Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 116.31162 (2013) NRS 116.31162 – Foreclosure of liens: Mailing of notice of delinquent assessment; recording of notice of default and election to sell; period during which unit s owner may pay lien to avoid foreclosure; limitations on type of lien that may be foreclosed.
Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 116.311635 (2013) NRS 116.311635 Foreclosure of liens: Providing notice of time and place of sale; service of notice of sale; contents of notice of sale; proof of service.
Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 116.31164 (2013) NRS 116.31164 Foreclosure of liens: Procedure for conducting sale; purchase of unit by association; execution and delivery of deed; use of proceeds of sale.
Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 116.31166 (2013) NRS 116.31166 Foreclosure of liens: Effect of recitals in deed; purchaser not responsible for proper application of purchase money; title vested in purchaser without equity or right of redemption.
Universal Citation: NV Rev Stat § 116.31168 (2013) NRS 116.31168 Foreclosure of liens: Requests by interested persons for notice of default and election to sell; right of association to waive default and withdraw notice or proceeding to foreclose.
NRS 116.31164(3) mandates ministerial duties after the sale including distribution of the proceeds
A 2017 study conducted by the UNLV Lied School of Real Estate, commissioned by the Nevada Association of Realtors, studied 611 HOA foreclosures between 2011-2015.
SCA’s 2014 Foreclosures WERE NOT IDENTIFIED in the UNLV Study
Somehow the professionals conducting the study missed ALL of SCA’s 13 foreclosures between 2011 and 2015.
Ten HOAs had 1/6 of the 611 foreclosures UNLV studied.
Why didn’t UNLV know about SCA’s 13 sales Red Rock conducted?
SCA had 13 foreclosures in 2014, but SCA is not in the UNLV HOA foreclosure study’s list of HOAs that had more than five foreclosures from 2011-2015.
Notice a pattern?
ALL SCA foreclosure buyers were knowledgeable speculators.
Some would call them “vulture investors”.
This pattern – selling for a dime on a dollar to a few wise guys – would never have happened if bidding had not been suppressed by a few unsavory practices:
Convince the HOA Board that they must keep everything about foreclosure secret,
have no agendas or minutes of HOA Board actions to foreclose
give no notice to the owner whose house is being sold
Allow the manager to be the debt collector and control EVERYTHING about the money that’s collected for the benefit of the HOA members
Allow the debt collector full, unilateral, unsupervised proprietary control all the records and processes, so the HOA has no independent records;
give away signatory control over bank accounts of HOA money collected,
allow the debt collector to use the HOA attorneys against a homeowner who complains
allow the debt collector to lie about notices that were given.
At Sun City Anthem, not a single homeowner knew when or where RRFS was selling these houses.
NOTICE A PATTERN? FOLLOW THE MONEY
In the case of 2763 White Sage, RRFS intentionally WITHHELD notice to ALL parties with a known interest – and then lied about it in order to cover up how this scam works to enrich the chosen few..
Look at who bought the houses. Look at how much they paid, and look at what Sun City Anthem Board and owners were told. It’s quite a lucrative scam for a lucky few.
FSR and FSR dba RRFS told the HOA Board falsely that everything about HOA sales had to be kept secret.
How the vulture investors unjustly profited
TRP Fund IV LLC bought four SCA properties at unnoticed sales @ an average price of $52,125, 80% below fair market value. I, and many other Sun City Anthem homeowners, were prevented from attending these sales and bidding because RRFS explicitly withheld notice.
Two sham LLCs, using the property address as the corporate name, bought houses for $6,500 & $7,600.
All 13 houses COMBINED were sold for $734,900 to a few people “in the know”, and not a single one to an SCA owner.
SCA properties RRFS secretly sold in 2014
1/2/14 RRFS sold 2532 Grandville Avefor $25,500 to TRP Fund IV LLC .
SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS. TRP FUND IV v. HSBC Bank A-16-735894-C There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property.
1/2/14 RRFS sold 2227 Shadow Canyon to TRP Fund IV LLC for $40,000.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. SCA was not identified AT ALL in the litigation as the HOA under whose statutory authority this sale occurred.
Neither SCA nor RRFS were named parties to the litigation.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There is no court record that Red Rock interpleaded the proceeds. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceeds after the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
2/18/14 RRFS sold 2721 Evening Sky for $40,000 to TRP Fund IV LLC
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceeds after the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
2/18/14 RRFS sold 2115 Sandstone Cliffs for $54,000 to TRP Fund IV LLC
TRP Fund IV LLC v. Bank of Mellon et al, A-15-724233-C SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS. There is no court record that RRFS interpleaded the proceeds.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
2/18/14 RRFS sold 2842 Forest Grove for $89,000 to TRP Fund IV LLC
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
3/7/14 RRFS sold 2260 Island City for $30,000 to SFR Investment Pool
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
3/7/14 RRFS sold 1382 Couperin Dr for $100,100 to LN Management LLC series 1382 Couperin
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
3/14/14 RRFS sold 2167 Maple Heights for $6,500 to 2167 Maple Heights Trust
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. Bank of NY Mellon v. SCA 2:17-cv-02161-APG-PAL, ADR 17-91. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
3/28/14 RRFS sold 2584 Pine Prairie for $7,600 to LN Mgt Series LLC 2584 Pine Prairie.
LN Mgt LLC series 2584 Pine Prairie v. Deutsche Bank A-14-707237-C. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
4/29/14 RRFS sold 2175 Clearwater Lake Dr.for $45,100 to Saticoy Bay LLC
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. there are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale.
Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
6/10/14 RRFS scheduled the sale of 2986 Olivia Heights Ave,
The sale was cancelled by a Citi Mortgage temporary restraining order. Citimortgage Inc v. SCA A-14-702071 NV Supreme court case # 71942. On 12/7/17, the SCA Board authorized paying $55,000 to Citi to settle the case. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 RRFS contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.
