NATIONSTAR FILED THE 2/12/19 JOINDER TO THE HOA’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE VS. THE HANSEN TRUST IN BAD FAITH
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
it is not Wells Fargo’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the 1st DOT
NSM concealed its 5/28/14 $1100 super-priority offer so it cannot now claim that its rejection by Red Rock
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.
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)
Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
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)
Distribute the interpleaded funds to Tobin as the sole claimant with interest ($91,000+)
Conversion/unjust enrichment
Fraud
Lifting the corporate veil
Racketeering
Facts do not support claims preclusion elements of same parties & claims
1/31/17 Tobin CRCM was Red Rock’s exhibit 1 and the sole “proof” provided to support the claim of claims preclusion.
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.
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
3/8/21 unanswered counterclaim vs. Red Rock was different party and different claims Fraud, conversion/unjust enrichment, lifting the corporate veil, Racketeering
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.”
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.
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.
See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
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
Order 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.
reconveyance 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.
Substitution 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.
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
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
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.
Akerman 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.
DEED 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.
Assignment 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.
3/8/19 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
Judgment 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 40.110 “Court 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
Substitution 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.
DEED 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.
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.
Nationstar’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.
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.
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.
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.
DEED 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,
power 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)
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”
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 www.auction.com 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
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 agreement2/26/10 RMI management agreement3/31/14 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
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
Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + procedures
No 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.
NOS – 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
No 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
Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale
8/15/14 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
Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributed
On 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.
Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemption
Deed 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 .
FSR 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.
(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.
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.
Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious
4. 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.
BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOA
HOA 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.
Limits 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 Appeal
SCA 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.
An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agent
RRFS 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).
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 documents
FSR/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.
Defines 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.
This 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).
SCA 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.
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 name
The 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.
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 conducted
No 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.
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 witnesses
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)
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 rep
Never gave info that could be considered actual or constructive notice
right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BOD
Tobin 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
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.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
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.
On 3/8/21 counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin filed NONA TOBIN’S (Herein “AACC’) ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIM VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A., AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, AND/OR NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE DBA MR. COOPER PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
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.
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.
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)
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
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).
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.”
Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”
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).
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
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.
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.
On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
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.
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.
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))
On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.
ANSWER
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.
Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA302)
Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation
COUNTER-CLAIMS
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
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.
There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.
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”
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.
Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.
No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.
Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.
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.
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.
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:
EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM
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.
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.
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.
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”
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.
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.
PRAYER
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).
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:
that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
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)
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due“
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“
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
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.)
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;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
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).
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;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
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
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).
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, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 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, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 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, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co.,391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 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 586, 106 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 290, 88 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 250–51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)
DEFENDANT NONA TOBIN, AN INDIVIDUAL, filed a motion to distribute on 4/12/21, but it was returned as a non-conforming document for failure to request a hearing. This amended motion corrects that error and other errors as well as removes from the caption the third-party defendants as the 3/22/21 third-party complaint will not be served until after this Court rules on COUNTER-CLAIMANT & CROSS-CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT VS. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES & CROSS- DEFENDANTS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC & WELLS FARGO, N. A. AND MOTION FOR 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.
Defendant Tobin moves the court for an order to Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services to distribute the excess proceeds plus interest and penalties in the amount of $91,855.11 to Nona Tobin, the sole defendant with a current recorded claim and the sole claimant.
On 8/15/14, Red Rock Financial Services sold the same property for $63,100 without notice to Nona Tobin or to MZK Properties, LLC, or to any other party with a known interest. See 8/22/14 foreclosure deed.
On 8/21/14 FirstService Residential recorded a ledger entry on Page 1336 of the Sun City Anthem Resident Transaction Report for 2763 White Sage that a “collection payment” of $2,701.04 was payment in full of the delinquent assessments, interest and late fines of the deceased owner, Gordon (Bruce) Hansen.
On 8/28/14, Red Rock directed attorney Steven Scow to interplead check 49909 made out the Clark County District Court $57,282.32 in excess proceeds. See RRFS 047 (8/28/14 RRFS memo to Steven Scow) and RRFS 048 (check 49909)
Steven Scow did not follow Red Rock’s instructions to deposit check made out to the Clark County District Court when he chose to retain, without legal authority, proprietary control over the funds in an unaudited, unsupervised account, allegedly for the benefit of Red Rock Financial Services.
Sun City Anthem bylaws prohibit Red Rock, FirstService Residential, Steven Scow or anyone else from depositing funds collected for the benefit of Sun City Anthem in an account not controlled by the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors. See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 adopted pursuant to NRS 116.3106(1)(d).
On 1/31/17, in case A-15-720032-C, Nona Tobin filed a cross-claim against Sun City Anthem in which the fifth cause of action, Unjust Enrichment, sought to get the undistributed proceeds plus interest distributed to her.
1/31/17 CRCM, PAGES 18-19, relevant excerpt is quoted here below:
95. Cross-Claimant incorporates and re-alleges all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges:
96. That HOA AGENTS unfairly deprived Cross-Claimant of the Subject Property and unjustly profited from excessive and unauthorized charges added to delinquent dues.
97. That HOA AGENTS unjustly and covertly failed to distribute the $63,100 proceeds of the sale as mandated by 2013 NRS 116.31164 (3)( c), in that:
a) There were no expenses of sale as the cost to conduct a foreclosure sale is limited to $125.00 by the April 27, 2012 RRFS Delinquent Assessment Collection Agreement, and the lien of $5,08l.45 already included erroneous, duplicative and unauthorized charges.
b) There WAS no expense of securing possession. The Subject Property was vacant, and the key just handed to the Buyer by TOBlN’s agent.
c) Satisfaction of the association’s lien. The HOA Resident Transaction Record for the Subject Property shows that the HOA AGENT credited the HOA with $2,701.04 on August 27, 2014. There is no indication that HOA. AGENTS paid the mandated asset enhancement fee (1/3 of 1 % of the price of every sales price) the HOA mandated for every transfer of title by CC&Rs section 8.12. (Exhibit 8)
d) Satisfaction of subordinate claims. None of the excess proceeds went to any of the entities who had recorded liens. Or, alternatively, if any of the lienholders did receive the excess proceeds, none of the lienholders properly accounted for receiving any funds, and none removed their liens.
e) Remittance of any excess to the unit’s owner.
Within a few months after the sale, TOBIN attempted to claim the excess proceeds since it was clear the HOA AGENTS were treating the bank loan as “extinguished”. In response to direct inquiries, HOA AGENTS were deceptive about their illegal retention of the proceeds of the illegally-conducted sale and refused to speak with TOBIN about her claim, stating at different times in late 2014:
1) that she had no standing, 2) that RRFS had no record of her in relation to the Subject Property, and 3) that RRFS had turned the money over to the court to distribute.
None of Nona Tobin’s claims were adjudicated in case A-15-720032-C as a result of Nationstar attorney, Melanie Morgan, and Jimijack Irrevocable Trust attorney, Joseph Hong, met ex parte with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19.
On 8/7/19, Nona Tobin filed a new district court case to beat the five-year statute of limitations, in which she made another attempt to get the funds distributed. See 8/7/19 Tobin complaint A-19-799890-C.
Excerpt from page 20, Nona Tobin’s 8/7/19 A-19-799890-C complaint under Tobin’s third cause of action: Unjust Enrichment, is quoted here:
SCA bylaws prohibit the SCA Board from delegating certain functions, including the signatory control over bank accounts holding assessments collected for the benefit of the association.
RRFS and/or Scow & Koch have unjustly profited from the retention and total proprietary control over of $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale and they should not be permitted to further profit by failing to pay interest or by charging unnecessary fees to distribute according to the mandates of NRS 116.31164;
All Nona Tobin’s claims in A-19-799890-C against all defendants were dismissed with prejudice on 12/3/20 when Judge Johnson granted Red Rock Financial Services motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) and NRCP (b)(6) and all joinders thereto.
See 6/23/20 Red Rock Financial Services motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) reliance on the legal doctrines of non-mutual claims preclusion and NRCP (b)(6) failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its interest in the excess proceeds was not supported by the facts.
On 3/8/21, Nona Tobin, an individual, filed and served on the parties in the Odyssey eFileNV service contact list, an answer, affirmative defenses, and counter-claim vs. Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services and cross-claims vs. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Wells Fargo, N.A. See 3/8/21 Tobin AACC.
Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC, Tobin identified that she was the sole defendant with a current recorded claim. See 3/15/21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Clark County official property records for the subject property APN 191-13-811-052.
All other defendants’ liens have been released:
On 3/28/17, the Gordon B. Hansen Trust’s title claims were transferred to Nona Tobin, as an individual, when the transfer of Hansen Trust’s sole asset caused the Trust to be empty and closed. See 200705100001127 3/28/17 DEED Gordon B. Hansen Trust to Nona Tobin, an individual.
On 3/30/17, Republic Services released both its garbage liens that were recorded on 9/23/13 and 5/6/14. See 201703300003859 and 201703300003860 3/31/17 release of garbage liens.
On 3/12/15 Wells Fargo reconveyed and released the of Gordon Hansen’s second deed of trust. See 201503120002285 3/12/15 reconveyance release of Wells Fargo lien of 5/10/07 Hansen open-ended DOT
On 6/3/19, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper, released the lien of Gordon Hansen’s first deed of trust, recorded on 7/22/04. See 7/22/04 Western Thrift & Loan deed of trust (NSM 145-161) lien was released by 6/3/19 Nationstar reconveyance when Nationstar fraudulently reconveyed the property to Joel A. Stokes, an individual, instead of to the estate of the borrower.
On 3/22/21, Nona Tobin filed, but did not electronically serve, a third-party complaint vs. attorneys Steven R. Scow, Brody R. Wight, Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, David Ochoa and Brittany Wood that includes four causes of action: abuse of process, fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering. See 3/22/21 Third-party complaint vs. Steven R. Scow, Brody R. Wight, Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, David Ochoa and Brittany Wood includes four causes of action: abuse of process, fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering
On 4/7/21, Nona Tobin filed a Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civ Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem governing documents germane to the instant action. See 4/7/21 RFJN of relevant laws & regulations.
On 4/9/21, Nona Tobin filed a Request for Judicial Notice of the NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720332-C and disputed facts in the court record. See 4/9/21 RFJN of evidence and false evidence in the court record.
On 4/9/21, Melanie Morgan filed an answer to Red Rock’s 2/16/21interpleader complaint for Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo. See 4/9/21 Nationstar and Wells Fargo answer.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s and Wells Fargo’s 4/9/21 answer did not include any claim by either defendant bank for any of the proceeds.
Counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services received service of Nona Tobin’s efiled and served 3/8/21 counter-claim through the Odyssey eFileNV system, but had not filed a responsive pleading as of 4/12/21.
Nona Tobin asserted five causes of action in her 3/8/21 counter-claim against Red Rock: 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.
Nona Tobin efiled and served her 3/8/21 cross-claims Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo through the Odyssey eFileNV system on cross-defendants.
Cross-defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo had not filed a responsive pleading as of 4/12/21 to Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 counter-claim’s three causes of action: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.
On 4/15/21 Tobin filed a motion for summary judgment as to her 3/8/21 counter-claims vs. Red Rock and cross-claims vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo as no defendant filed a timely responsive pleading.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT
A. Proceeds SHALL be distributed after the sale.
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:
3. After the sale, the person conducting the sale shall:
(a) Make, execute and, after payment is made, deliver to the purchaser, or his or her successor or assign, a deed without warranty which conveys to the grantee all title of the unit s owner to the unit;
(b) Deliver a copy of the deed to the Ombudsman within 30 days after the deed is delivered to the purchaser, or his or her successor or assign; and
(c) Apply the proceeds of the sale for the following purposes in the following order:
(1) The reasonable expenses of sale;
(2) The reasonable expenses of securing possession before sale, holding, maintaining, and preparing the unit for sale, including payment of taxes and other governmental charges, premiums on hazard and liability insurance, and, to the extent provided for by the declaration, reasonable attorney s fees and other legal expenses incurred by the association;
(3) Satisfaction of the association s lien;
(4) Satisfaction in the order of priority of any subordinate claim of record; and
(5) Remittance of any excess to the unit s owner.
NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
B. No legal authority exists to charge fees to distribute the proceeds.
There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.
There was no legal authority for Red Rock, and/or its attorney Steven Scow, to retain the proceeds for over six years after the sale at all, let alone to charge for so doing.
There was no legal authority for Red Rock, and/or its attorney Steven Scow, to refuse to distribute the proceeds as requested by Nona Tobin personally to Red Rock in 2014, personally to Sun City Anthem in 2016, and by civil complaints in 2017 and 2019.
