with 2,001 votes. On the same day I took my elected Board seat, Adam Clarkson’s 1st unethical, improperly obtained contract to be Sun City Anthem’s (SCA’s) debt collector and legal counsel.
NRS 116.31086 requires that an HOA Board selects vendors by an open bid process contract bids. SCA Board put out an RFP for a new debt collector to replace FSR dba Red Rock in 2015 and after a full public evaluation of the competitors, selected Alessi & Koenig, LLC to be SCA’s debt collector.
In January 2017, I sent a recommendation to the SCA Board to fire the debt collector because Alessi & Koenig, LLC had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and they had misled the Board into modifying its contract to a successor entity that had been used to conceal assets from creditors. Instead of putting out a new RFP for a debt collector as required by NRS 116.31086 or even thanking me, Seddon and the Board ignored me.
I filed an application for the Board on 2/5/17, and Lori Martin told me I had to put on my conflict of interest form that I had filed a civil complaint to quiet title of my late fiance’s home that Red Rock had wrongfully foreclosed three years earlier without notice after Red Rock rejected multiple assessment offers that cured the delinquency and had unlawfully kept virtually all the sale proceeds. I told her I wanted the HOA to work with me to settle at no cost without litigation because the HOA shouldn’t cover up the former agents’ wrongdoing. My interest in the Board was to assist SCA become a first-time employer to set up personnel performance, accountability, transparency and compensation policies as that was my professional expertise.
The opinion of SCA’s legal counsel of the time interpreted NRS 116.31034 to allow me to run for the Board so Seddon got the Board to select a new General Legal Counsel for the HOA at the April 2017 meeting before the next Board was seated.
SCA’s litigation attorney in my quiet title/excess proceeds case agreed to settlement negotiations in March 2017 that I had initiated to attempt to achieve a mutually-beneficial resolution of the wrongful foreclosure action at no cost to SCA or to me before the 5/1/17 SCA Board election.
Rather than allow me to have my rights under SCA CC&Rs XVI: ADR & Limitation on Litigation, and for no good purpose, SCA management changed the litigation attorney to one who rejected my 3/22/17 no cost settlement offer unilaterally without taking it to the SCA Board for approval and without consideration of the best interests of the Bound parties.
Seddon, in concert with my competitor for one of the vacant 2017 Board seats, Board President Rex Weddle, orchestrated another unlawful manipulation of NRS 116.31086 before the 2017 election to bring Clarkson in as SCA’s debt collector without an RFP and without agendizing the Board action to do so at the April 2017 meeting before the new Board was seated.
Once Clarkson started at SCA with the power of two highly incompatible roles on the same day as I was seated in my elected position, the relentless campaign to keep information from me, to treat me differently from other Board members ensued.
At my first SCA Board meeting, Clarkson got the Board in closed session (after removing me) to order me to recuse myself from all collection matters regardless of whether there was any relationship whatsoever to the 2014 wrongful foreclose conducted without valid SCA Board approval at an open Board meeting by SCA’s former agents who had unlawfully kept $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the sale that belonged to me.
Even though I knew NRS 116.31084 defines how a Board member recuses herself if there is a conflict, I didn’t argue because I expected the litigation could be quickly settled, not realizing that Clarkson and the new litigation attorney were going to obstruct the litigation.
Clarkson and the litigation attorney not only refused to produce SCA’s enforcement records, SCA Board agendas and minutes, or any of SCA’s official records of probative value to my case, but instead produced the unverified, uncorroborated, incomplete, inaccurate and falsified records of SCA’s former agent Red Rock, misrepresenting them to the Court as if they were SCA’s official records.
Clarkson’s obstruction of my litigation and my Board service conceals a corrupt system he wants to perpetuate
I was forced into litigation, and then my litigation obstructed to cover up that SCA’s former agents, FSR as manager, and FSR dba Red Rock, as debt collector, in 2014, secretly sold, and unlawfully kept nearly all the proceeds from, a dozen SCA homes to a hand full of insider speculators, for a fifth of their value, without approval at an open Board meeting as required by our bylaws 3.15 and 3.15A, for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments, without publishing the quarterly delinquency report required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v), without any without the same notice as the SCA Board is required by CC&Rs 7.4 and bylaws 3.26 to provide when issuing a fine or sanction of any amount.
The core issue is HOA homeowners have rights that are guaranteed to us as the intentional beneficiaries of our HOA’s governing documents, independent of what the state law says. And independent of what Clarkson and the other CAI lobbyist attorneys say.
My problem with all the attorneys against me in the litigation is the attorneys who are supposed to be fiduciaries to the HOA, and to the homeowners as the intentional beneficiaries of the HOA for which it exists, don’t view things that way. They view themselves as representing other interests.
Clarkson’s perspective appears to be that he is a Super-Director above the Board and above the law “I am the attorney. I decide the law. You are required to act solely “on the advice of counsel”. You are prohibited from acting contrary to the attorney’s edicts. He frequently acts in his own self-interest because he has the conflicting role of being a debt collector and a particularly greedy attorney so he makes up rules to decrease transparency. He changes the wording on policies here and there to change so they don’t apply to him or Sedddon, just very sneaky, but blatantly, very non-fiduciary things, as working for the sole and exclusive best interest of the common good of the HOA membershi is the farthest thing from his mind.