The Board President’s report of the settlement does not match the court records.
8/15/14 RRFS sold 2763 White Sage Dr. for $63,100 to Thomas Lucas took title as Opportunity Home, LLC.
The sale was conducted without notice. The buyer was a realtor in the BHHS listing office that was under contract with Nona Tobin. Jimijack vs BANA & SCA (A-15-720032-C); Nationstar vs Opportunity Homes (A-16-730078-C), Nona Tobin vs Joel Stokes et al A-19-799890-C, Supreme Court appeals #79295, 82094, 832234 and 82294. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013). Instead, more than six years later, after refusing to distribute the proceeds to Nona Tobin, RRFS sued five defendants for interpleader, knowing that no one had a recorded claim except Nona Tobin.
9/11/14 RRFS sold 2921 Hayden Creek Terrace for $100,000 to Jayem Family LP
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
11/12/14 RRFS sold 2416 Idaho Falls for $174,000 to Global Village LLC.
My Global Village LLC v BAC Home Servicing A-15-711883-C . SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).
Sale was not authorized by a SCA Board action taken in compliance with the provisions of NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085
NRS 116.3102 define the powers of unit-owners’ association.
NRS 116.3102(m) limits the association’s authority to sanction an owner for an alleged violation of the governing documents by requiring the association to provide notice and due process as delineated in NRS 116.31031 to the owner who may be sanctioned.
(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.
With certain exceptions defined in NRS 116.31085, Board actions must occur at duly called Board meetings, compliant with the provisions of NRS 116.31083, i.e.,
that are open to all unit owners,
that provide meaningful notice of the actions the Board intends to take at that meeting,
that provide minutes of all Board decisions made and actions taken.
SCA Board voted in closed meetings to impose sanctions without notice
SCA board did not take any valid votes to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage in any open meeting with agendas and minutes that complied with the requirements in NRS 116.31083 (2013) and NRS 116.31085 (2013).
Therefore, the decision and the sale are voidable.
No compliant agendas announced an intent to foreclose
SCA did not publish notice of its intent to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive on any agenda for any meeting of the Board in the manner prescribed by NRS 116.31083(5) and NRS 116.3108(4).
According to NRS 116.31083(5), meetings of an association’s executive board must comply with the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 116.3108.
NRS 116.3108(4) defines requirements of notice and agendas:
(a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, …
(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).
No minutes of any SCA Board meeting, compliant with NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085, document a Board action to authorize the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage Drive was ever taken, and therefore the decision is voidable.
NRS (2013) 116.31083 (8) (10) require the Board to maintain “the minutes of each meeting of the executive board until the common-interest community is terminated.” that include the following specific information:
8. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 9 (Section 9 allows the Board to “establish reasonable limitations on materials, remarks or other information to be included in the minutes of its meetings.”) and NRS 116.31085, the minutes of each meeting of the executive board must include:
(a) The date, time and place of the meeting;
(b) Those members of the executive board who were present and those members who were absent at the meeting;
c) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided at the meeting;
(d) A record of each member s vote on any matter decided by vote at the meeting; and
e) The substance of remarks made by any unit s owner who addresses the executive board at the meeting if the unit s owner requests that the minutes reflect his or her remarks or, if the unit s owner has prepared written remarks, a copy of his or her prepared remarks if the unit s owner submits a copy for inclusion.
IMPERMISSIBLE TO SANCTION AN OWNER IN A CLOSED MEETING without a hearing
The decision to foreclose on 2763 White Sage was made in a closed session which was not permissible under the terms of NRS 16.31085 (3) (4) and is therefore voidable.
NRS 116.31085(3) defines the only permissible topics of discussion and actions the Board is authorized to take in an executive session closed to owners
NRS 116.31085 (3)
3. An executive board may meet in executive session only to:
(a) Consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation if the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the privilege set forth in NRS 49.035 to 49.115, inclusive.
(b) Discuss the character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a community manager or an employee of the association.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, discuss a violation of the governing documents, including, without limitation, the failure to pay an assessment.
(d) Discuss the alleged failure of a unit’s owner to adhere to a schedule required pursuant to NRS 116.310305 if the alleged failure may subject the unit’s owner to a construction penalty.
NRS 116.31085 (3)
Whereas NRS 116.31085(3)(c) only authorizes the Board to “discuss” alleged violations of the governing documents in executive session, NRS 116.31085(4) only permits Board action to sanction an owner for an alleged violation in closed session when it holds a hearing at which the owner can present a defense to dissuade the Board from imposing a sanction for an alleged violation.
NRS 116.31085(4)
4. An executive board shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted by the executive board. If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the person:
(a) Is entitled to attend all portions of the hearing related to the alleged violation, including, without limitation, the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnesses;
(b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards adopted by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel; and
(c) Is not entitled to attend the deliberations of the executive board.
NRS 116.31085(4)
NO MINUTES = IT NEVER HAPPENED
NRS 116.31085(6) requires the Board to report its actions taken in closed session in the regular Board minutes.
6. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any matter discussed by the executive board when it meets in executive session must be generally noted in the minutes of the meeting of the executive board.
NRS 116.31085(6)
There are no minutes of any SCA Board meeting that document a Board action to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive.
NRS 116.31085 (6) also defines a sanctioned owner’s right to receive minutes of any closed meeting at which the Board took action to sanction an owner for an alleged violation pursuant to a hearing.
The executive board shall maintain minutes of any decision made pursuant to subsection 4 concerning an alleged violation and, upon request, provide a copy of the decision to the person who was subject to being sanctioned at the hearing or to the person’s designated representative.
SCA refused to provide minutes as required by NRS 116.31085(6) to document a decision to foreclose was made pursuant to a hearing make the action voidable.