Red Rock should pay the proceeds to Nona Tobin with interest calculated at Nevada’s legal interest rate
Pursuant to Senate Bill 45, the Nevada legislature and the Court Administrator established the legal interest rate to be applied in cases where there is no specific interest rate defined by contract, statute or judgment. See Nevada legal rate of interest table
Using this table’s semi-annual rate changes and monthly compounding results in a 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”. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.
If the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount would be $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale.
CONCLUSION
Red Rock Financial Services sold 2763 White Sage for $63,100 three months after Nona Tobin had sold it on auction.com for $367,500. Red Rock kept $60,398.96 without any legal authority for over six years while actively obstructing Nona Tobin’s ability to claim it.
Red Rock’s egregious conduct in this case is part of a pattern and practice of corrupt business practices that has damaged many, many homeowners and Homeowners Associations in Nevada and other states in the nation.
Red Rock’s deceit was aided and abetted by multiple parties, two of which are named in Tobin’s 3/8/21 cross-claim and six who are named in her not-yet-served 3/22/21 third-party complaint.
Counter-claimant, cross-claimant and third-party plaintiff Nona Tobin will file separate motions to address the causes of action in the unanswered 3/8/21 counter- and cross- claims and in the as yet unserved 3/22/21 third-party complaint.
Nona Tobin will later move the court for an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be provided and why sanctions should not be imposed.
Defendant Nona Tobin respectfully requests in this instant motion that this Court address solely the issue of the distribution of proceeds by issuing an order for Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services to pay Nona Tobin $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale Red Rock alleges it received.
Such an order will completely resolve Plaintiff Red Rock’s interpleader complaint as there are no adverse claims and no “multiple liabilities” Red Rock could possibly face.
I am requesting your help to get some investigative assistance, and meaningful access to Nevada’s formal complaint procedures, to address this problem of HOA debt collectors and banks ripping us all off.
Tobin’s 2/14/19 email to investigative reporters & state legislators requesting help
1. HOA debt collectors use abusive debt collection practices to foreclose for trivial delinquent assessments, and then unlawfully retain the proceeds of the sales.
2. Banks lie to the court in HOA foreclosure litigation for quiet title so they can foreclose on deeds of trust/mortgages that they don’t actually own.
Can you assist in ensuring that these possibly criminal complaints are addressed by the proper enforcement authorities?
The NV Real Estate Division and CICC Ombudsman should ensure that HOA foreclosures are compliant with state law, but they have failed. Enforcement officials have been cowed, co-opted, or corrupted into being completely ineffective at any enforcement of NRS116, NRS116A, or NAC116, or NAC 116A.
This systemic problem can’t be effectively incorporated in my individual civil action, but must be addressed statewide.
This email describes a pattern of unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment that (I have been told) cannot be addressed in the quiet title litigation I have over my late fiance’s house (also described herein) because my case is not a class action.
This fraud is larger than last big HOA corruption case where more than 40 were indicted and four died suspiciously.
This problem involves so much more money than the last HOA corruption scam by Benzar and Nancy Quon manipulating HOA board elections and channeling construction defect cases to themselves that it should not be ignored by authorities.
I need to know how to get the appropriate enforcement agency staff to talk to me personally and to prioritize reviewing the investigative research already done.
The scale of this fraud is astounding, but it is so big because it is one way banks are trying to dodge accountability for creating worthless securities that exist in the aftermath of the 2008 collapse of the mortgage securities market.
A lingering consequence of the market crash
Taxpayers bailed out the banks after the crash. The TARP program made banks virtually whole despite their misdeeds. None of the investment banker perpetrators went to jail for bringing down the world economy.
A new twist
The specific situation here is a new twist on the mortgage servicing fraud, robo-signing problem that led to Nevada’s 2011 anti-foreclosure fraud law AB 284 and the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. Here, the un-indicted co-conspiritors that destroyed the entire housing market a decade ago are trying to cut their losses by getting title to HOA-foreclosed houses even though they don’t actually own the mortgages.
A bank pretends a debt is owed to it. Actually, the debtor’s IOU is to a different bank, perhaps now defunct, and there is no paper trail to the bank making the false claims.
It is very common for houses foreclosed by HOAs – in Nevada and nationwide – to have mortgages/deeds of trust that were securitized out of existence – broken up into synthetic derivatives, collateral debt swaps and tranched instruments, so esoteric and exotic that the ownership of the note is nearly impossible to accurately ascertain.
Any unscrupulous bank can step into the void and anoint itself the owner of a debt that belongs to someone else or belongs no one. And step in, they do!
Banks’ attorneys’ legal sleight of hand – razzle, dazzle ’em!
The banks, and their extremely high paid and competent, albeit ethically-challenged attorneys, have figured out one way to foreclose when they had no legal right to do so and have no legal way of proving who owns the mortgage. Getting quiet title after an HOA foreclosure is one way they pull this magic trick off.
Banks treat owner protections as optional, not mandatory
They (meaning either the banks or the banks’ attorneys on their own initiative, hard to say given all the smoke and mirrors) record false affidavits against the title (banned by AB284 in 2011) claiming that the owner of the home owes it a debt. Further, the bank’s Constitutional protections are abridged if the bank loses the owner’s home as security for a debt owed to someone, but the owner’s property rights and protections against seizure without due process can be abridged with impunity.
Silence means compliance – or acquiescence
Then, probably no one challenges the banks’ claim (the owner that lost the house for a trivial debt is usually either dead or devastated by debt).
The bank then is free to sue the purchaser at the HOA for quiet title. The bank blithely lies to the court, claiming falsely that it holds the debtor’s IOU, i.e., the original note where the debtor promised to pay back the mortgage to the originating lender.
Rabbit out of the hat
The court will probably buy the bank’s story because the documents produced seem very official and incomprehensible.
Brilliant, unscrupulous bank! The fraud is not obvious to the naked eye. A forensic examination is needed to discern it. Further, nobody is around to contradict the bank that’s pretending to be owed a debt.The bank can then foreclose on the property with impunity without ever having to prove that the debt was ever really owed to it.
Meanwhile…nobody knows what escheat means
The HOA debt collectors are rewarded by nobody noticing that they unlawfully keep nearly all of many HOA sale proceeds for years.
No worries.
The bank can’t make a claim for the proceeds if the HOA sale extinguishes the security instrument.
And, it’s really easy for the debt collector block owners who attempt to make a claim for a portion of the proceeds — as has been amply demonstrated iboth n my case and in the Spanish Trail case in the forwarded email below.
The scam works for HOA foreclosures between 2011-2015 before the 2015 law changes.
Who wins when an HOA forecloses on a minuscule debt – speculators, debt collectors, and fraudulent banks and attorneys
Speculators-in-the-know have bought almost all of Nevada’s HOA foreclosures. These clever guys have gotten huge windfalls by buying HOA liens for pennies on the dollar virtually without competition from bona fide, arms-length purchasers. The vulture investor rents the properties they got free and clear for years while the wrongful foreclosure is litigated.
Why doesn’t the HOA get the profits? Or the HOA membership at large?
Note: the HOA debt collectors unlawfully get approval for these sales from the HOA Boards in secret meetings so the HOA homeowners can’t buy houses in their own HOA by paying a few bucks to cover delinquent dues. These great deals are reserved for speculators. All SCA foreclosures have gone to parties who own multiple HOA foreclosures from two to over 600 house. For example, two Sun City Anthem properties sold in 2014 for under $8,000, and 11 of 12 SCA foreclosures that year sold for under $100,000. I estimate this averages at less than one-third market value.
Due process for the owner takes a back seat to the HOA debt collectors drive to high-profit foreclosure.
Real estate speculators bought HOA liens for delinquent assessments in the thousands after the market crash when the baks wouldn’t protect the properties from deterioration causing whole neighborhoods to be blighted. These cognoscenti bought often, sometimes in bulk, either directly from the HOA debt collector or at some poorly noticed “public” foreclosure sale. See Irma Mendez affidavit regarding Joel Just, former-President of red rock.
Link to UNLV Lied Institute for Real Estate 2017 study , commissioned by Nevada Association of Realtors, documenting 611 HOA foreclosures and the super-priority lien, that shows a cost to the Nevada real estate market exceeding over $1 billion between 2011-2015.
Failure to distribute the proceeds of MANY HOA foreclosures is big bucks for a few financially-conflicted/ ethically challenged HOA debt collectors.
HOA debt collectors win by putting virtually ALL the proceeds of the sales in their attorney trust funds (except the actual delinquent assessments plus interest and late fees (chump change) that go to the HOA.
In my case, RRFS kept $57,282 in “excess” proceeds and paid the HOA $2,701.04 as payment in full. What a deal! Seems like a disproportionate sanction to me, but probably it’s in the bottom quartile of all the David Copperfield RRFS has conjured up to rip off HOA homeowners further after stealing their houses.
See forwarded email of RRFS holding $1.1 million on one HOA sale. I think the HOA got less than 1% of that windfall.
In this Spanish Trails case RRFS has been holding a whopping $1.1 million+ since 2014. One question is “Will the 90- year-old former owner get a fair shake in court to claim those proceeds or will the debt collectors and the banks (and maybe the judge) postpone until the bank wins by default?
What the law says the forecloser has to do with the sale proceeds
NRS 116.31164(3)(c) (2013) requires that the funds be distributed in a certain order – to pay reasonable foreclosure costs, pay the HOA delinquent assessments, then pay off liens, last, pay the owner. The owner only gets something if the sale extinguished the mortgage.
The debt collector’s attorney is not supposed to retain indefinitely the “excess” proceeds. The attorney is supposed to file a complaint in district court called interpleader and SHALL distribute the funds in the manner defined by NRS, but they just pretended to do it.
What happens in real life is the debt collectors just keep the money because they haven’t gotten caught.
It’s almost a state-sanctioned form of embezzlement.
This windfall is potentially in the tens of millions, and there is a pretty small crew of individuals that do this – HOA debt collectors with NRS 649 licenses and attorneys who don’t need a license and so are even less regulated.
If there is no litigation, no one makes a claim for the proceeds.
There is no accounting of the sale proceeds by the HOA. In fact, the HOA has no record even that a property was foreclosed using the HOA’s power of sale or how much the house was sold for or any accounting. The attorneys and debt collectors tell the HOA -WRONGLY – that it is not the HOA’s money so they effectively block any independent accounting of the proceeds.
I haven’t found any interpleader filed for the court to distribute the proceeds of any of the Sun City Anthem foreclosures conducted in SCA’s name by any of SCA debt collectors, but it’s hard to be sure since they withhold, conceal or misrepresent any records they do have.
If there is litigation, like in this Spanish Trail case, it goes on for years,
and 99% of the time the homeowner who lost the house is not in the case. The court fight is usually just between the bank and the buyer at the sale. The attorneys try to keep the HOA out of it except for the HOA homeowners to pay the litigation costs.
A stunning example of why attorney trust funds can’t be trusted
Chapter 7 as an easy way to fraudulently abscond with all the proceeds from many HOA sales held indefinitely in attorney trust funds
The proceeds of these sales can just disappear in a morass of sham LLCs that Nevada is so good at producing while so poor at regulating.
SCA hired Alessi & Koenig, LLC after RRFS was fired.
David Alessi was not licensed to practice law in Nevada but passed himself off as an licensed attorney anyway so A&K didn’t have an NRS 649 debt collection license.
That was the least of their problems
A&K dissolved the LLC, hid its assets, filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and morphed into HOA Lawyers Group. Alessi only admitted in the bankruptcy proceedings as retaining $2.9 million after having conducted at least 800 HOA “public” auctions out of their offices between 2011-2015, 500 of which per David Alessi’s deposition, had named A&K as a party to wrongful foreclosure litigation. They had one racketeering, bid rigging judgment (Melinda Ellis) against them that they skipped on.
Generally, NV HOA Boards are ill-advised by financially conflicted agents who tell the BODs to do the wrong thing. SCA just pays more for it.
Link to the notice about this scam I sent on 1/25/17 that the SCA Board ignored. My reward came when the current SCA attorney/debt collector ordered me to recuse myself from all SCA collection matters after I was elected to the Board and prohibited me from accessing any SCA records without his approval.
The banks are far from blameless. Do not give them a free pass.
The banks are usually cheating as well because they are saying that they own the mortgage when they actually don’t own it any more than I do.
Since it is unlawful for an HOA to foreclose after a bank had issued a notice of default (NRS 116.31162(6), the prime pickings for HOA foreclosures were frequently ones that the bank did not foreclose on for 2-3 years of non-payment. These houses were ripe of HOA foreclosure primarily when the banks couldn’t prove they owned the mortgage after Nevada passed AB 284, its anti-foreclosure fraud law in 2011. So the banks in these HOA foreclosure litigations unfairly get a second bite of the apple
Catch-22 so the owner always loses and the bank wins
In my case, the homeowner died.