The HOA litigation attorney David Ochoa I think actually works for the HOA’s insurance company. He is definitely not working in the interest of the HOA or the HOA homeowner. He was protecting SCA’s former agents because the more liability that can be kept on the backs of the owners the less there is on the insurance company. Just a theory. He’s the one who refused to settle because my claims were similar to the bank’s, but no bank ever filed a claim aginst SCA in this case nor against me for that matter. But somehow without the HOA having any interest in the title and never having filed any claims against me got summary judgment to quiet title by filing an absolutely unnecessary motion for summary judgment against me when there was zero interest of the HOA served by so doing.Further, he did so, after concealing all the HOA’s records of probative value and presenting the Red Rock falsified records as if they were SCA’s. Both HOA attorneys and the Red Rock attorney concealed the applicable 4/27/12 debt collection contract that had an indemnity clause favorable to SCA and the homeowners, and Ochoa disclosed the 2007 contract that shows SCA has to indemnify Red Rock. Since Clarkson refused to discuss why that indemnification provision was not enforced, SCA homeowners were on the hook for $87,000+ legal fees for litigation related to pre 2016 foreclosures that Red Rock should have paid.
Forrest Quinn asked on 1/30/23 if SCA management was trying to discourage residents from running for the SCA Board.
On 1/31/23 Clarkson sent me his 7th notice of my ineligibility to run for SCA Board.
Interpretation of NRS 116
Note that the way Forrest Quinn interprets NRS 116.31034 is the same way anybody who can read English interprets it.
I filed complaints to the State Bar to sanction multiple attorneys for what they have done that damaged both me & SCA by acting in their own self-interest instead of as fiduciaries.
The State Bar rejected the complaint at intake without investigation, telling me only to come back if I had a court order with written findings that established attorney misconduct.
I prepared five draft complaints to file civil actions to request a judge provide written findings, and gave Clarkson and each of the other implicated attorneys, a notice of intent to give them an opportunity to refute the VERY SERIOUS and fully documented accusations against them which they simply ignored.
Since I am still in litigation over the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the 8/15/14 foreclosure, I filed a motion for an order to show cause to this judge requesting that she consider the five uninvestigated Bar complaints supported by forensically-audited evidence showing that these attorneys knowingly misrepresented both the law and the facts to multiple courts in order to unfairly alter the standing of the parties and to change the outcome of the proceedings and then drafted the orders for the judge to say that the false facts were undisputed and the law was correct.
How Clarkson and attorneys for HOA servicers are stripping my rights to rise above the law
Basically, what happened in my case would be equivalent to a malicious prosecution in the Jim Crow era where a white attorney and a white Sheriff doctor the evidence to frame a black man, and the white judge signs the order to put the black man to death without checking the evidence by simply overruling the black man’s black attorney. Appeals are futile because the order is written that the evidence was corroborated six ways to Sunday and everything the white officers of the court say was beyond a reasonable doubt and the court record showed a vote of 12-0 by a non-existent jury.
I am now fighting a vexatious litigant restrictive order, entered on 3/28/23, that prohibits me from any unrestricted filing of ANY civil complaint in ANY Nevada court against ANY defendant for ANY cause of action unless I pay an attorney to represent me.
Not likely I’m going to hire another attorney after firing three of them, and after I’ve already incurred over $400,000 in litigation expenses over the past seven years, unsuccessfully trying to void the wrongful foreclosure and without getting my $57,282.32 excess proceeds with interest and penalties that’s been unlawfully withheld from me for nearly nine years now simply because I am trying to void the sale and my opponents and trying to cover it up.
In the vexatious litigant restrictive order, the judge’s findings were 100% in favor of the attorneys (big surprise). She “found”, based on no consideration of facts supported by verified evidence in the court record, in an order drafted by one of the implicated attorneys, that my complaints were frivolous and devoid of any legal or factual merit and that my intent for filing them was improper and solely for the purpose of harassing the (presumably innocent) attorneys in the title dispute.
The Governor signed SB 417 on 6/9/23. Boon to HOA management. Woe to owners.
Hardly anybody knows that all Nevada HOA homeowners’ right to control their budgets has been diminished by Clarkson and Seddon keeping their pay a secret from those who pay it.
SB 417 text shows a change to NRS 116.31175, successfully lobbied for by Community Association Institute (CAI) lobbyist and SCA allegedly fiduciary legal counsel/debt collector Clarkson. This states that HOA homeowners no longer have a right, previously guaranteed by state law, to ask HOA management for records that show how much any employee is being paid either per hour or according to the terms of an employment agreement.
There is no benefit to any HOA in the state of Nevada to have a ridiculous provision like this, any more than there would be a benefit to any city in Nevada for the legislature to have passed a rule that said that management could keep half of the budget a secret from the taxpayers.
This opens the door for a massive amount of corruption and stupidity, and there was simply no proper purpose for it except to cover up that Sandy Seddon is still being paid double what her job is worth to the SCA assessment payers, and she and Adam Clarkson are going to “vet” everybody off the Board who says so.
Thanks to Clarkson, SB 417 allows for the Ombudsman to refuse to investigate and allows for people to be kept off the Board for up to 10 years if accused of something
An April 11, 2023 article in the Nevada Current reported Clarkson’s saying some of us just aren’t “good people”
How does this all fit together?