The fact that SCA Board did not provide notice of its intent to authorize the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage, nor offer the owner an opportunity for an open hearing, nor hold a hearing that provided the owner with the mandated due process is evidenced by CAM Lori Martin’s June 1, 2016 email refusing Tobin’s request for minutes of any meeting at which the BOD took action to foreclose:
“Your request for the “minutes where actions leading to foreclosure for delinquent assessment(s) was approved for 2763 White Sage” cannot be fulfilled since those minutes are Executive Session minutes and not privy to the anyone except the Board. The only time Executive Session minutes are released to a homeowner is if a hearing was held and then, only that portion of the meeting minutes is provided.”
CAM Lori Martin’s June 1, 2016 email refusing Tobin’s request for minutes
No notice or hearing was provided
SCA Board did not provide mandated notice and hearing prior to imposing a sanction for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments
4. The executive board may not impose a fine pursuant to subsection 1 unless:
(a) Not less than 30 days before the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed had been provided with written notice of the applicable provisions of the governing documents that form the basis of the alleged violation; and
(b) Within a reasonable time after the discovery of the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed has been provided with:
(1) Written notice:
(I) Specifying in detail the alleged violation, the proposed action to cure the alleged violation, the amount of the fine, and the date, time and location for a hearing on the alleged violation; and
(II) Providing a clear and detailed photograph of the alleged violation, if the alleged violation relates to the physical condition of the unit or the grounds of the unit or an act or a failure to act of which it is possible to obtain a photograph; and
(2) A reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation or to contest the alleged violation at the hearing.
–For the purposes of this subsection, a unit’s owner shall not be deemed to have received written notice unless written notice is mailed to the address of the unit and, if different, to a mailing address specified by the unit’s owner.
5. The executive board must schedule the date, time and location for the hearing on the alleged violation so that the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed is provided with a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to be present at the hearing.
6. The executive board must hold a hearing before it may impose the fine, unless the fine is paid before the hearing or unless the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed:
(a) Executes a written waiver of the right to the hearing; or
(b) Fails to appear at the hearing after being provided with proper notice of the hearing.
7. If a fine is imposed pursuant to subsection 1 and the violation is not cured within 14 days, or within any longer period that may be established by the executive board, the violation shall be deemed a continuing violation. Thereafter, the executive board may impose an additional fine for the violation for each 7-day period or portion thereof that the violation is not cured. Any additional fine may be imposed without providing the opportunity to cure the violation and without the notice and an opportunity to be heard required by paragraph (b) of subsection 4.
8. If the governing documents so provide, the executive board may appoint a committee, with not less than three members, to conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines pursuant to this section. While acting on behalf of the executive board for those limited purposes, the committee and its members are entitled to all privileges and immunities and are subject to all duties and requirements of the executive board and its members.
Adam Clarkson stated unironically, and apparently, with a complete lack of self-awareness, that SCA Board compliance with specific meeting laws is required for its corporate actions to be valid.
In his first legal opinion as SCA’s Legal counsel and debt collector, Clarkson stated, inter alia,
SCA Board did not comply with NRS 116 meeting laws when it made decisions regarding collection fines, debt forgiveness or foreclosures.
SCA bylaws 3.15 provides that all HOA Board meetings must be open to members with specified exceptions. This provision parallels NRS 116.31083.
SCA bylaws 3.15A Executive Session defines the limited topics that can be discussed in closed meetings and define the due process required prior to the Board imposing a sanction against an owner for alleged violations of the governing documents. This provision parallels NRS 116.31085.
Link to 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Lending Division vs. Nationstar; Akerman; Wright Finley Zak; Bank of America
Link to 2/14/21 complaint to the State Bar of Nevada vs. Joseph Hong
Link to 2/16/21 complaint to the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood
Prior district court civil actions did not adjudicate filed claims based on evidence
Link to Register of Actions A-16-730078-C Nationstar vs. Opportunity Homes LLC
Link to Case Summary A-15-720032-C Jimijack Irrevocable Trust vs. Bank of America and Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc.
Link to case summary A-19-799890-C Nona Tobin vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual, Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
The minutes of all hearings in the case summaries show that there were no evidentiary hearings and that neither Plaintiff, nationstar nor Jimijack, met their burden of proof.
Nationstar voluntarily dismissed all its claims for quiet title and equitable relief without ever presenting a case or meeting its burden of proof that it owned any interest in the disputed Hansen deed of trust.
82294 Nona Tobin vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual, Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
Comes now, Defendant NONA TOBIN, AN INDIVIDUAL by and through her attorney of record, Thomson Law PC, through attorney John W. Thomson, Esq., and hereby files her CROSSCLAIM VS, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A. AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005[1].
JURISDICTION, VENUE
The real property which is the subject of this civil action is a residence commonly known as the 2763 White Sage Drive, Henderson, NV 89052, APN 191-13-811-052, (hereinafter “Property”).
This action is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and this venue is appropriate because the real property is located within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court has the authority under NRS 30.030[2] to declare rights, status and other legal relations of the respective parties in this NRS 40.010[3] quiet title dispute.
NRS 30.130[4] limits the Court’s authority to ensure that the rights of parties who are not present from being prejudiced by court actions in their absence.
The Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving the interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association (HOA) to parties who have submitted their claims to mediation in the manner proscribed in NRS Chapter 38.
NRS 38.310(2)[5] limits the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that have been
The Court’s jurisdiction in this case requires an interpretation of NRS 116.31164(3)[6] (2013) which mandated the ministerial duties Red Rock Financial Services (Herein “RRFS”) was required to perform promptly after it conducted the disputed 2014 HOA foreclosure sale.