The HOA sold the house to a Realtor in the listing office after the bank blocked four legitimate sales of the property.
The bank now claims the HOA sale was valid to get rid of my (the estate’s) property rights, but that the HOA sale was not valid to extinguish the deed of trust the bank is lying about owning.
Obviously, the highest priority to fraudulent banks is to get mortgages on their books that had been securitized out of existence. The proceeds of the HOA sale are second priority.
Two bites of the apple
So the banks in these HOA foreclosure litigations have a chance to get quiet title just by beating the speculator in court so they can foreclose without meeting the stringent stands of AB 284. Obviously it is much more worth it to those kinds of fraudulent banks to get mortgages on their books that had been securitized out of existence than to worry about the proceeds of the HOA sale.
Bottom line: who gets screwed? Easy — The HOAs and the homeowners lose 100% of the time.
The HOAs get nothing from a sale but the few assessment dollars they certainly could have gotten easier if they had taken title by deed in lieu or had offered the property up to their own HOA owners.
How can it be good business judgment to pay collection costs that are orders of magnitude larger than the minuscule debts collected?
Instead of the HOA (or some of its owners) getting the windfall of a house with no mortgage, the homeowners get a big, fat legal bill to pay for the fight between the HOA sale purchaser and the bank for wrongful foreclosure. In SCA’s dozen 2014 foreclosures owners have paid, several hundred thousand bucks in attorney fees, settlements, insurance deductibles, and other costs have accrued to collect because SCA has totally abdicated to the debt collectors and .
How the scam is working even now to screw me out of Bruce’s house
The homeowner, in this case, me, got screwed by losing the house at a surprise sale for a trivial delinquency, 8th amendment anyone?
What idiot would lose a $400,000 house for a $2,000 debt?
I, for one, would easily have corrected a $2,000 delinquency had I thought, in a million years , that the bank – the same bank, mind you, that claimed $389,000 was owed to it — wouldn’t stop the HOA from selling the house for $63,100 when a $358,800 offer from a bona fide purchaser was on the table.
Oh well…current status of my one little stolen house case
There will be a hearing on March 26 on motions for summary judgment. The trial is set for May 28, 2019.
Here is a link to a counter-motion I drafted yesterday that I am sure my attorney will choose not to file after because my draft is focused on the bank’s duplicity and not exclusively on the (considerable) statutory deficiencies of the HOA sale per se.
However, it shows how the banks’ attorneys are trying to use the HOA foreclosure quiet title proceeding to unfairly gain title to a property when its claim to be owed around $400,000 is provably false.
Abusive collection practices tip the scales against owners, especially dead owners
In this case, the debt collector should have stopped the HOA sale when the bank tendered nine months of assessments, the super-priority, but instead, it carried on in secret meetings (of which there are no agendas and no minutes) to get the SCA Board to approve an unnecessary sale without telling me. The debt collectors unlawfully refused the banks’ tender of the super-priority amount twice, and each one should have stopped the HOA sale, but the debt collector never told the Board what it did.
Why don’t more owners sue after losing their expensive house for a trivial debt?
It’s simply a low percentage game.
It has cost me over $30,000 in attorney fees already and trial isn’t until May in this four-year long case. My attorney has been very generous with reducing fees and looking at my work, but most attorneys won’t represent a homeowner because the chance of recovery is so small and the banks’ resources so formidable.
Spanish Trail case – no distribution of $1.1M yet for 90-year-old who lost his house in 2014, but who cares? He’ll be dead soon anyway.
How this tome started: Forwarded email about Spanish Trail case shows how easy it is to steal when nobody is looking.
The email I am forwarding was my attempt to articulate the nuances of this scam to my attorney which he probably didn’t read. I don’t think he charges me for reading my long descriptions of the systemic deficits and scams because he is already not billing me for all the time it takes just to deal with trying to get quiet title to Bruce’s house,
Bank attorney boilerplate strategy doesn’t mean their fees are less
For the benefit of any potential investigator, the email below demonstrates the exact same legal sleight of hand used in the Spanish Trail case will be used to try to crush me later this month.
Volunteer SCA Board violated their own CC&RS and sanctioned this owner by authorizing foreclosure in secret on the advice of counsel.
HOA managers/debt collectors/attorneys usurp the HOA power to foreclose for their own unjust enrichment.
Once the foreclosure is over, the attorney tells the HOA Board it’s not the association’s problem; it’s between the buyer and the bank.
All proceeds of HOA sales must be accounted for by SCA, but the SCA Board has been told that once the account goes to the debt collector it’s not their problem.
Attorneys Koch & Scow have held the sale proceeds for four years in both this Spanish Trail case and 2763 without filing for interpleader
….probably collecting the interest, not filing interpleader, and keeping what nobody notices. This is much more money, RRFS kept $1,168,865 is excess proceeds after the 11/10/14 sale.
It looks just like the RRFS trust fund check to the court for $57,282 excess proceeds check from excess proceeds after the 8/15/14 sale that Koch & Scow never filed for interpleader. When I attempted to make a claim for those funds in September 2014, I was rebuffed.
the 2/5/19 Spanish trail hearing is about proceeds from 11/10/14 sale
The owner, not in the case, gets the proceeds if the sale extinguished the loan
Here are the minutes of a 2/5/19 hearing where attorney Akin (not on efile list) was waiting for outcome so his 90-year-old client (former owner?) could see about the excess proceeds. Continued to 3/5/19. Will Akerman attorney even go to interpleader or will she let the old owner have it?
Ackerman got Spanish trail sale to be valid, but sale did not extinguish loan
But the court finds that the HOA could only foreclose on the sub-priority portion of the lien This is what Ackerman is trying to do in the 2763 case, only representing a different bank.
Ackerman may be a front for bank fraud like attorneys for the mob
Ackerman got quiet title for Thornberg, the bank who I suspect is fraudulent and claims to have gotten the beneficial ownership from MERS. This is like 2763 DOT. I say this because in 10/1/11, Nevada legislature passed AB 284 which made it a felony for to banks to use robo-signers to execute notarized false assignments of mortgages.
In this case, the owner defaulted in 2011 on the DOT and the HOA filed a NODES in late-2011, why didn’t the bank foreclose for over three years until the HOA sold it in late-2014?
Bank MSJ: Foreclosure only sub-priority piece is valid
The Ackerman MSJ is what they will be arguing about 2763. Bank made super-priority tender. It was refused. Sale did not extinguish the loan because HOA only foreclosed on sub-priority portion. Argues that it doesn’t matter if Saticoy is a bona fide purchaser. Shadow Wood applies as sale was commercially unreasonable and unfair.
Banks were the proximate cause of the delinquency by blocking sales and refusing title by deed in lieu
The fact that both banks tendered the super-priority amount is supported by the RRFS/SCA disclosures, and it is a strong reason well briefed by Ackerman for protecting the DOT, so we have to show that because BANA and Nationstar were provably engaged in mortgage fraud, they were complicit in preventing the estate from paying the assessments by BANA’s refusing to close two escrows out of which the HUD-1s show the assessments would have been paid, and by Nationstar’s refusing to close two escrows from bona fide CASH purchasers at market value and not responding to the
John Leach was SCA’s attorney until 2017 when Clarkson took over. His OPPC shows the same attitude SCA has showed to me.
The HOA doesn’t belong in the case. RRFS did everything right
The fight is rightly just between the bank and purchaser in possession The owner is just a loser, not the HOA’s problem
The SCA Board violated its duty to the homeowners by abdicating to self-serving agents
Here’s where our case has to differentiate itself. We have to hold the HOA Board accountable for letting the debt collector/manager/attorney use the HOA power to foreclose to screw the HOA and ALL the owners. Doing collections and foreclosures in secret keeps the chance of compliance low, keeps neighbors from helping a neighbor in trouble, or an out of state executor that doesn’t get proper notice from knowing what to do. Not publishing that a house is going to be foreclosed to the owners prevents any owner from bidding.
The Board can’t wash its hands. It’s wrong for them to blindly listen only to RRFS without having to listen to the owner. FSR/RRFS set the owner up to get the property into foreclosure for way more ways to make money than just charging usurious fees.
Undisputed facts about how SCA Board did as they were told (by debt collector) but it was wrong
The volunteer Directors have been tricked by self-serving agents into doing what the agents say they HAVE TO DO.
In this case, the Board was handling collections and foreclosures such that it made money for the agents, but were actually against the law or SCA governing docs: Here is a link to emails where the former Board President told me how the Board handled foreclosures in 2014 – all in closed BOD meetings under RRFS control.
Give complete control over collections to the manager/debt collector of accounting with no checks and balances or any need to ever hear from the owner affected.
Keep everything strictly confidential and
trust that the manager and debt collector are doing it right
Allow the manager to report after an account was sent to collections and never check what fees were charged or what the circumstances might be, like the owner died and it was in escrow
assume that since the debt collector said they gave a notice and no owner ever filed an appeal, that everything is fine
Make all decisions in executive session without specifying the name of the party or the proposed sanction
Do not publish the quarterly delinquency report required by the bylaws even though that’s how delinquent taxes are publicly reported
Adopt a fee schedule but do not give it to the homeowner who is subjected to them and don’t audit anything that RRFS charges to see if it’s right
Listen only to the debt collector and never tell the owner when decisions are being made to sanction them
Do not put specifically on the agenda or give the owner any requested minutes from BOD meetings in executive session where actions about the owner were decided:
when the debt collector said that the owner requested a waiver of $459 and the owner was not permitted to be present why the debt collector said that the BOD could only waive assessments, late fees and interest, but could not waive the collection fees
when a pay plan was offered, considered or rejected
when it decided to post the property for sale, or
when the BOD was asked to postpone or cancel the sale, or
was told what the date of the sale was to be, or
was told that the foreclosure occurred · the BOD discussed the owner’s delinquency and possible sanctions,
when the BOD was told of the possible alternatives to aggressive collections, such as a deed in lieu, wait to collect out of escrow without charging or unnecessary collection charges, small claims, accept the bank’s tender of the super-priority and restart the clock on what the owner owes,
Adopt a policy and procedure that defines how the governing documents will be enforced providing specific due process steps, but carve out an exception for predatory collections and foreclosure, the harshest of all penalties, and do that in secret, don’t tell the owner that you did it, make any appeal without litigation impossible and then treat the owner like a criminal if she tries to get the stolen house back.
Legal theory for the Board’s authority and why it can’t be delegated or agents be unsupervised.
The Association exists to protect the owners’ common good.
The Association is not the Board; it is the membership at large.
The Board has the sole power to act.
Agents can advise, not direct.
Board’s fiduciary duty is act solely and exclusively for the association’s, i.e., all owners’ benefit. The Board owes no duty to its agents.
The agents have no rights, only duties, to the Association, i.e., agents have fiduciary duty to protect the due process rights of the owners.
Our case is unique in arguing violations of due process guaranteed by NRS 116.31031 and NRS 116.31085, SCA CC&Rs 7.4.
This is not the way the agents act and it’s not the way they have trained the Board to act, but it’s the way the law and the governing documents say it is.
The BOD has authority to maintain the common areas and other services funded by assessments.
The Board has the authority to determine the amount of the assessments needed to cover the maintenance and protection of the common areas.
The HOA is a mutual benefit, non-profit entity which exists solely for the purpose of maintaining the property values and quality of life in the community.
The directors, attorneys and managing agents are all fiduciaries by law and they must act in good faith in a manner which is solely and exclusively in the best interest of the association and use good business judgment.
The Board has the sole responsibility for adopting an annual budget to fund maintaining the common areas and programs and activities to support the community life.
SCA bylaws 3.18a,b,e,f,g,i /3.20 prohibit the Board from delegating and abdicating control over any of SCA’s money: budgeting, levying and collecting assessments, setting up the bank accounts where the money collected goes, controlling the signatories, setting up the use rules and restrictions and enforcing them
The Board is the sole authority on the enforcement of the governing documents.
While managing agents and attorneys can advise and implement, the Board alone is the decider.
NRS 116 and NRS 116A (for managing agents) has provisions which specifically define the authority and limits constraining the Board before it can sanction owners for alleged violations
Comes now, Defendant NONA TOBIN, an individual, in proper person, hereby files her OPPOSITION TO RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES’S MOTION TO DISMISS TOBIN’S COUNTER-CLAIMS AND PETITION FOR SANCTIONS. This opposition is based on the memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this case and any oral arguments made at the time of the hearing.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
Red Rock’s 4/16/21 motion to dismiss Tobin’s 3/8/21 counterclaim is its seventh attempt to evade accountability for its fraudulent conduct of the secret, unauthorized 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage and its failure to distribute nearly $60,000.