It’s simply a power grab to abridge HOA homeowners’ rights for the unjust enrichment of HOA servicers represented by the CAI lobbyist Clarkson.
I complained in 2017 about HOA agents and managers telling the Board that the Board had to do certain things in closed meetings: 1) the former agents told the HOA Board falsely everything about foreclosure had to be done in closed meetings, but that was false. I said so, and Clarkson kicked me off the Board, obstructed my case from getting the evidence, and conspired with the former agents to lie to the court so I couldn’t win on appeal; 2) Clarkson said the Board could meet in closed meetings every month and pretty much disregard what the law said about the only permissible topics and he was the sole arbiter of what the law was and so by getting a vote of the other six members of the Board at a closed session hen he “declared my seat was IMMEDIATELY vacant by operation of (some unspecified and unknown ) law” given that NRS 116.31036 removal election is the only legal way to remove someone from the Boardhe did so in retaliation to my submitting notices of intent to file complaints against Clarkson to the State Bar and against Seddon for concealing records and working without a proper management contract and against the Board for harassment and bullying because I had complained about their interference in the recall election. It’s been one retaliatory act after another for years, incrementally, a few tiny word changes in an SCA Board policy here, a few false statements in a court order, joined by other attorneys, that describe them as uncontroverted there, then a barely noticed bill through the biennial State legislature masquerading as raising $10 limit on an information request that in really a means to eliminate transparency about HOA management compensation and a means to disenfranchise HOA homeowners for 10 years and eliminate the Ombudsman for Owners in Common Interest Communities’ duty to investigate complaints, as Clarkson says, “even if they are true”. After all, the complainer is obviously not a good person.
Clarkson and Seddon have defamed me by making false claims that I am ineligible to serve on the Board nonsensically because of things I allegedly put before the Board from which I stood to make a profit. The list is longer each year and the reasons are false and frequently use the DARVO technique. Deny – Attack-Reverse -Victim -Offender.
SB 417, vexatious litigant restrictive order, SLAPP, DARVO, Clarkson’s alternative facts version of the law to “vet” me off Board for 7 years, suppression and falsification of HOA evidence that proves predatory practices that Clarkson is perpetuating, lying to court, and defamation are just some of the techniques these attorneys have used to silence me as a whistleblower and to give undue power to HOA servicers who are supposed to be fiduciaries.
A bill sponsored by the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee seeks to rein in Nevadans who lawmakers say are harassing and demanding too much of their homeowners’ associations and management companies.
“Some of the actions that we’ve taken to protect HOA members have gone a little too far and expose executive board members and their employees to harassment,” including death threats and vandalism, Sen. Melanie Scheible said as she presented Senate Bill 417 to the committee Tuesday. “They’ve also put expensive demands on boards to fulfill unit owners’ requests for records that sometimes have no bearing on the issue at hand.”
Senate Bill 417 removes the current $10 cap community managers may charge homeowners for record inspection, and allows them to charge actual costs.
Laurie Berger, a community association manager in Reno, testified one homeowner’s request took 65 hours for her staff to process.
Samuel Covelli, a retired corrections officer in Las Vegas, says he was “stonewalled” when he asked his HOA for financial information.
“I’m sure there are good HOA boards. I’m sure there are good management companies. I’m sure there are good attorneys in the community representing people,” he testified.”But this whole process is horribly slanted against a homeowner. I’ll take some of the blame for not paying attention to what went on in my HOA for 20 years.”
The bill allows an association to ban a homeowner from serving on an HOA board for up to 10 years for filing a vexatious, defamatory, or false complaint with the state, and allows board members or staff to use HOA funds to recover compensatory damages, attorneys fees, and costs from a person who takes “retaliatory action,” as determined by the State Real Estate Division.
Las Vegas homeowner Michael Kosor says the measure is an assault on the First Amendment and serves to chill opposition to HOA governance. He says it’s also “a rainmaker for the attorneys and management companies.”
Kosor says defamatory speech is already prohibited. The legislation, he says, allows the association to determine what is defamatory and gives the association “the ability to censor free speech based on opposing positions from that of the board.”
Southern Highland’s developer Garry Goett’s OIympia Companies sued Kosor for defamation over statements made on-line and in-person at HOA meetings. Kosor prevailed before the Nevada Supreme Court.
“I’m a retired Air Force colonel fighter pilot with combat experience in the Gulf War,” Kosor testified Tuesday. “This experience defending the attacks of this developer on my family’s financial future was in total the most stressful experience of my life.”
Kosor contends Goett has erroneously maintained control of the Southern Highlands board. He’s presented what he says is evidence to the state, but NRED has refused to investigate. SB 417 would codify the state’s ability to pick and choose investigations.
“There’s an imbalance of power between homeowners and homeowners associations and management companies,” Las Vegan Howard McCarley testified in opposition to the bill. “Extensive financial resources are available to associations and managers. Residents are on their own.”
Adam Clarkson of the Common Associations Institute, the lobbying arm of HOA management companies, says the state’s Real Estate Division receives “a lot of complaints from people that are just routine fighters,” and noted the bill would allow boards to prevent those people from serving on the board.