This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to impose sanctions on Red Rock Financial Services for its failure to comply, and to ensure that the HOA Board complied, with with ALL the statutory mandates for conducting a valid HOA foreclosure sale, included in NRS 116.3116-NRS 116.31168 (2013)[7], NRS 116A.640 (8), (9), (10)[8], NRS 116.31083[9], NRS 116.31085[10], NRS 116.31031[11], NRS 116.1113[12], NRS 116.31065[13], NRS 116.3102[14], NRS 116.31087[15], NRS 116.31175[16], NRS 116.31183[17], NRS 116.31184[18], NRS 116.4117[19]
This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to impose sanctions on Red Rock Financial Services for its failure to provide, and its failure to ensure that the Sun City Anthem (Herein “SCA”) Board provided ALL the owner protections, notice and due process mandated by the HOA governing documents[20], SCA Board 2013 Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA 168-175)[21], SCA Board Resolution 1/17/11 Policy and Procedure for enforcement of the governing documents (due process before imposing sanctions for alleged violations), SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v) (owner access to quarterly delinquency reports) , SCA bylaws 3.15 (open Board meetings), SCA bylaws 3.15A (closed Board meetings permissible topics), SCA bylaws 3.18/3.20 (delegation by SCA board prohibited), SCA bylaws 3.26, SCA bylaws 6.4 (owner access to records), CC&Rs 7.4 (enforcement (due process before imposing sanctions),
This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to determine the standing of the defendants named by Red Rock to assert a claim for the excess proceeds from the HOA sale.
The court has jurisdiction to impose sanctions against parties who have recorded false claims to title as defined by NRS 205.395[22] and to consider the severity of the sanctions in terms of other statutes applicable to, and commensurate with, the frequency and seriousness Nationstar’s corrupt business practices, under the auspices of NRS 205.377[23], NRS 207.360 (9)(10)(30)(35)[24], NRS 207.400[25], NRS 207.470 (1)and (4)[26], and NRS 207.480[27]
PARTIES
Cross-claimant NONA TOBIN, an Individual, (Herein “Cross-claimant” or “Tobin”) was the sole successor trustee, beneficiary and surviving member of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, (Herein “Hansen Trust”) that held recorded title to the subject property from 8/27/08 until a foreclosure deed was recorded on August 22, 2014 transferred title to the alleged purchaser at the disputed HOA sale.
Tobin claims an individual interest in this property as all the GBH Trust’s claims to title were transferred to Tobin as an individual via a quit claim deed, recorded on 3/28/17.
Also on 3/28/17 the Hansen Trust was closed as it was insolvent when its sole asset was transferred out of the trust. NONA TOBIN claims the proceeds of the sale unlawfully retained by Koch & Scow, with interest, penalties and sanctions.
Tobin files this cross-claim against Nationstar Mortgage LLC for treble damages for the loss of the property at 2763 White Sage, along with interest, penalties and sanctions, for Nationstar’s fraud on the court, abuse of process, mortgage servicing fraud, recording false claims to title, and misrepresenting material facts and the law in order to steal Nona Tobin’s property.
Defendant NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) is an entity of unknown origin whose false claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Hansen deed of trust have been without merit filed into district court cases A-16-730078-C, A-15-720032-C, and A-19-799890-C and into Supreme Court appeals 79295 and 82294.
Given that Nationstar was never required to produce evidence to support its claim to be the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust, in this case, the court must determine Nationstar’s standing based on an examination of the Clark county official record for the subject property, APN 191-13-811-052 which is included in Exhibit 1
Factual Allegations
All Wells Fargo’s recorded liens have been released.
Wells Fargo’s only lien was an open-ended deed of trust recorded on 5/10/07 as instrument number 200705100001127, which has no BATES number as it was intentionally omitted in Plaintiff RRFS’s response (RRFS 001-425) to Nona Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena.
Wells Fargo’s release of its 5/10/07 lien by its Substitution of Trustee and reconveyance, recorded on 3/12/15 as instrument number 201503120002285, which has no BATES number as it was omitted in Steven Scow’s response to the 2/4/19 subpoena.
Wells Fargo never claimed an interest in the Hansen deed of trust and has never been a party in any of the quiet title cases related to this property.
Wells Fargo’s only claim was a $15,000 outstanding balance on the open-ended deed of trust, recorded on 5/10/07. Wells Fargo issued an IRS 1099-C cancelation of debt in 2012. On Gordon Hansen’s final 2012 tax return, Nona
Nationstar does not have standing to assert a claim for the proceeds of the sale.
Nationstar filed false and conflicting claims to own the Hansen deed of trust on at least these dates: 1/11/16 COMP, 4/12/16 DECL, 4/12/16 MSUB/MINV, 5/10/16 Reply, 6/2/16 AACC, 6/3/16, 6/10/16, 3/27/17 DECL , 3/27/17, 11/9/17, 2/9/18.
Nationstar recorded false claims to title into the Clark County official property record for APN 191-13-811-052 recorded claims on these dates 12/1/14, 1/22/15, 8/17/15, 1/13/16, 6/7/16, 3/8/19 rescind and 3/8/19 assign, and 6/3/19. See Exhibit 1.
None of Nationstar’s recorded claims wherein Nationstar claimed to be authorized as some other entity’s “attorney in fact” were accompanied by recorded powers of attorney, sworn affidavits, and/or proper acknowledgements compliant with NRS 107 as amended by AB 284 (2011)[28]. See Exhibit 20.
Nationstar Wright, Finley, & Zak LLP (Herein “WFZ”) attorneys[29] were well aware of the requirements of the 2011 anti-foreclosure fraud amendments to NRS Chapter 107 and NRS Chapter 205, particularly in terms of the requirement of sworn affidavits to prove the standing to exercise the power of sale.[30]
Nationstar replaced its WFZ attorneys on 4/10/18[31] with Melanie Morgan (NV Bar # 8215) and Karen Whelan (NV Bar # 10466) of Akerman LLP.