Red Rock’s motion to dismiss fails as it does not meet the NRCP 12(b)(5) standard.
A motion to dismiss must be granted where it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that could be proved in support of a claim.
Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 (2008); Blackjack Bonding v. Las Vegas Mun. Ct., 116 Nev.1213,1217 (2000); Simpson v. Mars Inc., 113 Nev. 188, 190 (1997).
Red Rock reliance on claims preclusion also fails, as this opposition will show, as there was no full and fair opportunity for Tobin to litigate in previous actions, and that the other elements (same parties and same claims) are not met.
Red Rock’s arguments that Tobin’s claims are time-barred and were not pled with sufficient particularity are not supported by the facts or the law.
The Court must reject Red Rock’s attempt to prevent the imposition of sanctions as the evidence clearly shows it was culpable of secretly selling without authorization, and failing to distribute the proceeds of at least a dozen Sun City Anthem homes and then falsifying accounts, entering false evidence into the court record to cover it up.
Further, as neither Red Rock nor the cross-defendant banks filed a responsive pleading, and have not proffered any evidence to refute Tobin’s claims of fraud, racketeering and conversion, or cited any legal authority to support the notion that they acted lawfully, Tobin’s petition for sanctions should be granted.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Without proper authorization, notice and due process, Red Rock secretly sold the subject property, and about a dozen other Sun City Anthem properties, in 2014 and retained the proceeds in an unsupervised, unaudited, unauthorized account outside the control of the Sun City Anthem board of Directors.
Red Rock, aided and abetted by others, covered up the fraud involved in the foreclosure by producing an unverified, uncorroborated, falsified, incomplete, and inaccurate set of accounts and records called the “Red Rock foreclosure file” and/or by misrepresenting or covering up the true facts six times into various Nevada courts before the instant motion to dismiss per NRCP 12(b)(5):
Tobin has suffered approximately $750,000 in actual damages as a result of opposing parties’ intentional conduct of recording false claims to title, entering false evidence into the court record, meeting ex parte with Judge Kishner, and knowingly misrepresenting material facts in papers filed with the courts.
Tobin filed a motion for summary judgment vs. Red Rock, Nationstar & Wells Fargo on 4/15/21 as none of the defendants filed a responsive pleading to Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC and also on 4/15/21, re-filed a motion to distribute the proceeds.
Tobin filed a complaint vs. Judge Kishner with the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline on 1/28/21 (for ex parte communications and failure to hear and decide in the first proceedings).
See NCJD complaint and the exhibits linked below that identify explicitly how there was no full and fair opportunity for Tobin to litigate these claims previously.
Tobin filed a recommendation to the Commission to hold filing formal public charges against Judge Kishner pending a determination in this case as the possibility that Judge Kishner was merely duped by the misrepresentations of opposing counsels or whether she was complicit. and 3/10/21 Recommendation to NCJD to postpone formal charges
On 3/22/21 TPC, Tobin filed, but has not served, a third-party complaint against six of the attorneys who aided and abetted the criminal conduct of their clients.
Tobin’s Request for judicial notice filed on 3/15/21 RFJN identifies the fraudulent recorded documents on the property record. The alleged fraud identified in the property record was in Exhibit 1 to Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC.
Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice filed on 4/4/21 RFJN identifies the false evidence Red Rock produced in response to subpoena and other opposing parties produced or disclosed in discovery. The false evidence was delineated in the exhibits that are summarized herein below.
The Request for Judicial Notice filed on 4/7/21 RFJN identifies the myriad laws, regulations and contract terms that were breached by Red Rock and other opposing parties in relation to the unlawful foreclosure sale and the subsequent fraudulent claims recorded and filed adverse to Tobin. These laws and regulations are listed and linked below in AACC summarized Exhibits 18 and 19.
The Request for judicial notice filed on 4/9/21 RFJN provides links to Tobin’s multiple unheard administrative complaints and civil claims. See Exhibit 20 below.
LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT
Red Rock did not meet its burden of proof pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5)
Pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5), a motion to dismiss should be granted upon “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A motion brought under NRCP 12(b)(5) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim as alleged by the moving party A motion to dismiss must be granted where it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that could be proved in support of a claim. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 (2008); Blackjack Bonding v. Las Vegas Mun. Ct., 116 Nev. 1213,1217 (2000); Simpson v. Mars Inc., 113 Nev. 188, 190 (1997). Dismissal is proper “where the allegations are insufficient to establish the elements of a claim for relief.” Stockmeier v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections Psychol. Rev. Panel, 183 P.3d 133, 135 (Nev. 2008). (emphasis added.
4/16/21 Red rock Motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) page 7
Red Rock did not meet its burden of proof that Tobin’s five causes of action (distribute interpleaded funds to sole claimant Tobin; conversion/unjust enrichment; fraud; pierce the corporate veil; and racketeering) met the elements of claims preclusion.
Estate of Adams ex rel. Estate v. Fallini, 386 P.3d 621, 624 (Nev. 2016) (“issue preclusion requires, inter alia , that “the issue decided in the prior litigation must be identical to the issue presented in the current action.”
“But, we also recognize that dismissal “is a harsh remedy to be utilized only in extreme situations” and should be “weighed against the policy of law favoring the disposition of cases on their merits.” Id. at 393, 528 P.2d at 1021. ”
McKinney v. Martinez, No. 60017, at *3 (Nev. Jan. 29, 2014)
“NRCP 15(a) (“[L]eave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.”); Moore v. Cherry, 90 Nev. 390, 393, 528 P.2d 1018, 1021 (1974) (“[D]ismissal with prejudice is a harsh remedy to be utilized only in extreme situations .”
Marion v. Talecris Res. Plasma Ctr., No. 63018, at *3 (Nev. Feb. 27, 2015)
There was no valid judgment in the prior proceedings as the judgment in the first proceedings was based upon a fraud upon the court
“[W]hen a judgment is shown to have been procured by fraud upon the court, no worthwhile interest is served in protecting the judgment.” Id. at 653, 218 P.3d at 858 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have defined a “fraud upon the court” as “only that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases….” Id. at 654, 218 P.3d at 858 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An attorney is an officer of the court”; as such, an attorney “owes a duty of loyalty to the court …, [which] demands integrity and honest dealing with the court.” Id. at 654–55, 218 P.3d at 858-59 (internal quotation marks omitted). “And when [an attorney] departs from that standard in the conduct of a case[,] he perpetrates fraud upon the court.” Id. at 655, 218 P.3d at 859 (internal quotation marks omitted). Even then, relief from a judgment based on fraud upon the court is rare and normally “available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.”
“Zealous advocacy is the cornerstone of good lawyering and the bedrock of a just legal system. However, zeal cannot give way to unprofessionalism, noncompliance with court rules, or, most importantly, to violations of the ethical duties of candor to the courts and to opposing counsel.”
Thomas v. City of North Las Vegas, 122 Nev. 82, 96 (Nev. 2006)
Nevada law prohibits a court from granting quiet title without an evidentiary hearing (NRS 40.110). In five years of litigation, no Nevada Court has based any of its decisions in this case on an evidentiary hearing, including the quiet title decision.
“We first hold that each party in a quiet title action has the burden of demonstrating superior title in himself or herself.”
While the “burden of proof [in a quiet title action] rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself,” Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (1996), abrogated on other grounds by Delgado v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009), “a plaintiff’s right to relief [ultimately] . . . depends on superiority of title,” W. Sunset 2050 Tr. v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 47, 420 P.3d 1032, 1034 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
And because “[a] plea to quiet title does not require any particular elements, . . each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question.” Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 129 Nev. 314, 318, 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., Inc. 135 Nev., Adv. Opinion 8
All courts in prior and appellate proceeding have made erroneous decisions by relying on argument solely based on Red Rock’s falsified file and having no evidentiary hearings. See 4/12/21 Order of Affirmance in case 79295.
The court order, entered on 4/18/19, that granted Sun City Anthem’s motion for summary judgment as to the quiet title claim of the Hansen Trust and Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder thereto, was solely based on a fraud on the court.
“An attorney is an officer of the court”; as such, an attorney “owes a duty of loyalty to the court …, [which] demands integrity and honest dealing with the court.” Id. at 654–55, 218 P.3d at 858-59 (internal quotation marks omitted). “And when [an attorney] departs from that standard in the conduct of a case[,] he perpetrates fraud upon the court.” Id. at 655, 218 P.3d at 859 (internal quotation marks omitted). Even then, relief from a judgment based on fraud upon the court is rare and normally “available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Beggerly , 524 U.S. 38, 47, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998) ; see alsoBonnell v. Lawrence , 128 Nev. 394, 400, 282 P.3d 712, 715 (2012).”)
Estate of Adams ex rel. Estate v. Fallini, 386 P.3d 621, 625 (Nev. 2016)
Tobin’s 4/24/19 motion to vacate the 4/18/19 order pursuant to NRCP 60 (b)(3) and the attached motion for summary judgment against all parties were never heard or ruled on by Judge Kishner. See Exhibit 1 for 4/24/19 MVAC and MSJ.
Tobin’s 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 52(b) and NRCP 59(a)(1)(B)(C)(F) was never heard or ruled on by Judge Kishner. See Exhibit 3.
“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),”)
Estate of Adams ex rel. Estate v. Fallini, 386 P.3d 621, 625-26 (Nev. 2016)
All courts in prior and appellate proceedings have made erroneous decisions by relying on argument solely based on Red Rock’s falsified file and having no evidentiary hearings.
There is no evidence in the record that refutes the evidence Tobin provided to the court in the four requests for judicial notice and the 22 exhibits to the 3/8/21 counter-claim and cross-claim and the 3/22/21 third-party claim
Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo did not timely file a responsive pleading to Tobin’s 3/8/21 answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claim (AACC) to refute her claims.
Red Rock’s introduction of 1000+ pages of exhibits and Tobin’s four requests for judicial notice and 22 exhibits to her AACC convert Red Rock’s motion to dismiss into an unsupported motion for summary judgment pursuant to NRCP 12 (d). None of Red Rock’s exhibits to its motions to dismiss, and none of its previous responses to subpoena include any verified evidence to refute Tobin’s claims.
Red Rock and Sun City Anthem entered no verified, unrefuted evidence in the court record to support their claims that the sale complied with all due process and notice requirements mandated by the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions, Nevada statutes and the HOA governing documents.
See 4/9/21 RFJN Request for Judicial notice of the NRCP 16.1 disclosures, responses to subpoenas, and disputed evidence in the court record.
Red Rock did not refute any of the factual allegations in AACC pages 22-23 quoted here below:
Plaintiff RRFS knows that all the liens recorded related to named Defendants other than Nona Tobin, i.e., Republic Services, Wells Fargo, and Nationstar have been released on 3/30/17, 8/17/04, 3/12/15, and 6/3/19, respectively. See Exhibit 1.
The HOA sale was void as payments and tenders after 7/1/12 were rejected, misappropriated, misrepresented and/or concealed. Default did not occur as described in the 3/12/13 Notice of default or as recited in the 8/22/14 foreclosure deed. See Exhibit 2.
The Default was cured three times, but RRFS kept pursuing the predatory path to unwarranted, unjustly profitable foreclosure. See Exhibit 3.
There was no valid authorization of the sale, but RRFS disclosed deceptive and falsified documents to create the misrepresentation of reality. See Exhibit 4.
Required notices were not provided, but RRFS falsified records to cover it up. SeeExhibit 5.
SCA Board imposed the ultimate sanction against the estate of the deceased homeowner, but RRFS and SCA attorneys concealed and misrepresented material facts and the law to cover it up. SeeExhibit 6.
Bank of America never was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust, but committed mortgage servicing fraud, refused to let two fair market value sales close escrow, refused to take the title on a deed in lieu, took possession without foreclosing, and used attorney Rock K. Jung to covertly tender delinquent assessments to circumvent the owner’s rights under the PUD Rider remedies (f) to confiscate her property without foreclosing. See Exhibit 7.
Many examples of RRFS’s corrupt business practices exist of keeping fraudulent books, scrubbing page numbers from ledgers, combined unrelated documents to rewrite history, scrubbing dates from emails, not documenting Board actions, and much more. See Exhibit 8.
All opposing counsels in all the litigation over the title to this one property made misrepresentations in their court filings and made oral misstatements of materials facts and law at hearings. See Exhibit 9.
The proceeds of the sale were not distributed in 2014 and RRFS’s complaint for interpleader in 2021 was filed in bad faith. See Exhibit 10.