“They are not the kind of people who should be on the board,” Clarkson said. “They are not good people.”
The measure would also give the state the ability to ignore some complaints.
“Even if the facts are true, NRED doesn’t have to investigate it,” Clarkson of the Community Association Institute testified.
Kosor says the government should advance HOA transparency “and encourage greater participation of owners in their HOAs. This bill does the opposite.”
Generally speaking, only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court . See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944); Root Refin. Co. v. Universal Oil Products, 169 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1948); 7 J.W. Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 60.33 at 510-11.
Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 n.2 (Nev. 1981)
Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 n.2 (Nev. 1981) (“”[I]n order to set aside a judgment or order because of fraud upon the court under Rule 60(b) . . . it is necessary to show an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.” England v. Doyle, supra, 281 F.2d at 309. See also United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 73 F.R.D. 612, 615 (N.D.Cal. 1977).”)
Fraud directed at the “judicial machinery” can mean conduct that fraudulently coerces or influences the court itself or a member of the court, such that the impartial nature of the court has been compromised.Bulloch v.United States,721F.2d 713,718 (10th Cir.1983).
Lepp v. Yuba Cnty., No. 2:17-cv-1317-KJM-EFB PS, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) (“”Fraud on the court” is “fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner.” Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1989).”)
Estate of Adams ex rel. Estate v. Fallini, 386 P.3d 621, 625-26 (Nev. 2016) (“However, counsel violates his duty of candor to the court when counsel: (1) proffers a material fact that he knew or should have known to be false, see generallySierra Glass & Mirror v . Viking Indus., Inc. , 107 Nev. 119, 125–26, 808 P.2d 512, 516 (1991) (providing that counsel committed fraud upon the court “in violation of SCR 172(1)(a) and (d)” when he proffered evidence and omitted pertinent portions of a document to “buttress” his client’s argument, and that he “knew or should have known” that the omitted portion was harmful to his client’s position); cf.Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank , 982 N.E.2d 299, 310–11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (providing that under FRCP 60(b)(3), a party alleging fraud or misrepresentation must demonstrate that “the opposing party knew or should have known from the available information that the representation made was false, and … the misrepresentation was made with respect to a material fact which would change the trial court’s judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)); and (2) relies upon the admitted false fact to achieve a favorable ruling, seeKupferman v. Consol. Research & Mfg. Corp. , 459 F.2d 1072, 1078–79 (2d Cir. 1972) (holding that counsel pursuing case with known complete defense could be fraudulent, where defense was unknown to the court, or, apparently, unknown to the defending parties); see also Conlon v. United States , 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007) ”)
Ehrenberg v. Roussos (In re Roussos), 541 B.R. 721, 729 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015) (“Most fraud on the court cases involve a scheme by one party to hide a key fact from the court and the opposing party. For example, in Levandera corporate officer testified in a deposition that the corporation had not sold its assets, and a bankruptcy court subsequently entered a judgment against only the corporation. Levander,180 F.3d at 1116–17. It turned out that the corporation had in fact transferred all of its assets to a related partnership. Id. We held that the false testimony constituted fraud on the court, and the bankruptcy court was allowed to amend its order to include the partnership as an additional party to the judgment. Id.at 1122–23.”)
Could Judge Peterson fairly adjudicate this last order given that claims of fraud on the court attorney misconduct triggered the unwarranted restrictive order?
“”A judge is presumed to be impartial, and the party asserting the challenge carries the burden of establishing sufficient factual grounds warranting disqualification.” Rippo v. State, 113 Nev. 1239, 1248, 946 P.2d 1017, 1023 (1997). Under Nevada law, a judge must be disqualified whenever her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” NCJC Rule 2.11(A), which presents an objective inquiry: “whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would harbor reasonable doubts about [the judge’s] impartiality,” Ybarra v. State, 127 Nev. 47, 51, 247 P.3d 269, 272 (2011) (quoting PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 431, 438, 894 P.2d 337, 341 (1995)). Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires disqualification “when, objectively speaking, ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge . . . is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.'” Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905, 907 (2017) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)).”
Would a reasonable person think this conduct was impartial?
not establishing that the interpleader action was filed in good faith
refuse to resolve the interpleader action presented in 2021 by holding an evidentiary hearing
dismissed unanswered claims of conversion
not dismissing Nationstar and Wells Fargo when they failed to file a mandatory counter-claim for the proceeds and failed to file a timely answer to cross-claims
refusing to allow their default to be taken
6. filing an order to show cause to get rid of the third-party complaint against attorneys
holding the hearing anyway even after the voluntary dismissal order was signed
who had no standing to hold an ex parte hearing with the attorneys for Tobin’s opponents
Would a reasonable person think she kept an open mind to the evidence?
[S]o long as a judge remains open-minded enough to refrain from finally deciding a case until all of the evidence has been presented, remarks made by the judge during the course of the proceedings will not be considered as indicative of disqualifying bias or prejudice.”
Wharff v. State, No. 72185 (Nev. App. Dec. 19, 2018)
“Disqualification is required when “a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would harbor reasonable doubts about [the judge’s] impartiality.” Id.; see also NRS 1.230; Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1905 (2016) (“The Court asks not whether a judge harbors an actual, subjective bias, but instead whether, as an objective matter, the average judge in his position is likely to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional potential for bias.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).”