Akerman LLP replaced Karen Whelan (NV Bar # 10466) with Donna Wittig NV Bar # 11015) on 12/10/18[32] after Karen Whelan ignored Nona Tobin’s attorney’s attempt to get Nationstar to join with Tobin on a motion for summary judgment by providing Whelan with declarations under penalty of perjury[33] that established the sale had been conducted without notice to the owner or the listing agent who had sold the property on auction.com three months before the surprise sale.
Nona Tobin filed a verified complaint against Nationstar for recording false claims to title and abusing the quiet title HOA foreclosure process in A-15-720032-C and A-16-730078-C with the Office of the Attorney General of Nevada on 3/14/19.[34]
Nona Tobin filed a verified complaint against Nationstar for recording false claims to title and abusing the quiet title HOA foreclosure process in A-15-720032-C and A-16-730078-C with the Office of the Attorney General of Nevada on 11/10/20.[35]
Nona Tobin filed a verified complaint against Nationstar and its Akerman and Wright Finley Zak LLP attorneys with the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division on 12/16/20[36] for recording false claims to title into the Clark County official property record for APN 191-13-811-052 and for abusing the quiet title HOA foreclosure process in A-15-720032-C, A-16-730078-C, A-19-799890-C, and appeals 79295, 82234, 82094, and 82294.[37]
Nationstar recorded into the Clark County property record false, unauthorized, unverified, and conflicting assignments, substitution of trustee, reconveyances of the Hansen deed of trust on at least these dates:
The Clark County property record for the subject property, APN 191-13-811-052, are included in Exhibit 1.
Nationstar evaded detection of its fraud by voluntarily dismissing its claims without any evidence being subjected to judicial scrutiny and without putting on a case and without meeting its Plaintiff’s burden of proof.
Nationstar and Jimijack made an ex parte out of court agreement to steal the house from Tobin.
Nationstar and Jimijack conspired, concealed and misrepresented material facts and law, met ex parte with Judge Kishner, with the corrupt intent of stealing Tobin’s property.
Multiple declarations under penalty of perjury have been entered into the court records show that Nationstar’s claims to own the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust are demonstrably false.
Nona Tobin has filed multiple motions into A-15-720032-C in a futile attempt to prevent Nationstar’s succeeding in its fraud upon the court that have been stricken from the record unheard[38] based on the misrepresentations[39] made by Nationstar at an ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner
Prayer
RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY FEES AS SPECIAL DAMAGES
Counter-claimant Nona Tobin repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein.
This counterclaim has been necessitated by the Defendants’ bad faith conduct.
Pursuant to Nevada law, Plaintiff may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of Defendants’ intentional conduct.[40]
Prayer
CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein.
This cross-claim has been necessitated by the CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct.
Pursuant to Nevada law, 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 CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s intentional conduct.[41] CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court for the following declaratory relief: to declare
to declare that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
to declare that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title;
to declare that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282.32 RRFS claims are the undistributed proceeds and that CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR is entitled to none of it
to declare that sanctions are appropriate vs. CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR for its abuse of the HOA quiet title process in order to gain standing it does not have in fact or in law to confiscate CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s property without complying with NRS 107 foreclosure requirements;
to declare that sanctions pursuant to NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207.470(1) are appropriate vs. CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR for its false claims recorded against the APN 191-13-811-052 title;
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;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3):
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;
Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 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).
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its misappropriation of funds, covert rejection of assessments, falsification of records that allowed the unjust enrichment of undisclosed partners and co-conspirators;
that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages for the fraudulent confiscation of the subject property, valued on 12/27/19 at $505,000 property pursuant to NRS 207.470(1) as RRFS’s actions on the dozen 2014 unnoticed foreclosures constitute racketeering;
that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to 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 Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345;
that the Joel Stokes-Civic Financial Services “agreement”, recorded on 5/23/19, and misrepresented to Judge Kishner on 5/21/19 as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement was fraud on the court and sanctionable conduct pursuant to ;
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 is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207, 400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480;
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
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)
All assignments of the Hansen deed of trust are void as they did not comply with the statutory requirements of AB 284 (2011) amendments to NRS 107 in order to provide standing and the power of sale.
Nationstar LLC and/or Nationstar LLC dba Mr. Cooper
11/16/20 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.
[1]NRS 42.005Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding.
[2]NRS 30.030 Scope. 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.
[3] 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.
[4]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.
[5] NRS 38.310Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions.
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.
[26]NRS 207.470 (1)and (4) Civil actions for damages resulting from racketeering.
[27]NRS 207.480Order of court upon determination of civil liability.
[28]AB 284 (2011) Nevada’s 2011 anti-foreclosure fraud amendments to NRS 107 and NRS 205 summary and legislative digest
[29] WFZ attorneys represented Nationstar Mortgage from its first filing into A-16-730078-C, a complaint vs. Opportunity Homes, LLC (that held no recorded interest) for quiet title and moved into A-15-720032-C by filing a motion to substitute itself as the real party in interest, set aside the default judgment against Bank f America and intervene on the closed case by filing an AACC counter-claim vs. Jimijack who had the recorded claim when WFZ sued the disinterested Opportunity Homes. WFZ filed into these quiet title civil actions statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence on 1/11/16, 4/12/16 DECL, 4/12/16, 5/10/16, 6/2/16, 6/3/16, 6/10/16, 3/27/17 DECL , 3/27/17, 11/9/17, 2/9/18, (Dana Johnson Nitz NV Bar #0050, Edgar Smith (NV bar #5506) Michael Kelly NV Bar #10101)
[31]4/10/18 SUBT switched out WFZ, Akerman LLP Morgan and Whelan came in
[32]12/10/18 NOTA notice the entry of Wittig, but was silent on the exit of Whelan who was never seen again
[33]5/11/18 Craig Leidy DECL and 5/11/18 Nona Tobin DECL. Note that Nona Tobin filed a sworn affidavit into A-16-730078-C, Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs Opportunity Homes, LLC stating that she wanted to JOIN Nationstar to void the defective sale so that each would be returned to whatever rights they could prove they had the day before the sale and prayed that the Court would not allow Nationstar to abuse the quiet title litigation process to gain standing that it did not have in fact or in law. 9/23/16 Nona Tobin AFFD
[39] 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 recorded and filed adverse interests.