RRFS concealed the 4/27/12 debt collection contract that requires RRFS to indemnify the HOA and has been unjustly enriched thereby well over $100,000 in fees and considerably more in undistributed proceeds. RRFS did not participate in NRS 38.310 mediation in good faith. See Exhibit 11.
In case A-19-799890-C, Brody Wight knowingly filed a motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) and NRCP (b)(6) that was totally unwarranted, harassing, disruptive of the administration of justice, not supported by facts or law, and filed solely for the improper purpose of preventing discovery of the crimes of his law firm and its clients. See Exhibit 12.
None of the opposing counsels have acted in good faith in compliance with the ethic standard of their profession. All have failed in their duty of candor to the court, wasted millions of dollars in judicial resources, and have engaged in criminal conduct to further the criminal conduct of their clients. See Exhibit 13.
Attorneys have knowingly presented false evidence into the court record in discovery. See Exhibit 14.
Nationstar and RRFS conspired to conceal the manner in which RRFS covertly rejected Nationstar’s $1100 offer to close the MZK sale. Civil Conspiracy. See Exhibit 15.
Fraud, racketeering and conversion were pleaded with particularity.
The voluminous 22 exhibits to the 3/8/21 AACC were reformatted and summarized in the remaining pages of this opposition for the Court’s convenience of quick review.
Exhibit 1:APN 191-13-811-052 Clark Co. Property Record & allegations of fraud vs. all opponents
202102050000420 Substitution/reconveyance of quicken INC 12/27/19 $353,500 loan to switch 2 12/28/20 $355,320 dot quicken LLC 2 Chiesi
12/4/20
202012040001097 Order 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.
2/6/20
202002060000199reconveyance 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.
2/6/20
Substitution 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.
12/27/19
201912270001346 DEED of trust 12/26/19 $353,500 quicken loans INC 2 Brian & Debora Chiesi
12/27/19
201912270001345 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 didn’t have a valid title. 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
12/27/19
201912270001344 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, 201912270001344RPTT exemption 5
201908140003083 LIS pendens related to Tobin/Hansen trust appeals 79295 7 pages plus receipt for recording both 8/14/19 LIS pendens
8/8/19
201908080002097 LIS pendens (7 pages) related to 7/23/19 Hansen trust appeal & 7/24/19 appeals & 8/7/19 a-19-799890-c
7/24/19
201907240003355 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, was 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.
7/17/19
201907170002971 Assignment 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.
7/10/19
201907100002352 Akerman 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.
6/4/19
201906040000772 Assignment of Joel Stokes DEED of trust had no proper purpose, but served to cloud the title and attempted to cover the dirty money trail.
201905010003348DEED 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 admissible 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.
3/8/19
201903080002790 Assignment 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 409-411.
3/8/19
201903080002789 3/8/19 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 rescission as NSM 412- 413
201703310003071 Interest disclaimer Steve Hansen filed 3/28/17 NSM 212-217
3/30/17
201703300003860 Republic services released its 2nd garbage LIEN concealed by RRFS & NSM
3/30/17
201703300003859 Republic services released its 1st garbage LIEN recorded 9/23/13
3/28/17
201703280001452 DEED Gordon B. Hansen trust 2 Nona Tobin, individual, NSM 208-211
6/7/16
201606070001450 LIS pendens re NSM 6/2/16 AACC vs Jimijack NSM 203-207
5/23/16
201605230001417 Request notice by Tobin 4 Hansen trust not disclosed by NSM
5/23/16
201605230001416 Certificate of Incumbency Nona Tobin 4 Hansen trust
1/13/16
201601130001051 LIS pendens re 1/11/16 complaint Nationstar vs opportunity homes
12/1/15
201512010003402 Judgment 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 40.110 “Court 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
8/17/15
201508170001056 Substitution 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.
6/9/15
201506090001545 DEED 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.
6/9/15
201506090001537 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.
3/12/15
201503120002285 Substitution/ reconveyance Wells Fargo 2nd open-ended deed of trust
201412010000518 Nationstar’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.
9/9/14
201409090000974 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.
200808270003627DEED 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.
5/10/07
200705100001127 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
9/1/04
200409010007297 Declaration of Homestead by Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man
8/31/04
200408310007563 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.
8/17/04
200408170002284 Reconveyance of 11/20/03 Wells Fargo $55,000 2nd DOT To Hansen . The 11/20/03 lien was released on 8/17/04
7/22/04
DEED OF TRUST is the disputed Hansen DOT. 200407220003507 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.
200406110005547 DEED transfer from Marilyn to Gordon Hansen in divorce
11/20/03
200311200004030 DEED of trust $55,000 Wells Fargo 2nd deed of trust to Gordon & Marilyn Hansen
9/10/03
200309100000588 DEED of trust assign 7/31/03 dot city first mortgage 2 washington mutual
7/31/03
200307310004444 DEED of trust Gordon & marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot from city first mortgage
7/31/03
200307310004443power of attorney Marilyn 2 Gordon Hansen for purchase documents “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)
Exhibit 2 – the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
The HOA sale was void as payments and tenders after 7/1/12 were rejected, misappropriated, misrepresented and/or concealed. Default did not occur as described in the 3/12/13 Notice of default or as recited in the 8/22/14 foreclosure deed.
The rejected Miles Bauer tender of $825 cured the default of the nine months assessments then delinquent and paid assessments from 10/1/12 through 6/30/13.
Exhibit 3 The alleged default was cured three times, but for Red Rock’s covert and unlawful rejections.
The Default was cured three times, but RRFS kept pursuing the predatory path to unwarranted, unjustly profitable foreclosure. See Exhibit 3.
First cure of the default was on 10/18/12 when RRFS applied $300 check 143 to pay the $275 quarterly assessments due for the 7/1/12 to 9/30/12.
Figure below found in RRFS 402 and SCA 618 both show assessments were paid until 9/30/12.
The default was cured a second time in 2013, but for RRFS’ misconduct.
RRFS fraudulently, covertly rejected the $825 Miles Bauer check, dated 5/8/13, intended to pay the $825 then delinquent for the quarters from 10/1/12 to 6/30/13.
RRFS concealed the rejection from all interested parties, including the owner and the HOA Board.
RRFS conspired with others to conceal this $825 tender as all conspirators knew that the PUD Rider Remedies Section F., disclosed as NSM 160, 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.
The default was cured a third time by the 5/28/14 $1,110 offer of one year assessments, $275 over the super-priority.
RRFS fraudulently covertly rejected the offer, made to close escrow on the 5/25/14 auction.com sale, was disclosed as SCA 302 and RRFS 119. Nationstar conspired with RRFS do worse this time, because it allowed Nationstar to steal the house from Nona Tobin.
RRFS concealed the rejection of Nationstar’s 5/28/14 super-priority offer to close the MZK 5/8/14 auction.com sale from all interested parties, including the owner and the HOA Board, by misrepresenting Nationstar’s $1100 offer as an owner’s request for waiver. SCA 295
Exhibit 4 SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
All SCA Board decisions related to this foreclosure, and all other foreclosures done under SCA’s statutory authority, were done in closed meetings that SCA owners could not attend.
Exhibit 5 Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified
No quarterly delinquency reports were presented to the SCA Board and membership in 2012-2014 as FSR was mandated to do by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v).
No quarterly assessment statements were sent to SCA owners after 1/31/12 with no explanation for suddenly stopping the normal routine banking practice of providing periodic statements.
No notice of sale was in effect when the 8/15/14 sale was held as the Ombudsman logged it was notified that the 2/12/14 published notice of a 3/7/14 sale, and the sale postponed to 5/15/14, were both cancelled effective 5/15/14.
The Ombudsman notice of sale compliance record, authenticated in the figure below, has been filed into the prior court record on, including but not limited to, these dates: 9/23/16, 11/15/16, 1/31/17, 2/1/17, 11/30/18, 3/5/19,4/10/19, 4/17/19, 4/24/19, 5/23/19, and 8/7/19.
RRFS deleted from all its ledgers a $400 waiver authorized on 3/27/14 by the HOA Board the is shown on page 6 of RRFS’s response to Chicago Title. RRFS and Nationstar both concealed the 3/28/14 ledger for different fraudulent reasons of their own.
RRFS and Nationstar both concealed SCA 302, the super-priority tender than was falsely portrayed as an owner request for waiver.
No notice of the 8/15/14 sale was provided to any party with a known interest – not the owner Tobin, the listing agent Leidy, the servicing bank Nationstar, SCA homeowners at large, any recent or pending bona fide purchasers, i.e., Blum who had an 8/4/14 $358,800 offer pending, MZK properties high $367,500 bidder at the 5/8/14 internet auction was rejected on 7/24/14, RRRI whose 2/25/14 $340,000 cash offer had been rejected.
All of the facts listed above have been filed into the court record multiple times and supported by multiple declarations under penalty of perjury, e.g., Leidy 5/20/19 and 5/11/18 DECL.
Exhibit 6 SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process
SCA Board’s power to impose sanctions for any alleged infraction is constrained by NRS 116.3102(m) and NRS 116.31031.
The Board’s decision to impose the sanction was based solely on the allegations made by the financially-conflicted debt collector in closed meetings without providing the owner notice, an opportunity to defend, or appeal. See also NRS 116.31085.
Attorneys at Koch & Scow conspired with David Ochoa of Lipson Neilson for Sun City Anthem, and others to conceal that Red Rock conducted secret sales of at least a dozen Sun City Anthem properties in 2014 without any authorization by the HOA Board in a meeting compliant with NRS 116.31083 or NRS 116.31085 or SCA bylaws 3.15 and 3.16.
Exhibit 7 Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed deed of trust
Bank of America never was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust, but…
committed mortgage servicing fraud,
refused to let two fair market value sales close escrow, refused to take the title on a deed in lieu,
took possession without foreclosing, and
used attorney Rock K. Jung to covertly tender delinquent assessments of $825 when $825 was due immediately before escrow was given instructions to pay $3,055.47 to the HOA to close the Mazzeo $395,000 sale,
On 2/25/19, recorded on 3/8/19, NSM executed an assignment of the DOT from Wells Fargo to itself without disclosing a valid power of attorney. See NSM 412-413 disclosed on 3/12/19.
Exhibit 8 Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
Many examples of RRFS’s corrupt business practices exist of keeping fraudulent books, scrubbing page numbers from ledgers, combined unrelated documents to rewrite history, scrubbing dates from emails, not documenting Board actions, and much more. See Exhibit 8.
The figure below shows that each page of the real HOA ownership record for the subject property, the Resident Transaction Report, is uniquely numbered. The page number can’t be changed, but as RRFS shows us, it can be scrubbed.
In SCA’s and RRFS’s disclosures of the Resident transaction report, ALL the page numbers were scrubbed.
SCA and RRFS concealed Pages 1336 and 1337 in discovery because RRFS falsified the records to evade detection of their foul play
RRFS 190 and RRFS 083 are two examples of what RRFS disclosed for page 1336
The figure above was provided to Nona Tobin on or about 5/9/16 by an IT transition employee in response to a records request to HOA community manager Lori Martin.
The figure above shows that RRFS 190 has scrubbed Page number 1336.
RRFS 083 is FSR dba RRFS’s final accounting on behalf of the HOA as of 8/15/14, the alleged day of the sale with no indication of any payment to the HOA and no page number 1336.
RRFS 083 in the figure above is FSR dba RRFS’s disclosure of Page 1336, alleging to be the final accounting, as of 8/15/14, the day of the alleged sale, on behalf of the HOA with no indication of any payment to the HOA and no page number 1336.
Exhibit 9 Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
All opposing counsels in all the litigation over the title to this one property made misrepresentations in their court filings and made oral misstatements of materials facts and law at hearings. See Exhibit 9.
Brody Wight (NV Bar #13615) and/or Steven Scow (NV Bar #9906) for Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-058132) conspired with, or acted in concert with, Joseph Hong (NV Bar #5595) for Joel A. Stokes, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees for Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, and Jimijack Irrevocable Trust; Brittany Wood (NV Bar #7562) of Maurice Wood (NV Bar #6412) for Brian and Debora Chiesi and (maybe) Quicken Loans; and Donna Wittig (NV Bar #11015) and/or Melanie Morgan (NV Bar #8215), of Akerman LLP for Nationstar Mortgage LLC and/or dba Mr. Cooper to conceal and misrepresent material facts to the court that resulted in the obstruction of a fair adjudication of Nona Tobin’s claims and to prevent ANY judicial scrutiny of the evidence.
Attorneys for Koch & Scow know that Nationstar’s false and conflicting filed and recorded claim judicially estop Nationstar from claiming to own now, or to ever have owned the disputed Hansen deed of trust, but have conspired with attorneys from Akerman LLP, Wright, Finley, Zak LLP to conceal it and support them in their fraudulent claims with the quid pro quo being that Koch & Scow gets to keep more of the undistributed proceeds for keeping the devil’s bargain.