Brofman v. The Eighth Judicial District court of the State, No. 85299-COA (Nev. App. Oct. 7, 2022)
“Generally, a judge’s remarks “made in the context of a court proceeding are not considered indicative of improper bias or prejudice unless they show that the judge has closed his or her mind to the presentation of all the evidence.””
Warner v. Dillon, 92 Nev. 677, 679 (Nev. 1976) (“In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court is required to accept as true all evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom presented by the plaintiff. Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682 (1962).”)
“However, in deciding whether to dismiss a complaint pursuant to NRCP 12 (b)(5), “[a]ll allegations pled must be accepted as true.” Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 674, 856 P.2d 560, 563 (1993). As * attr(page-number) Bergmann makes clear, the dispositive resolution of questions of fact is not a part of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings.
Brinson v. Jackson, No. CV412-105, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2013) (“the Court can only grant a dismissal motion if it is legally supported”)
A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading, so a plaintiff is free to amend his complaint to eliminate questions about its legal sufficiency, the 4th DCA said.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12 governs federal motions to dismiss. A defendant making a motion to dismiss must do so before filing an answer or other responsive pleading, and the motion is generally due when the defendant’s answer would have been due (see FRCP 12(b)).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Manuela Rubio v. Nevada, 124 Nev. 1032, 1044 (Nev. 2008) (“As other jurisdictions have required, we recognize that district courts should hold an evidentiary hearing for colorable claims of affirmative misrepresentation.”)
A failure to plead with sufficient particularity does not warrant a dismissal of the action with prejudice”.”
Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 (Nev. 1981) (“Although appellant has not stated the claimed fraud with particularity and thus has failed to comply with NRCP 9(b) upon the authority of Savage v. Salzmann, supra, “A failure to plead with sufficient particularity does not warrant a dismissal of the action with prejudice”.”)
A motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5) is subject to a rigorous standard of review on appeal
Nevada Power Co. v. Haggerty, 115 Nev. 353, 358 (Nev. 1999) (“In reviewing orders granting motions to dismiss, this court considers whether the challenged pleading sets forth allegations sufficient to establish the elements of a right to relief. Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 109 Nev. 789, 792, 858 P.2d 380, 381 (1993). In making its determination, this court is to accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id. at 792, 858 P.2d at 381 (citing Marcoz v. Summa Corporation, 106 Nev. 737, 739, 801 P.2d 1346, 1347 (1990)).”)
A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading, so a plaintiff is free to amend his complaint to eliminate questions about its legal sufficiency
Seput v. Lacayo, 122 Nev. 499, 501 (Nev. 2006) (“A motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5) is subject to a rigorous standard of review on appeal. “All factual allegations in the complaint are [viewed] as true, and all inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party.” Further, “[a] complaint should only be dismissed if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Dismissal is proper where the allegations are insufficient to establish the elements of a claim for relief.” The district court’s conclusions of law are subject to our de novo review.”)
Squires v. Sierra Nev. Educational Found, 107 Nev. 902, 905 (Nev. 1991) (“The standard of review for dismissals under NRCP 12(b)(5) is rigorous. The court “must construe the pleading liberally and draw every fair intendment in favor of the [appellant].” Merluzzi v. Larson, 96 Nev. 409, 411, 610 P.2d 739, 741 (1980) (citing San Diego Prestressed Concrete Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Corp., 92 Nev. 569, 573, 555 P.2d 484, 487 (1976)). However, the appellant must have presented some relevant legal authority in support of his contention. Plankinton v. Nye County, 95 Nev. 12, 588 P.2d 1025 (1979). In addition, all factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Hynds Plumbing v. Clark Co. Sch. Dist., 94 Nev. 776, 777, 587 P.2d 1331, 1332 (1978).”)
Mesi v. Mesi, 478 P.3d 366, 371 (Nev. 2020) (“Although efficiency is normally “best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged,” see Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 128 Nev. 635, 649, 289 P.3d 201, 210 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), the situation is different when a court has already decided to defer jurisdiction and is only choosing whether to stay or dismiss. Cf. id. at 649 n.5, 289 P.3d at 210 n.5 (noting that “courts occasionally find a stay will in fact promote judicial efficiency”). If the first-filed suit is dismissed, the second court’s stay can be lifted and the action can proceed without the need for a wasteful new filing. See Alltrade , 946 F.2d at 629. Conversely, if the first court determines that it does have jurisdiction, the second action can be dismissed without difficulty. See id.”)
On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it.
Below is my statement of intent which was to clearly show that my claims had been obstructed and never fully heard due to the misconduct of my opponents.
The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence
Summary of 2/23/22 and 2/28/22 Bar complaints against Nationstar’s attorneys
Nationstar’s attorneys: Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP
Melanie Morgan (SBN 8215) Akerman LLP
2/28/22 Complaint to State Bar vs. Nationstar’s attorneys: Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP and
2/23/22 Complaint to Bar vs. Nationstar attorneys Melanie Morgan (SBN 8215) Akerman
Nationstar’s attorneys: Melanie Morgan, Managing Partner Akerman LLP and Wright Finlay Zak, LLP lied about Nationstar being owed a debt; lied about Nationstar having any standing to file a quiet title claim. Abused the HOA quiet title litigation process multiple times as a corrupt business model, representing different lenders who did not NRS 104.3301 standing to foreclose on the 1st deeds of trust they were lying about owning.