Nationstar attorneys knew that to make a side deal with Jimjack in order to prevent Nationstar’s and Tobin’s adverse claims from being adjudicated was fraud.
[40] 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).
NRS 116.31164(3) (2013) defines ministerial duties mandated on a debt collector after conducting an HOA foreclosure sale. Red Rock did not comply with 3(b) or 3(c ) after Red Rock sold 2763 White Sage without statutorily required notice to Nona Tobin on 8/15/14.
Rule 22. Interpleader
(a) Grounds.
(1) By a Plaintiff. Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though:
(A) the claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or
(B) the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
(2) By a Defendant. A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim.
(b) Relation to Other Rules and Statutes. This rule supplements — and does not limit — the joinder of parties allowed by Rule 20. The remedy this rule provides is in addition to — and does not supersede or limit — the remedy provided by any Nevada statute authorizing interpleader. These rules apply to any action brought under statutory interpleader provisions, except as otherwise provided by Rule 81.
NRCP 22
Why interpleader was an abuse of process
NRCP 22 was corruptly utilized by Plaintiff Red Rock after unlawfully holding the sale proceeds for more than six years. Red Rock had no legitimate grounds for filing the interpleader action. Red Rock was not exposed to any liability as there were no recorded claims for those proceeds other than Nona Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed. Red Rock filed the interpleader complaint for improper purposes, including, but not limited to, the obstruction of the fair, evidence-based adjudication of Nona Tobin’s claims for quiet title and equitable relief.
What do HOA bylaws have to do with it?
NRS Chapter 116 is the chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes that governs homeowners associations AKA “common-interest communities”.
NRS 116.3106 defines mandatory provisions that must be included in an HOA’s bylaws.
NRS 116.3106(1)(d) requires that an HOA’s bylaws define what an HOA Board of Directors can delegate
NRS 116.3106Bylaws.
1. The bylaws of the association must:
(d) Specify the powers the executive board or the officers of the association may delegate to other persons or to a community manager;
NRS 116.3106(1)(d)
Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.20/3.18 prohibit delegation of these duties:
Relevance to Red Rock’s misappropriation of the proceeds of the sale
Bylaws 3.18(b) levying and collecting assessments
SCA bylaws 3.18 (b) prohibited the Sun City Anthem Board from delegating policy control over “levying and collecting assessments”, but handled control of the debt collection and foreclosure function over to Red Rock based on the advice of its managing agent, FirstService Residential (FSR) who unjustly profited by misinforming the volunteer members of the HOA Board about their fiduciary duty to the HOA and to the common good of the membership at large.
Over-delegation caused by undisclosed conflict of interest
FirstService Residential (FSR) was both on contract with Sun City Anthem to be the managing agent and held the NRS 649 debt collection license doing business as Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132)
Link to RMI-SCA 1/1/10 management agreement is relevant only insofar as the HOA signed the contract with FSR after its agent RMI management, LLC was purchased by, or merged with, or somehow or another, morphed into FSR.
Secondly, this financial conflict of interest is relevant in that it allowed the agents to control all the records in a manner that allowed them to cover up the misappropriation of funds as well as the wrongful foreclosure of a dozen Sun City Anthem homes in 2014 when the transfer of managing agents occurred.
Bylaws 3.18(e) depositing funds in an approved bank and using funds to operate the HOA
Red Rock did not deposit the funds collected anywhere that they were used for the operation of the HOA.
The funds should have been placed in a Sun City Anthem Trust Account and certainly not in a Red Rock Financial Services Trust Account.
Bylaws 3.18(g) opening bank accounts and designating signatories required
Red Rock did not comply with these SCA bylaws restrictions on the proper depositing of these funds into an account where the Sun City Anthem Board controls the signatories.
The Sun City Anthem Board is ultimately accountable for the funds collected on behalf of the HOA under the HOA’s statutory authority. The bylaws provision was obviously required in order to prevent the very type of conversion that FSR dba Red Rock perpetrated here.
By not complying with the bylaws, the proceeds of this sale and at least a dozen other Sun City Anthem foreclosures were retained in an unaudited, unsupervised account, misnamed as an “attorney trust account”. None of these funds were under the proper control of the HOA Board. These funds, belonging to Sun City Anthem, were wrongly under the proprietary control of a partnership with undisclosed partners, Red Rock Financial Services EIN 88-0358132 and/or Steven Scow, an individual, and/or Koch & Scow LLC.
Red Rock agent/employee Christie Marling instructed Steven Scow to deposit the “excess” proceeds of the sale with the court for interpleader on 8/28/14. Steven Scow did not do it.
Bylaws 3.18(i) enforcing the governing documents, bringing legal proceedings, providing due process guaranteed by CC&Rs 7.4
Neither the Sun City Anthem Board nor the SCA managing agent FSR nor the SCA debt collector FSR dba Red Rock complied with CC&Rs 7.4 when they imposed the sanction of foreclosure on the alleged violation of delinquent assessments.
None of the notice and due process required by the HOA’s CC&Rs were provided prior to selling 2763 White Sage as the sanction for an alleged violation of $2,200 delinquent assessments.
Further, the assessments were only delinquent due to the malicious misconduct of the HOA’s agents, FSR and FSR dba Red Rock, who THREE TIMES misapplied or rejected payments of assessments prior to the sale, and then lied and falsified documents to cover up their crime.