Nona Tobin published warnings and filed administrative complaints about opposing parties and their role in a massive HOA foreclosure scam that has been used to mask mortgage servicing fraud on 3/14/19, 11/10/19, 12/16/20, and other dates that have heretofore been ignored by enforcement authorities and will be filed into this case as a Request for Judicial Notice.
Exhibit 10 the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
The proceeds of the sale were not distributed in 2014 and RRFS’s complaint for interpleader in 2021 was filed in bad faith. See Exhibit 10.
Koch & Scow unlawfully retained the proceeds of this HOA foreclosure in the Red Rock Financial Services Trust account when the Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.20 and 3.18 explicitly prohibit any funds that are collected for the benefit of Sun City Anthem to be under the proprietary control of anyone other than the HOA Board of Directors. Steven Scow deceptively disclosed a $57,282.32 check for this property
Koch & Scow refused to interplead the proceeds of the disputed 8/15/14 HOA foreclosure sale when I attempted to make a claim in September 2014 and then acted in bad faith in multiple ways to cover up the actual criminality involved in this.
Au contraire. On 8/27/14, RRFS paid the HOA, allegedly IN FULL, a whopping $2,701.04, identified as “collection payment PIF” which brought the HOA’s Resident Transaction Report account for Gordon Hansen to a zero balance.
RRFS kept $60,399.96, $57,282.32 of which was identified by RRFS as “excess proceeds”, but all of which remains in the RRFS Trust fund account under the total, exclusive, unsupervised, unaudited and unauthorized proprietary control of Steven Scow.
Exhibit 11 RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
RRFS concealed the 4/27/12 debt collection contract that requires RRFS to indemnify the HOA and has been unjustly enriched thereby well over $100,000 in fees and considerably more in undistributed proceeds. RRFS did not participate in NRS 38.310 mediation in good faith. See Exhibit 11.
Steven Scow did not participate in mediation in good faith pursuant to NRS 38.310 and knowingly misrepresented the law in his response to Nona Tobin’s 8/20/18 claim.
The 7/26/19 NOTC notice of Nona Tobin’s and the Gordon B. Hansen Trust’s completion of mediation shows that RRFS LLC, Joel Just, President of RRFS, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132), Steven Parker, President of FirstService Residential, Nevada (LLC3280-1996) were named as respondents’, but did not respond.
Steven Scow appeared but did not disclose who he was actually representing and did not participate in the mediation in good faith.The figure below is from page 20 of the stricken 7/26/19 NOTC. Scow’s only response to the complaint for mediation was the knowingly false statement that the unjust enrichment claim was time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations rather than addressing why he unlawfully retained the proceeds of this and other Sun City Anthem foreclosures.The figure below is an excerpt from page 21 of the stricken NOTC. Please note the word “no” needs to be added to the final sentence: “I also hope it convinces the SCA attorney there is NO benefit for his client, SCA, if he fails to require RRFS to pay the litigation costs in all seven cases that were caused by RRFS’ method of conducting foreclosures in 2014.”
Sun City Anthem attorneys have still not enforced the 4/27/12 RRFS-SCA debt collection contract indemnification clause that required RRFS to pay those litigation costs.
Exhibit 12 attorney interference in the administration of justice
In case A-19-799890-C, Brody Wight knowingly filed a motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) and NRCP (b)(6) that was totally unwarranted, harassing, disruptive of the administration of justice, not supported by facts or law, and filed solely for the improper purpose of preventing discovery of the crimes of his law firm and its clients. See Exhibit 12.
Instead of properly communicating with counsel for Nona Tobin regarding factual misrepresentations in the drafted order, Brody Wight ignored eight pages of written objections to the duplicitous wording of the order as drafted by Koch & Scow.
…page 1 of Tobin’s eight pages of objections that the page number of the 4/27/17 transcript wherein Judge Kishner reaffirmed Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual party was inadvertently omitted in the letter.
Since Koch & Scow did not make any attempt to ascertain the true facts of Nona Tobin’s standing to assert an NRS 40.010 quiet title claim as an individual, the relevant pages from the 4/27/17 hearing transcript are shown in the screenshots below.
Page 12 of the 4/27/17 transcript, lines 11-25
Figure below is 4/27/17 hearing transcript Page 13, lines 1 – 18Koch & Scow ignored eight single-spaced pages of evidence-backed objections and filed the order exactly as drafted for the sole purpose of obstructing judicial scrutiny of the evidence against the Koch & Scow law firm and preventing Tobin’s piercing the corporate veil from the Koch & Scow clients.
Nona Tobin was forced to appeal this totally improper 12/3/20 order of dismissal with prejudice and the expungement of three of Nona Tobin’s lis pendens in case 82294 due to the misconduct of the Koch & Scow attorneys.
Exhibit 13 lack of professional ethics and good faith
None of the opposing counsels have acted in good faith in compliance with the ethic standard of their profession. All have failed in their duty of candor to the court, wasted millions of dollars in judicial resources, and have engaged in criminal conduct to further the criminal conduct of their clients. See Exhibit 13.
When the three appeals that resulted from Koch & Scow’s and the other attorneys’ duplicity (82294, 82234, 82094) were combined and submitted to mediation, Koch & Scow for RRFS, and the other opposing counsels – Brittany Wood for Quicken Loans, Brian Chiesi and Debora Chiesi; Joseph Hong for Joel A. Stokes, an individual, and Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust; and Donna Wittig for Nationstar Mortgage LLC did not participate in good faith and predictably mediation failed.
Koch & Scow is responsible for the waste of judicial resources and the obstruction of the administration of justice in case 82294.
Joseph Hong, Akerman attorneys for Nationstar, and Lipson Neilson attorneys for Sun City Anthem are responsible for the waste of judicial resources in the appeal 79295 and the obstruction of the administration of justice in case A-15-720032-C by virtue of their defiance of NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4), 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).
Joseph Hong and Akerman attorneys for Nationstar are additionally culpable for their improper ex parte communications with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19 in defiance of ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation) and 6.31(b). ex parte communications
Exhibit 14 Presented false evidence to cover up crime
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 1, Nona Tobin denies the allegations, allowing the documents to speak for themselves.
FirstService Residential, Nevada, LLC (FSR) fka RMI Management, LLC was Sun City Anthem’s community association manager during all times relevant. Simultaneously, FSR held the NRS 649 debt collector license, and did business as Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-058132) with undisclosed partners. FSR and RMI had separate contracts for management for the HOA in 2010 and 2014.
The HOA’s debt collection contracts were with Red Rock Financial Services without disclosure of the financial entanglement of the community manager whose license is controlled by NRS 116A and NAC 116A and the debt collector whose license is controlled by NRS 649.
In the prior proceedings, A-15-720032-C, Nona Tobin requested all relevant management and debt collection contracts between the HOA and its managers and debt collectors in the prior proceedings by a 2/4/19 subpoena, served on Steven Scow, Koch & Scow, LLC.
Sun City Anthem attorneys, for unknown reasons, aided and abetted the Plaintiffs fraudulent concealment when it disclosed the detrimental-to-the-HOA-beneficial-to-RRFS 2007 debt collection agreement.
The 2007 RRFS-SCA debt collection agreement lacks the 2012 requirement that RRFS indemnify and hold the HOA, and its members, harmless if proceedings are brought against the HOA due to allegations that RRFS negligently or willfully violated any law or regulation which is exactly what Nona Tobin alleges.
The 2007 contract was disclosed by the HOA attorneys as SCA 164-167, but was also withheld by Steven Scow who concealed all contracts his various unidentifiable clients had with Sun City Anthem in his subpoena response. (RRFS 001-425).
Attorneys at Koch & Scow knew that Red Rock Financial Services had conducted a unfair, unnoticed and fraudulent sale and provided false evidence (RRFS 001-425) in response to Nona Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena to cover it up.
Attorneys at Koch & Scow knew that the Red Rock Foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) Steven Scow provided in response to subpoena was incomplete, inaccurate, and contained falsified documents and conspired with attorneys for Nationstar, for the HOA’s errors & omissions insurance policy, for Sun City Anthem and others to conceal or to misrepresent the true facts of how the HOA sale was conducted, where the money came from and where the money went.
Some examples of documents disclosed, concealed, falsified or misrepresented, include:
Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s 5/28/14 Equator message to Craig Leidy saying she was authorized to offer $1100 to the HOA was disclosed as (SCA 302)
Nationstar did not admit it knew that RRFS had rejected its 5/28/14 super-priority offer that prevented the escrow of the MZK 5/8/14 $367,500 sale from closing.
Nationstar in concerted action, and/or by direct conspiracy, allowed SCA/RRFS to lie about it and call it an owner request for waiver or Leidy asking for “thousands of dollars of reductions” that the board approved (SCA 276) and falsely claim that Leidy was informed (SCA 277 is fraudulently doctored)
NSM concealed all of the Equator records (and other records to which Tobin is entitled) requested in discovery that would have shown the exact nature of its communications with Red Rock about the HOA sale and how the $100 tender was rejected. (2/21/19 RESP to RFDs) See also NSM’s 2/21/19 RESP 2 ROGs.
SCA attorney Ochoa claimed in his 8/9/19 AFFD for attorney fees (page 35 of 53) that he prepared RFDs, ROGs, and RFAs for NSM on 8/8/18, but no SCA to NSM RFDs, ROGs, or RFAs were served on the parties, and no NSM RESP to SCA ROGs, RFDs, or RFAs were ever served through the NVefile system.
SCA/RRFS/NSM concealed in discovery the 3/28/14 RRFS pay off demand to Chicago Title which on page 6 includes a $400 fee waiver approved by the HOA Board at its 3/27/19 meeting that Leidy did request.
SCA concealed in discovery the requested board minutes where the HOA sale was approved, because there are no minutes of any meeting at which the sale was approved. SCA lied about the minutes being contained in SCA 644-654 in its 2/26/19 RESP to RFDs (page 7, response 7), line 10). See also 2/27/19 RESP ROGs
SCA 315 claims that the sale was approved as item R-05-120513 at the 12/5/13 HOA Board meeting is false and deliberately deceptive.
RRFS 047-048 is the 8/28/14 memo from RRFS agent Christie Marling to Steven Scow requesting that he interplead the excess funds from the sale of 2763 White Sage and five other properties
Attorneys at Koch & Scow conspired with David Ochoa of Lipson Neilson for Sun City Anthem, and others to conceal the correct Sun City Anthem debt collection contract, dated 4/27/12, so that Red Rock or Koch & Scow, profited by the nonenforcement of the indemnification clause related to at least eight Sun City Anthem foreclosures.
Exhibit 15 Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
Plaintiff RRFS and Defendant Nationstar acted in concert or conspired to conceal and/or misrepresent material facts in multiple court filings and/or recorded documents that the demonstrably provable fact that Nationstar never owned the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust and is judicially estopped, to claiming it has standing in this case or any of the prior proceedings.
Plaintiff RRFS knew Nationstar was not the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust, and their conspiracy gives rise to treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.407
Nationstar conspired with Plaintiff RRFS to perpetrate a fraud on the court.
Plaintiff RRFS has knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted Defendant Nationstar’s deception in this case since 2014.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin contends that the allegations in paragraphs are not factual statements, constitute statements of law, requiring no answer.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin denies the allegations contained therein as, upon information, and belief, Plaintiff knows, or should have known, that these allegations are false and Plaintiff has taken pains to obscure the misappropriation of funds by the use of sham corporate entities and misrepresentation of agency relationships.
Pages 1-3 of Nona Tobin’s 1/31/17 crossclaim vs. Sun City Anthem and DOEs & ROEs identifies the HOA Agents as not being named because their corporate identities had been conflated to evade accountability for their misdeeds.
“Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants sued herein, including those named as DOES, are the agents, servants, employees, predecessor entities, .successor entitles, parent entities, totally owned or controlled entities, or had some legal relationship of responsibility for, the other defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, acted within the course and scope and authority of such agency, employment, ownership or other relationship and with the full knowledge and consent of the other defendants or are in some other manner legally responsible for the acts as alleged herein.
Additionally, with respect to all corporate entity defendants, the officers and directors of such entities ratified and affirmed all contracts of its employees, agents, directors and/ or officers.”