The most critical material facts knowingly misrepresented by all of Nationstar’s attorneys related to the assignments and reconveyance of the 1st deed of trust that was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA sale: 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
4/12/12 ASSIGN MERS to BANA by BANA – could not transfer interest:
1) assignment to BANA was void as it was robo-signed days after BANA signed a 4/4/12 consent decree agreeing not to robo-sign documents to fake ownership of loans that basically had been securitized out of existence;
2) also void because there is no notary record of it (NRS 111.240);
3) also void because non-compliant with Nevada’s anti-foreclosure fraud law (AB 284 (2011)
9/9/14 ASSIGN BANA to Wells Fargo by BANA – could not transfer interest:
1) assignment is void as BANA’s 4/12/12 assignment to itself above was void;
2) assignment was recorded almost a month after the deed of trust was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA sale;
3) servicing banks BANA’s and Nationstar’s failure to record a notice of default on the 7/22/04 deed of trust constitutes a waiver of any right it may have to use the property as security for the Hansen promissory note;
4) servicers’ failure to record a notice of default was the direct and proximate cause of the HOA sale because an HOA is prohibited from foreclosing if a lender has recorded a notice of default on the 1st deed of trust (NRS 116.31162(6)(2013)
12/1/14 ASSIGN BANA to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest:
1) void because BANA had no interest to assign on 12/1/14;
2) void because it was actually a self-assignment executed without authority by Nationstar;
3) void because Nationstar did not record or disclose a properly executed power of attorney from BANA;
4) void because Nationstar rescinded it a week after the end of discovery in the 1st action
3/8/19 ASSIGN Wells Fargo to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest:
1) void because Wells Fargo had no interest to assign to Nationstar;
2) void because Nationstar’s robo-signer executed it without authority;
3) void because Nationstar recorded it after the end of discovery in the 1st action;
4) void because Nationstar prevailed in the 1st action by filing a non-meritorious joinder on 2/12/19 claiming to be BANA’s successor in interest and then two weeks later rescinding that claim and then after the end of discovery recording a new robo-signed claim to be Wells Fargo’s successor in interest;
5) Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that either it or Wells Fargo is the beneficiary due to its repeated conflicting claims regarding when and from whom it acquired its claimed interest;
6) Nationstar admitted i n discovery two days after this robo-signed assignment was executed on 2/25/19 that Nationstar was then, and always had been since 12/1/13, only the servicer, never the beneficiary.
3/8/19 RESCIND 12/1/14 BANA to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest as it was rescinding a void assignment:
1) this rescission was done in bad faith a week after discovery ended after Nationstar learned that Tobin could prove that it was lying about being the beneficiary as BANA’s successor in interest; 2) this was executed by Nationstar robo-signer Mohamed Hammed posing as if he were the V-P of BANA;
3) In the months following this rescission, Nationstar persisted in its false claim that the sale was valid to extinguish Tobin’s interest by was void to extinguish the interest Nationstar was lying about owning as the successor of BANA
6/3/19 RECONVEY Hansen DOT to Joel Stokes – not to the borrower’s estate – by Nationstar
1) void because Nationstar did not have the legal authority to reconvey the deed of trust to anyone, let alone to a non-party two days before the quiet title trial in the 1st action;
2) void as Nationstar claimed to be both the trustee and the beneficiary when in fact it was neither and therefore had no legal authority to record a reconveyance (NRS 205.395);
3) Nationstar could not have been both the trustee and the beneficiary as NRS 107.028(2) prohibits it;
4) void as it was a fraudulent transfer (NRS 111.175) to consummate the $355,000 devil’s pact between Nationstar and Jimijack recorded on 5/23/19;
5) underlying deal with Joel Stokes is void as the attorneys misrepresented it as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims to the court to gain its imprimatur fraudulently;
5) void as the Nationstar-Joel Stokes deal excluded Tobin as a necessary party (NRCP 19, NRS 30.130) as she was denied the opportunity to defend her 3/28/17 deed;
6) void as the lien was released as a quid pro quo to steal Tobin’s property by obstructing her claims from being heard on their merits;
7) void as this was recorded when Tobin as an individual and as the Hansen Trust trustee had pending quiet title claims against Jimijack to void the defective HOA sale subject to the deed of trust, i.e., Jimijack’s deed was defective and inadmissible as evidence of title (NRS 111.345) and so if Tobin’s claims had been heard on the merits, Jimijack would have lost. Nationstar knew that Tobin knew it did not have standing to foreclose on her if the title was unwound to put her and Nationstar back as if the sale had never happened. The ONLY way they could both win was to obstruct Tobin’s case from being heard and tell the court that they settled the title dispute out of court.
7) void as Nationstar never produced any evidence that it had any legal right to collect $355,000 in exchange for releasing a lien it did not own;
7) underlying deal with Joel Stokes is void as Nationstar dismissed all its quiet title claims without adjudication;
8) void as Nationstar essentially confiscated Tobin’s property without foreclosure and without adjudication, by lying about being the beneficiary and abusing the HOA quiet title litigation process to collect on a debt it was not owed.