Red Rock and HOA attorneys conspired to defraud the HOA homeowners regarding multiple secret Sun City Anthem foreclosures
NRS 41.1395 Action for damages for injury or loss suffered by older or vulnerable person from abuse, neglect or exploitation; double damages; attorney’s fees and costs.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, if an older person or a vulnerable person suffers a personal injury or death that is caused by abuse or neglect or suffers a loss of money or property caused by exploitation, the person who caused the injury, death or loss is liable to the older person or vulnerable person for two times the actual damages incurred by the older person or vulnerable person.
2. If it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that a person who is liable for damages pursuant to this section acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice, the court shall order the person to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the person who initiated the lawsuit.
3. The provisions of this section do not apply to a person who caused injury, death or loss to a vulnerable person if the person did not know or have reason to know that the harmed person was a vulnerable person.
4. For the purposes of this section:
(a) “Abuse” means willful and unjustified:
(1) Infliction of pain, injury or mental anguish; or
(2) Deprivation of food, shelter, clothing or services which are necessary to maintain the physical or mental health of an older person or a vulnerable person.
(b) “Exploitation” means any act taken by a person who has the trust and confidence of an older person or a vulnerable person or any use of the power of attorney or guardianship of an older person or a vulnerable person to:
(1) Obtain control, through deception, intimidation or undue influence, over the money, assets or property of the older person or vulnerable person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property; or
(2) Convert money, assets or property of the older person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property.
Ê As used in this paragraph, “undue influence” does not include the normal influence that one member of a family has over another.
(c) “Neglect” means the failure of a person who has assumed legal responsibility or a contractual obligation for caring for an older person or a vulnerable person, or who has voluntarily assumed responsibility for such a person’s care, to provide food, shelter, clothing or services within the scope of the person’s responsibility or obligation, which are necessary to maintain the physical or mental health of the older person or vulnerable person. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person voluntarily assumes responsibility to provide care for an older or vulnerable person only to the extent that the person has expressly acknowledged the person’s responsibility to provide such care.
(d) “Older person” means a person who is 60 years of age or older.
(e) “Vulnerable person” means a person who:
(1) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the person; and
(2) Has a medical or psychological record of the impairment or is otherwise regarded as having the impairment.
Ê The term includes, without limitation, a person who has an intellectual disability, a person who has a severe learning disability, a person who suffers from a severe mental or emotional illness or a person who suffers from a terminal or catastrophic illness or injury.
NRS 240.155 Notarization of signature of person not in presence of notary public unlawful; penalty.
1. A notary public who is appointed pursuant to this chapter shall not willfully notarize the signature of a person unless the person is in the presence of the notary public and:
(a) Is known to the notary public; or
(b) If unknown to the notary public, provides a credible witness or documentary evidence of identification to the notary public.
2. A person who:
(a) Violates the provisions of subsection 1; or
(b) Aids and abets a notary public to commit a violation of subsection 1, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
NRS 240.155
NRS 240.075 Prohibited acts. A notary public shall not:
1. Influence a person to enter or not enter into a lawful transaction involving a notarial act performed by the notary public.
2. Certify an instrument containing a statement known by the notary public to be false.
3. Perform any act as a notary public with intent to deceive or defraud, including, without limitation, altering the journal that the notary public is required to keep pursuant to NRS 240.120.
4. Endorse or promote any product, service or offering if his or her appointment as a notary public is used in the endorsement or promotional statement.
5. Certify photocopies of a certificate of birth, death or marriage or a divorce decree.
6. Allow any other person to use his or her notary’s stamp.
7. Allow any other person to sign the notary’s name in a notarial capacity.
8. Perform a notarial act on a document that contains only a signature.
9. Perform a notarial act on a document, including a form that requires the signer to provide information within blank spaces, unless the document has been filled out completely and has been signed.
10. Make or note a protest of a negotiable instrument unless the notary public is employed by a depository institution and the protest is made or noted within the scope of that employment. As used in this subsection, “depository institution” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 657.037.
11. Affix his or her stamp to any document which does not contain a notarial certificate.
NRS 240.075
NRS 240.147 Unlawful destruction, defacement or concealment of notarial record.
It is unlawful for a person to knowingly destroy, deface or conceal a notarial record.
NRS 240.147
NRS 240.120 Journal of notarial acts: Duty to maintain; contents; verification based upon credible witness; copy of entry; storage; period of retention; report of loss or theft; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, each notary public shall keep a journal in his or her office in which the notary public shall enter for each notarial act performed, at the time the act is performed:
(a) The fees charged, if any;
(b) The title of the document;
(c) The date on which the notary public performed the act;
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the name and signature of the person whose signature is being notarized;
(e) Subject to the provisions of subsection 4, a description of the evidence used by the notary public to verify the identification of the person whose signature is being notarized;
(f) An indication of whether the notary public administered an oath; and
(g) The type of certificate used to evidence the notarial act, as required pursuant to NRS 240.1655.
2. A notary public may make one entry in the journal which documents more than one notarial act if the notarial acts documented are performed:
(a) For the same person and at the same time; and
(b) On one document or on similar documents.
3. When performing a notarial act for a person, a notary public need not require the person to sign the journal if:
(a) The notary public has performed a notarial act for the person within the previous 6 months;
(b) The notary public has personal knowledge of the identity of the person; and
(c) The person is an employer or coworker of the notary public and the notarial act relates to a transaction performed in the ordinary course of the person’s business.
4. If, pursuant to subsection 3, a notary public does not require a person to sign the journal, the notary public shall enter “known personally” as the description required to be entered into the journal pursuant to paragraph (e) of subsection 1.
5. If the notary verifies the identification of the person whose signature is being notarized on the basis of a credible witness, the notary public shall:
(a) Require the witness to sign the journal in the space provided for the description of the evidence used; and
(b) Make a notation in the journal that the witness is a credible witness.
6. The journal must:
(a)Be open to public inspection.
(b)Be in a bound volume with preprinted page numbers.
7.A notary public shall, upon request and payment of the fee set forth in NRS 240.100, provide a certified copy of an entry in his or her journal.