Page 2, Paragraph 7, Red Rock interpleader complaint
Pages 2-3 1/31/17 (CRCM) of Nona Tobin’s and the Hansen Trust’s cross-claim vs Sun City Anthem shows why the RRFS’ statement on page 2, paragraph 7, is deceptive.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin denies the allegations contained therein for the reasons related to the improper contracts, the unpierceable corporate veil, and the misappropriation of funds set forth in answering paragraph 1, and because the non-judicial foreclosure action was not properly conducted pursuant to Nevada law or pursuant to the HOA’s governing documents.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 9, Nona Tobin denies the allegations contained therein as RRFS knows that RRFS made no attempt to collect the debt from Nona Tobin after 2/12/14 as there was no notice whatsoever from RRFS after that date. See 5/11/18 D. Craig Leidy declaration under penalty of perjury.
RRFS sold the property on 8/15/14 to a Realtor in the listing office for $63,100 without any public notice after RRFS explicitly withheldALL notice of the sale from all parties with a known interest, including those whom RRFS owed a contractual or statutory duty to inform after Nona Tobin had already sold the property for $367,500 on auction.com on 5/8/14.
Further, “RRFS’s efforts resulted in a foreclosure sale” is duplicitous in that RRFS employed unfair and deceptive collection practices, conducted an unnecessary sale, that was unauthorized by any official HOA Board vote, after RRFS knowingly misappropriated payments, covertly rejecting two super-priority tenders, and falsified and concealed records to cover it up.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin denies the allegations contained therein as, upon information, and belief, Plaintiff knows that these allegations are false as the liens and claims of all named defendants, except for Nona Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed, have been released, on 3/30/17,
“Records in Clark County, Nevada indicate that there are several potential liens and other debts secured by the Subject Property belonging to the defendants in this action.”
“RRFS believes these debts exceed the amount currently in the possession of RRFS.”
False statements in Red Rock interpleader complaint
Exhibit 16 Republic Services lien releases
Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin, admits that Defendant Republic Services, Inc. is a Nevada corporation doing business in Clark County, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Republic Services, Inc as a defendant, and denies the allegations by allowing the documents to speak for themselves.
Steven Scow’s 2/11/19 response to Nona Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena provided two Republic Services liens and withheld both Republic’s releases of their liens that occurred because RRFS’s failed to distribute the proceeds within the three-year statute of limitations on enforcement of statutory liens.
The first Republic Services lien was recorded on 9/23/13 as instrument number 201309230001369.
Republic’s first lien was identified as RRFS 185 in the subpoena response (RRFS 001-425).
Republic’s release of its 9/23/13 lien was recorded on 3/30/17 as instrument 201703300003859.
There is no BATES number as the release of Republic’s first lien was withheld in Steven Scow’s response to Nona Tobin’s subpoena.
The second Republic Services lien, recorded on 5/6/14 as instrument number 201405060004357 was identified as RRFS 070 in Steven Scow’s response to Nona Tobin’s subpoena.
Republic’s release of the 5/6/14 lien, recorded on 3/30/17 as instrument 201703300003860 has no BATES number as it was withheld in Steven Scow’s response to Nona Tobin’s subpoena.
Nationstar attorneys deceived the court regarding Nona Tobin’s standing to assert an NRS 40.010 claim as an individual holder of a 3/28/17 deed. NSM disclosed the 3/28/17 deed as NSM 208-211. NSM named Tobin individually as a party in all the captions. NSM did not remove Nona Tobin as an individual party when reforming the caption on 3/7/19 NTSO and 3/12/19 ANEO. Nationstar attorneys knew that Nona Tobin was a party with adverse interests and that to make a side deal with Jimjack in order to prevent Nationstar’s and Tobin’s adverse claims from being adjudicated was fraud.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin admits that she resides in Clark County, Nevada, but denies that she has a right to assert a claim solely in her capacity as a Trustee as Red Rock is obliquely implying. Nona Tobin admits she is a defendant here in two capacities:
1) as the sole successor Trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, that held title to the property by virtue of a deed recorded on 8/27/08, as instrument 200808270003627, until Red Rock wrongly foreclosed on it and caused a foreclosure deed containing false recitals to be recorded on 8/22/14 as instrument number 20014008220002548, and
2) as NONA TOBIN, an individual, who became the successor in interest to the title claims of Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, when the Hansen Trust was closed pursuant to NRS 163.187, on 3/28/17.
NONA TOBIN, an individual, has a deed to the subject property, recorded as instrument number 201703280001452, that transferred the Hansen Trust’s sole remaining asset to its sole beneficiary NONA TOBIN, an Individual.
All parties to the prior proceedings knew, or should have known, that the interest of the Hansen Trust was transferred by a valid recorded deed to Nona Tobin, an individual, on 3/28/17, as Nationstar disclosed Nona Tobin, an individual’s, recorded deed as NSM 208-211
Nationstar also disclosed with Nona Tobin’s individual deed, the 3/31/17 recording of Steve Hansen’s 3/27/17 disclaimer of interest (NSM 212), that was recorded on 3/31/17.
Nationstar also disclosed the disclaimers of interest of Thomas Lucas, Opportunity Homes LLC, Yuen K. Lee, and F. Bondurant, LLC with Nona Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed as NSM 208-221.
Exhibit 18 – Relevant statutes and regulations
See also 4/7/21 RFJN Request for Judicial Notice exhibits linked below.
NRS 30.030Scope. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
NRS 40.010 Actions may be brought against adverse claimants. An action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.
NRS 30.130 Parties. When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.
NRS 38.310 Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions. (Judge Kishner had no jurisdiction)
1. No civil action based upon a claim relating to:
(a) The interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association; or
(b) The procedures used for increasing, decreasing or imposing additional assessments upon residential property,
Ê may be commenced in any court in this State unless the action has been submitted to mediation or, if the parties agree, has been referred to a program pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive, and, if the civil action concerns real estate within a planned community subject to the provisions of chapter 116 of NRS or real estate within a condominium hotel subject to the provisions of chapter 116B of NRS, all administrative procedures specified in any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to the property or in any bylaws, rules and regulations of an association have been exhausted.
2. A court shall dismiss any civil action which is commenced in violation of the provisions of subsection 1.
AB 284 (2011) Nevada’s 2011 anti-foreclosure fraud amendments to NRS 107 and NRS 205 summary and legislative digest Robin Wright “Complying with AB284” for UTA Quarterly Winter 2011
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 116.310313 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
Exhibit 19 Relevant HOA Governing Document Provisions
1/17/11 SCA BOARD RESOLUTION ON THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, SCA 168-175 2013 Delinquent Assessment Policy
3.13(a, e, f) Compensation can’t appear to influence decisions, create a conflict; can’t relate to fines or violations; must conform to standards of practice
3.15 Open BOD meetings – must give owner minutes of hearing on violation of governing documents
3.15A SHALL hold hearing re violations Executive session
3.17 Powers of BOD business judgment benefits the association
3.18(a) Duties of the Board that SHALL NOT be delegated (a) adopt budget
3.18(b) Duties of the Board that SHALL NOT be delegated (b) levy and collect assessments
3.18 (e ) Duties of the Board that SHALL NOT be delegated (e) deposit all funds taken on association’s behalf and use to operate 3.18(f) Duties of the Board that SHALL NOT be delegated (f) Use restrictions and rule3.18 (g) Duties of the Board that SHALL NOT be delegated (g) opening of bank accounts on the Association’s behalf and designating signatories required 3.18(i) Duties of the Board that SHALL NOT be delegated (i) enforcing the Governing Documents and bringing any legal proceedings…on behalf of or against the Owners concerning the Association; provided, the Association’s obligation in this regard shall be conditioned as provided in CC&Rs 7.4
12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Lending Division 12/16/20 verified complaint vs. Nationstar to the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division provides 692 pages of evidence supporting Nona Tobin’s claim of mortgage servicing fraud and fraud on the court vs. Nationstar and its Akerman and Wright Finley Zak attorneys.
Exhibit 21 – Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
Four district court cases: A-15-720032-C, A-16-730078-C, A-19-799890-C, A-21-828840-C
Three appeals related to Red rock’s last motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) claims preclusion: 82094,
82234, and 82294 and three appeals, dated 7/23/19, 7/24/19, and 1/2/20, into 79295 that have cost millions of dollars and wasted many, many hours of judicial resources been caused by the conspiracy and fraud perpetrated by RRFS, Nationstar, and others who do not want their scheme subjected to judicial scrutiny or interrupted by law enforcement.
Exhibit 22 – Excerpts from 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents that Red Rock claims was fully and fairly litigated on the merits without naming Red Rock
Tobin AACC Exhibit 22 contains the 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA parties pg 2-3, 5th cause of action unjust enrichment (pgs 18-19), statement of facts (pgs 5-9)
1. Cross-Claimant, NONA TOBIN, is an Individual, and is a resident of Sun City
Community Association, Inc. (Herein “HOA”) Henderson, Nevada. TOBIN is a both a beneficiary of and the Trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust (Herein “GBH TRUST’), dated 8/22/08, the titleholder of the Subject Property at the time of the disputed foreclosure sale (Herein “HOA sale”) for delinquent assessments (Herein “HOA dues”).
2. Cross-Defendant, SUN CITY ANTHEM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC is a Nevada Non-profit Corporation formed under NRS 82 and operating under NRS 116. The HOA managed its business entirely through HOA AGENTS under contract from inception until the HOA went to self-management on April 1, 2016.
3. There were two companies under contract during all times relevant to this claim: a) RMI Management, LLC (“RMI”) pursuant to the February 26, 2010 HOA Management contract signed by Kevin Wallace, RMI President; and b) FirstService Residential, Nevada, LLC (“FSR”) pursuant to the March 31, 2014 HOA Management contract to provide exclusive management agency.
4. The HOA signed a contract on April 27, 2012 with “Red Rock Financial Services, a FirstService Residential Management Company” to be its authorized agent for debt collection and as its trustee for foreclosure proceedings”.
5. Notably, prior to April, 2012, Red Rock Financial Services (Herein “RRFS”) handled these functions, but only pursuant to HOA Board policy dated 7 /1/09;
6. RRFS has never defined itself in any relevant debt collection or foreclosure
documents related to this case, as Red Rock Financial Services, LLC” which is a separate legal entity registered with the Nevada Secretary of State as a foreign corporation approved to conduct business in Nevada since August 29, 2011; and
7. Since 2006, FSR has carried the only NRS 649 debt collector license d/b/a Red Rock Financial Services.
8. RMI, FSR and RRFS will be referred to herein collectively as “HOA AGENTS”.
Distinguishing their legal status, conformance with HOA contracts and fiduciary duty, regardless of overlapping fictitious names and licensing, is left to the HOA to determine. This determination will only be necessary if the HOA decides to align itself with HOA Agents against Cross-Claimant TOBIN’s motion to void the HOA sale as fraudulently conducted by HOA Agents usurping the HOA’s authority.
9. Counter-Defendants DOES 1-10, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-10 are unknown at this time. Cross-Claimant expressly reserves the right to add additional parties when and if the names of such parties become available
95. Cross-Claimant incorporates and re-alleges all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges:
96. That HOA AGENTS unfairly deprived Cross-Claimant of the Subject Property and unjustly profited from excessive and unauthorized charges added to delinquent dues.
97. That HOA AGENTS unjustly and covertly failed to distribute the $63,100 proceeds of the sale as mandated by 2013 NRS 116.31164 (3)( c), in that:
a) There were no expenses of sale as the cost to conduct a foreclosure sale is limited
to $125.00 by the April 27, 2012 RRFS Delinquent Assessment Collection Agreement, and the lien of $5,08l.45 already included erroneous, duplicative and unauthorized charges.
b) There WAS no expense of securing possession. The Subject Property was vacant, and the key just handed to the Buyer by TOBlN’s agent.
c) Satisfaction of the association’s lien. The HOA Resident Transaction Record for the Subject Property shows that the I·IOA AGENT credited the HOA with $2,701.04 on August 27, 2014. There is no indication that HO.A. AGENTS paid the mandated asset enhancement fee (1/3 of 1 % of the price of every sales price) the HOA mandated for every transfer of title by CC&Rs section 8.12. (Exhibit 8)
d) Satisfaction of subordinate claims. None of the excess proceeds went to any of the entities who had recorded liens. Or, alternatively, if any of the lienholders did receive the excess proceeds, none of the lienholders properly accounted for receiving any funds, and none removed their liens.
e) Remittance of any excess to the unit’s owner. Within a few months after the sale,
TOBIN attempted to claim the excess proceeds since it was clear the HOA AGENTS were treating the bank loan as “extinguished”. In response to direct inquiries, HOA AGENTS were deceptive about their illegal retention of the proceeds of the illegally-conducted sale and refused to speak with TOBIN about her claim, stating at different times in late 2014:
1) that she had no standing, 2) that RRFS had no record of her in relation to the Subject Property, and 3) that RRFS had turned the money over to the court to distribute.