9) void as Nationstar circumvented the restrictions of the PUD Rider Remedies (F) to turn the alleged payment of delinquent HOA assessments into a de facto foreclosure without notice of due process required by NRS 107.080.
Summary of Bar Complaint against Melanie Morgan
1. Met ex parte with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19 after serving notice on all parties through the court’s e-file Odyssey system on 4/15/19 and 4/22/19 that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19 (NCJC 2.9, NRPC 8.4 and ABA standard 6.31(b))
2. As the managing partner over multiple subordinate attorneys, and as the successor of Nationstar’s and BANA’s prior attorneys, Wright, Finley, Zak, perpetrated fraud on the court
by misrepresenting to the court the material facts, (e.g., 1) that Nationstar was owed a debt from the 7/22/04 deed of trust that was extinguished by the disputed 8/15/14 HOA sale,
2) that Nona Tobin had not been granted leave to intervene as an individual
3) that Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed did not give her NRS 40.010 standing anyway
4) that the HOA sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the lien),
5) changed attorneys to create plausible deniability, e.g., removed Karen Whelan after Joe Coppedge asked Nationstar in 2018 to join Tobin in an MSJ to void the sale in its entirety
6) in A-21-828840-C when Nationstar was going to have to respond to Tobin’s claim that it was judicially estopped from claiming to be owed a debt from the Hansen 7/22/04 deed of trust),
7) concealed inculpatory evidence (e.g., all Equator records, communications between Nationstar and Tobin or Nationstar and Red Rock or Nationstar and Wells Fargo) on these dates: 5/15/18, 12/10/18, 2/7/19, 2/12/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/21/19, 2/21/19, 2/27/19, 2/28/19, 2/28/19, 3/7/19, 3/12/19, 3/12/19, 3/18/19, 3/21/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/12/19, 4/15/19, 4/19/19, 4/22/19, 4/23/19, 4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/3/19, 5/21/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 5/31/19, 6/24/19, 6/24/19, 6/25/19, 7/1/19, 7/22/19, 6/25/20, 8/11/20, 4/9/21, 4/26/21, 5/3/21, 5/5/21, 8/19/21, 11/9/21, 11/15/21, 11/16/21, 11/23/21, 11/30/21.
3. In conspiracy with Joseph Hong, made a fraudulent side deal with Joel A. Stokes, that a) was mischaracterized to the court (5/21/19 transcript) status check-settlement documents) as a “Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims” that was recorded on 5/23/19, and
b) which allowed Nationstar to be dismissed from the quiet title trial
c) so it did not have to produce any evidence to support its quiet title claim
and d) evaded either Nationstar or Jimijack having to refute Tobin’s quiet title claims on their merits.
2/23/22 Bar complaint filed against Melanie Morgan Petitioner’s 84371 appendix volume 27 (22-08189) (pages 4045-4154) was supported by exhibits of multiple unadjudicated administrative claims against Nationstar and Akerman.
On 2/23/22, Tobin, as the President of Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., filed a complaint against Nationstar’s attorney, Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP (“WFZ”) that initiated Nationstar’s meritless quiet title complaint. The bar complaint is filed concurrently as a Request for Judicial Notice because it their duplicitous filings are the corrupt foundation of this dispute. However, they ceased to be Nationstar’s attorneys on 4/10/18 when Akerman took over.
Assisting lenders to cheat homeowners is WFZ’s business model.
Movant requests the court determine if written findings against the WFZ attorneys separate from Nationstar are appropriate given that the four-year statute of limitations for complaints to be addressed by the Bar has passed, but the five-year statute of limitations for racketeering has not.
On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it. Below is my statement of intent.
The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence
Summary of 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Red Rock attorney Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC
Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC is the attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that conducted the disputed HOA foreclosure sale usurping the statutory authority of the HOA.
Scow knew that this critical case-concluding phrase in the 4/18/19 order was false, “The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.
Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Scow himself produced, Scow and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 6/23/20, 8/3/20, 8/11/20, 4/16/21, 4/27/21, 4/29/21, 5/11/21, 8/19/21, 10/22/21, 11/16/21, 12/28/21, 1/19/22, 5/25/22, 6/13/22.
The 3/1/22 complaint overview to the Bar vs. Scow and table of contents of exhibits are quoted here:
3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906) is quoted/summarized here:
Steven Scow, the subject of this instant complaint, represents Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132), that secretly sold my late fiancé’s house allegedly at a properly noticed and conducted HOA sale.
Steven Scow produced false evidence and concealed inculpatory evidence in response to my 2/4/19 subpoena that was relied on by the court to grant a meritless motion for summary judgment for quiet title by the HOA (even though the HOA had no interest in the title to protect). Upon information and belief, the HOA filed the motion for improper purposes, i.e., to cover up the fraudulent conduct of the sale and/or to retaliate against me for being a whistleblower.
The HOA’s motion, and Nationstar’s equally meritless joinder, were granted by the order entered on 4/18/19 by the court’s relying solely on Steven Scow-produced Red Rock’s unverified, uncorroborated, and sometimes blatantly falsified, foreclosure record.
Steven Scow’s and David Ochoa’s fraudulent misrepresentation to the court of the Red Rock unverified file as the HOA’s official records, is the proximate and direct cause of three more years of litigation for which I have accrued $317,532.76 in attorneys’ fees and much more in personal and financial cost.