1/31/17 Tobin’s STATEMENT OF FACTS
19. Cross-Claimant incorporates and re-alleges all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
20. The Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated August 22, 2008, became the owner of the Subject Property on August 27, 2008, and the GBH TRUST retained the title until the disputed HOA foreclosure sale on August 15, 2014.
21. On January 14, 2012, Grantor Gordon Hansen died after a protracted illness, and the Subject Property went to his heirs, son Steve Hansen and fiancee Nona TOBIN, who were equal beneficiaries under the terms of the sole amendment (August 10, 2011) to the GBH TRUST.
22. Nona TOBIN, became the Successor Trustee of the GBH TRUST upon the Grantor’s death.
23. Hansen’s address of record had been at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave., a residence also in the HOA which has been TOBIN’s residence from 2004 to the present.
24. When Mr. Hansen died, he was current on his loans, taxes, insurance and homeowner assessments (HOA dues) related to the Subject Property.
25. In 2012, Las Vegas Valley Subject Property values were at a low point, and there were lots of distressed “under water” properties that owners were abandoning or vandalizing and banks were refusing to protect, thereby creating a serious blight on many neighborhoods throughout the valley.
26. Rather than abandon the Subject Property or to allow it to fall into disrepair and
become a blight in this HOA, TOBIN allowed the renters who were down on their luck to remain rent-free as caretakers after Hansen’s death.
27. Within a few weeks of Hansen’s death, TOBIN listed the Subject Property for a short sale with “Proudfit Realty,” and it was on the market for 459 days, during which TOBIN was subjected to abusive collection practices and bizarre behavior by servicing Bank of America (“BOA”) which resulted in two sales that fell out of escrow.
28. TOBIN paid the HOA dues for the Subject Property through September 30, 2012.
29. The first quarter of nonpayment of HOA dues began October 1, 2012, and the first day of actual and continuing delinquency was October 31, 2012.
30. HOA AGENTS erroneously reported to the Board, and ultimately, falsely recorded on the Lien and notices of Default and Election to Sell (“NODES”), that there were no payments since July 1, 2012.
31. TOBIN’s $300.00 check #143 to pay the 7/1/12 quarter+ late fees was hand delivered with a $300.00 check (#142) for TOBIN’s residence.
32. Check #142 for TOBIN cleared the bank on 8/23/12.
33.Check 143 for the Subject Property cleared the bank on 10/23/12 and was not credited by FSR until 11/9/12.
34. Check 143 was credited by RRFS in RRFS ledger on 10/18/12, but RRFS did not remove any of the erroneous collection charges.
35. On 11/5/12, RRFS sent a notice to the property (2763 White Sage) stating they
received TOBIN’s letter regarding the Owner’s death, but did not send the notice to the dead Owner’s address of record. which was TOBIN’s residence – 2664 Olivia Heights, which is the address also listed on the check.
36. RRFS claimed in the notice that RRFS was authorized to collect for the HOA &that (falsely) $495.36 was due.
37. Because HOA AGENTS did not correctly process TOBIN’s check ($300.00 for July 1 $275.00 dues+ July 31 $25.00 late fee for Subject Property) delivered to the HOA on August 17, 2012 (together with her properly-processed HOA dues check for TOBIN’s residence), the Subject Property was erroneously placed prematurely into collections on September 17, 2012, 43 days before the first day of actual delinquency.
38. The HOA AGENTS falsely informed the HOA Board and recorded the wrong date and amount of default in all notices, falsely claiming the account was delinquent as of July 1, 2012, and that as of October 31, 2012 (the first date of actual delinquency) that the assessment balance was $382.26.
39. The original error was never corrected, and in fact, compounded over time due to the HOA AGENTS’ failure to properly apply payments to dues first then fees, and adding unauthorized charges.
40. TOBIN notified HOA Agents that the owner had died and that she had listed the property for sale.
41. TOBIN gave all notices she received from HOA AGENTS to the Realtors to handle as part of the multiple escrows, but TOBIN was too overwhelmed by the abusive practices of BANA to notice the details of the erroneous claims of RRFS.
42. Both Realtors, PROUDFIT and LEIDY, regularly communicated with HOA Agents and processed the RRFS collection demands which were sent to the first servicing bank, BOA and, after December 1, 2013, to the new servicing bank, NATIONSTAR, during the various escrows.
43. RRFS was very aware of the multiple contingency sales that fell out of escrow because they expedited at least three payoff demands (charging $150 each against the Subject Property’s collection account) when Proudfit was the listing agent, and more when BHHS had the listing.
44. Notwithstanding, TOBIN attempted to minimize deterioration of the Subject Property which she believed to be solely in the financial interest of the Bank, but BOA refused to protect the Subject Property, engaged in abusive debt collection practices, which included robo-calling TOBIN’s residence up to 500 times while simultaneously refusing to close multiple escrows, and ultimately, refused to accept TOBIN’s offer of a deed in lieu in July, 2013.
145. TOBIN continued to pay HOA dues until there was a contingency short sale and escrow opened; TOBIN evicted the caretakers so the prospective purchasers could move in early October, 2012.
46. TOBIN had the Subject Property listed with Berkshire Hathaway Home Services (“BHHS”) from 2/20/14 through 10/31/14, and the actual buyer at the HOA sale was BHHS Realtor, Thomas Lucas (“LUCAS”) who had insider information that rendered him a non-bona fide purchaser for value and rendered the HOA sale a non-arms-length transaction.
47. The purported buyer at the HOA sale was Opportunity Homes, LLC, and is the alter ego of BHHS agent LUCAS.
48. TOBIN alleges LUCAS illegally formed Opportunity Homes, LLC as a sham entity to cover his purchase of HOA foreclosure properties, and such conduct is illegal or unethical for a licensed BHHS Realtor.
49. TOBIN discovered the HOA sale had occurred only after the fact, verbally, from LEIDY, and never received notice herself, written or verbal, that the HOA sale was to be held, or had been held by the HOA or HOA AGENTS.
50. All the title rights of the GBH TRUST to the Subject Property were taken without notice which had been requested.
51. The HOA foreclosure sale violated Nevada law, and was procedurally defective, and thus, null, and void.
52. That the HOA sale was void and commercially unreasonable as the Subject Property was purchased at the HOA sale for less than 20% of the fair market value by LUCAS, a licensed Realtor with specific knowledge of the issues with the chain of title, and subsequent purchasers were co-conspirators in the fraudulent re-conveyance of the Subject Property to the Plaintiffs.
53. That HOA AGENTS illegally held the HOA sale on August 15, 2014 after notifying the Ombudsman on May 15, 2014, that February 12, 2014 Notice of Sale (NOS) was cancelled, resulting in there being no valid NOS was in effect at the time of the sale.
54. That HOA AGENTS withheld and/or provided false information to enforcement to evade detection of their illegal acts which resulted in conducting a foreclosure sale without statutorily required notice.
55. That HOA AGENTS’ unlawful foreclosure sale caused damages to Cross-Complainant by the loss of title, possession, and use of Subject Property.
56. That the 8/22/14 Foreclosure Sale Deed is void as it was based on the 3/12/13 Notice of Default that HOA Agents had rescinded, and on a 4/3/13 that was not in effect on 8/22/14.
Conclusion of Tobin 4/26/21 opposition to Red Rock’s motion to dismiss Tobin’s 5 causes of action, 19 affirmative defenses and petitions for declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages on the grounds of res judicata & Tobin’s failures to state a claim & to plead fraud/racketeering with particularity.
Nona Tobin respectfully moves the Court to:
Deny Red Rock’s motion to dismiss for failure to meet its burden of proof;
Grant Tobin’s motion to distribute the proceeds with interest and penalties;
Grant Tobin’s motion for summary judgment and petition for sanctions as none of the defendants filed a responsive pleading refuting Tobin’s claims of fraud, racketeering and unjust enrichment/conversion.
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, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 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, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
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 586, 106 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 290, 88 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 250–51, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)
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”
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 www.auction.com 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
HOA Manager can’t: “10. Collect any fees or other charges from a client not specified in the management agreement.”
Nature of the financial intertwinement of the manager and debt collector was concealed, allowing for the covert, unaudited, unsupervised application of unauthorized fees and charges.
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 11 cases stemming from 2014 SCA 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)
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
Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + procedures
No 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.
NOS – 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
No 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
Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale
8/15/14 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
Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributed
On 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.
Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemption
Deed 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 .
FSR 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.
(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.
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.
Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious
4. 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.
BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOA
HOA 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.
Limits 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 Appeal
SCA 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.
An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agent
RRFS 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).
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 documents
FSR/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.
Defines 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.
This 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).
SCA 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.
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 name
The 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 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 told the court that the red Rock foreclosure file was SCA’s official record, and the Ombudsman’s 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
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 conducted
No 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.
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 witnesses
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)
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 rep
Never gave info that could be considered actual or constructive notice
right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BOD
Tobin 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
Nationstar was never the beneficial owner of the Hansen 7/22/04 deed of trust.
The foreclosure sale was void and could not remove Tobin’s title rights
A foreclosure sale generally terminates a party’s legal title to the property. See Bldg. Energetix Corp. v. EHE, LP,129 Nev. 78, 86, 294 P.3d 1228, 1234 (2013) ; Charmicor, Inc. v. Bradshaw Fin. Co.,92 Nev. 310, 313, 550 P.2d 413, 415 (1976). This general rule is subject to certain limited exceptions, such as where the sale is void. See Energetix , 129 Nev. at 86, 294 P.3d at 1234 (noting that a lack of substantial compliance with the relevant statutes and a lack of proper notice are exceptions to the general rule); see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 134 Nev. ––––, ––––, 427 P.3d 113, 121 (2018), as amended on denial of reh’g (2018) (holding that a foreclosure sale on a lien is void where that lien has been satisfied prior to the sale “as the lien is no longer in default”); Henke v. First S. Props., Inc.,586 S.W.2d 617, 619-20 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979) (concluding that the payment of past-due installments cured a loan’s default such that the subsequent foreclosure on the property was void); 1 Grant S. Nelson, Dale A. Whitman, Ann M. Burkhart & R. Wilson Freyermuth, Real Estate Finance Law § 7:21 (6th ed. 2014) (noting that a trustee’s sale is void where there is no authorization to foreclose, and that there is no authorization to foreclose when the loan is not in default). To complete a valid foreclosure sale for unpaid assessments in Nevada, a UOA must comply with the provisions set forth in NRS Chapter 116. Relevant to the present case, the UOA must mail and record a notice of delinquent assessment, NRS 116.31162(1)(a), “a notice of default and election to sell,” NRS 116.31162(1)(b), and a notice of foreclosure sale, NRS 116.311635(1)(a).
Facts: the sale was not authorized as noncompliant with statutes
The sale was not authorized by valid corporate action of the HOA Board as defined by NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.3102 and in SCA bylaws 3.15.
The sale did not comply with the statutes governing HOA foreclosures in NRS 116.31162- NRS 116.31168 (2013).
The sale did not comply with the notice and due process requirements that constrain actions of the HOA Board when it is imposing sanctions for alleged violations of the governing documents, including the alleged violation of delinquent assessments, found in NRS 116.31031, Sun City Anthem CC&Rs 7.4, SCA bylaws 3.26, and NRS 116.31085 and SCA bylaws 3.15A.
Red Rock usurped the authority of the HOA Board by imposing unauthorized fines, fees and charges disregarding NRS 116A.640(8)(9) & (10), NRS 116.31015.
The sale was conducted after the default was cured three times
Check 143, regardless of when or how it was credited paid the $275 quarterly installment of assessments for the period of 7/1/12 to 9/30/12.
Miles Bauer tender of $825 on 5/8/13, would have paid the total delinquent assessments due for the period of 10/1/12 -6/30/13 but for being unlawfully and covertly rejected by Red Rock.
Nationstar negotiator’s offer to the HOA on 5/28/14 of one year ($1,100) assessments to close the escrow on the 5/8/14 $367,500 auction.com sale cured the super-priority of the default, but for Red Rock’s unlawfully and covertly characterizing Nationstar’s offer to the HOA Board as an owner request for waiver. Red Rock falsified the foreclosure file to conceal its misdeeds, and Nationstar aided and abetted Red Rock’s fraud in order to perpetuate a fraud of its own, i.e., to allow the HOA sale to proceed without notice, disregard the restrictions of the PUD Rider Remedies (F), then record a false claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest, file a false quiet title action against a party with no adverse claim, then falsely claim the HOA sale was unfair to Nationstar because of the rejection of the Miles Bauer tender, but was fair to take away the title rights of the owner. and when the plot was u covered by the owner, claim that Tobin had no rights to assert a quiet title claim.