All subsequent orders in district court cases A-15-720032-C, A-19-799890-C, A-21-828840-C and in appeals 79295 and 82294 were the fruit of this poison tree of falsified documents used to inaccurately depict the HOA sale as compliant with all legal requirements in Nevada statutes and the HOA governing documents.
My complaint against Steven Scow is much larger than my individual case. It also focuses on his refusal to distribute the excess proceeds from this sale (despite my repeated unheard civil and administrative claims), AND from a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 sales, AND from an unknown number of other sales conducted by Red Rock over the years.
3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906was supported by the following exhibits that were rejected by the Assistant Bar Counsel without the investigation required by SCR 104(1)(a):
Exhibit A Scow presented false evidence in response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena.
Exhibit B Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained, to this day, the excess proceeds of Sun City Anthem HOA foreclosure sales after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
Exhibit C Scow also unlawfully retained excess proceeds from foreclosures by other HOAs after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
Exhibit D Scow did not produce subpoenaed documents that contained inculpatory evidence without claiming privilege.
Exhibit E Steven Scow failed to identify the partners who are unfairly profiting by these statutorily non-compliant sales and Scow’s failure to distribute the excess proceeds.
Exhibit F Steven Scow filed meritless claims, motions, and oppositions to evade judicial scrutiny of inculpatory evidence.
Exhibit G-1 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws after being intentionally misinformed about the law by Scow’s clients.
Exhibit G-2 Legal limits on closed HOA meetings in SCA governing documents were disregarded because Scow’s clients intentionally misinformed the SCA Board about them.
Exhibit H-1 “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”
Exhibit H-2 “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”
Exhibit H-4 Exhibit 5 of 3/8/21 Tobin’ A-21-828840-C Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-claims that shows that required notices for the sale were not provided, but the records were falsified to cover it up and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think” Cost more
Exhibit H-5 Call for an audit of the co-mingled, unaudited account(s) where Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained the excess proceeds he was instructed to remit to the court in 2014.
Scow knew, but concealed that Red Rock unlawfully sold the property for $63,100 without notice on 8/15/14, three months after Nona Tobin had already been accepted the high bid of $367,500 on 5/8/14 from MZK Properties on auction.com, but that Nationstar would not let escrow close on a sale that was five times higher than the Red Rock sale.
Pages 14 to 20 of the draft complaint against Scow list and describe the specific false evidence he entered into the court record in response to subpoena.
False evidence (partial list) was entered into the court record via the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425).
RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf– the date was scrubbed, Red Rock misrepresented to the Board “As of today, RRFS is unaware of any buyer that is lined up…” when Red Rock was aware the property had already been sold on auction.com three months earlier and Nationstar had sent a notice that it would pay one year of assessments to close escrow on the 5/8/14 auction.com sale.
RRFS 095 is SCA 277..png is a doctored combination of unrelated emails to misrepresent that no notice was actually sent to the owner in response to Nationstar’s 5/28/14 $1100 offer. Annotated version – (SCA 277)
RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a letter that was provably never sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14 as “no return to sender – deceased” was disclosed
RRFS 124 IS 140318 REQ 4 PAYOFF .pdf– on 3/18/14 Red Rock agent Christie Marling acknowledged Chicago Title’s request for payoff figures but asked to delay response until the Board reviewed a pending request for a waiver on 3/27/14. (RRFS 129)
RRFS 128 IS SCA 315.pdf and SCA 315 misrepresented how the Board approved the sale. Board Resolution R005-120513 at the 12/5/13 meeting did not approve the sale of this property or any other SCA property.
Red Rock concealed in discovery its 3/28/14 demand to Chicago Title that shows on page 6 that the board approved a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction on 3/27/14.
Red Rock provided falsified accounts so that the Board’s approval of a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction did not show as an entry on 3/27/14 on future ledgers. (RRFS 076) and (SCA 255) and (SCA 303) and (RRFS 103)
Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 debt collection contract that required Red Rock to indemnify Sun City Anthem and hold it harmless if any claims were brought alleging misconduct Red Rock’s part which caused a minimum of $150,000 in damages to the HOA.
RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a falsified notice that was never sent to Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave. as alleged. Tobin has stated multiple times under oath that she received no notice whatsoever from Red Rock after the 2/12/14 notice of the 3/7/14 sale which was not held because the property was in escrow with a $340,000 cash offer pending lender approval.
RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf Red Rock withheld in discovery all the financial transactions on resident transaction report pages 1336 – 1337 from 7/31/14 through 9/25/14, concealing thereby that the HOA has no record that 2763 White Sage was ever sold on 8/15/14, or any other date, and shows no entry in any ledger that confirms the alleged $63,100 was collected from a sale.
Red Rock concealed page 1337 of the Resident Transaction Report that shows that Jimijack – not Opportunity Homes – became the second owner of the property on 9/25/14 and that there is no record of Opportunity Homes LLC or F. Bondurant LLC ever owning the property.
RRFS 305 – 311 shows that Red Rock responded to a payoff request from Ticor Title on 5/29/13 with a demand for $3,055.47 three weeks after Red Rock covertly rejected the Miles Bauer $825 tender when only $825 in assessments were then delinquent.