8. A notary public shall keep his or her journal in a secure location during any period in which the notary public is not making an entry or notation in the journal pursuant to this section.
9. A notary public shall retain each journal that the notary public has kept pursuant to this section until 7 years after the date on which he or she ceases to be a notary public.
10. A notary public shall file a report with the Secretary of State and the appropriate law enforcement agency if the journal of the notary public is lost or stolen.
11. The provisions of this section do not apply to a person who is authorized to perform a notarial act pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection 1 of NRS 240.1635.
NRS 240.120
NRS 240.150 Liability for misconduct or neglect; liability of employer; penalties for willful violation or neglect of duty; procedure upon revocation or suspension.
1. For misconduct or neglect in a case in which a notary public appointed pursuant to the authority of this State may act, either by the law of this State or of another state, territory or country, or by the law of nations, or by commercial usage, the notary public is liable on his or her official bond to the parties injured thereby, for all the damages sustained.
2. The employer of a notary public may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of State of not more than $2,000 for each violation specified in subsection 4 committed by the notary public, and the employer is liable for any damages proximately caused by the misconduct of the notary public, if:
(a) The notary public was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time the notary public engaged in the misconduct; and
(b) The employer of the notary public consented to the misconduct of the notary public.
3. The Secretary of State may refuse to appoint or may suspend or revoke the appointment of a notary public who fails to provide to the Secretary of State, within a reasonable time, information that the Secretary of State requests from the notary public in connection with a complaint which alleges a violation of this chapter.
4. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, for any willful violation or neglect of duty or other violation of this chapter, or upon proof that a notary public has been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill or nolo contendere to, a crime described in paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of NRS 240.010:
(a) The appointment of the notary public may be suspended for a period determined by the Secretary of State, but not exceeding the time remaining on the appointment;
(b) The appointment of the notary public may be revoked after a hearing; or
(c) The notary public may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $2,000 for each violation.
5. If the Secretary of State revokes or suspends the appointment of a notary public pursuant to this section, the Secretary of State shall:
(a) Notify the notary public in writing of the revocation or suspension;
(b) Cause notice of the revocation or suspension to be published on the website of the Secretary of State; and
(c) If a county clerk has issued a certificate of permission to perform marriages to the notary public pursuant to NRS 122.064, notify the county clerk of the revocation or suspension.
6. Except as otherwise provided by law, the Secretary of State may assess the civil penalty that is authorized pursuant to this section upon a notary public whose appointment has expired if the notary public committed the violation that justifies the civil penalty before his or her appointment expired. 7. The appointment of a notary public may be suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State pending a hearing if the Secretary of State believes it is in the public interest or is necessary to protect the public.
Conveyances of lands, or of any estate or interest therein, may be made by deed, signed by the person from whom the estate or interest is intended to pass, being of lawful age, or by the person’s lawful agent or attorney, and acknowledged or proved, and recorded, as directed in this chapter.
NRS 111.120
NRS 111.120 Conditions necessary before proof by subscribing witness can be taken.
No proof by a subscribing witness shall be taken unless the witness shall be personally known to the person taking the proof to be the person whose name is subscribed to the conveyance as witness thereto, or shall be proved to be such by the oath or affirmation of a credible witness.
NRS 111.120
NRS 111.125 Proof required from subscribing witnesses.
No certificate of proof shall be granted unless subscribing witnesses shall prove: 1. That the person whose name is subscribed thereto as a party is the person described in, and who executed the same. 2. That such person executed the conveyance. 3. That such witness subscribed his name thereto as a witness thereof.
NRS 111.175 Conveyances made to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers are void.
Every conveyance of any estate, or interest in lands, or the rents and profits of lands, and every charge upon lands, or upon the rents and profits thereof, made and created with the intent to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration of the same lands, rents or profits, as against such purchasers, shall be void.
NRS 111.175
NRS 111.180 Bona fide purchaser: Conveyance not deemed fraudulent in favor of bona fide purchaser unless subsequent purchaser had actual knowledge, constructive notice or reasonable cause to know of fraud.
1. Any purchaser who purchases an estate or interest in any real property in good faith and for valuable consideration and who does not have actual knowledge, constructive notice of, or reasonable cause to know that there exists a defect in, or adverse rights, title or interest to, the real property is a bona fide purchaser.
2. No conveyance of an estate or interest in real property, or charge upon real property, shall be deemed fraudulent in favor of a bona fide purchaser unless it appears that the subsequent purchaser in such conveyance, or person to be benefited by such charge, had actual knowledge, constructive notice or reasonable cause to know of the fraud intended.
Every conveyance in writing whereby any real property is conveyed or may be affected must be acknowledged or proved and certified in the manner provided in this chapter and in NRS 240.161 to 240.169, inclusive.
NRS 111.240
NRS 111.320 Filing of conveyances or other instruments is notice to all persons: Effect on subsequent purchasers and mortgagees.
Every such conveyance or instrument of writing, acknowledged or proved and certified, and recorded in the manner prescribed in this chapter or in NRS 105.010 to 105.080, inclusive, must from the time of filing the same with the Secretary of State or recorder for record, impart notice to all persons of the contents thereof; and subsequent purchasers and mortgagees shall be deemed to purchase and take with notice.
NRS 111.320
NRS 111.325 Unrecorded conveyances void as against subsequent bona fide purchaser for value when conveyance recorded.
Every conveyance of real property within this State hereafter made, which shall not be recorded as provided in this chapter, shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, of the same real property, or any portion thereof, where his or her own conveyance shall be first duly recorded.
NRS 111.325
NRS 111.340 Certificate of acknowledgment and record may be rebutted.
Neither the certificate of the acknowledgment nor of the proof of any conveyance or instrument, nor the record, nor the transcript of the record, of such conveyance or instrument, shall be conclusive, but the same may be rebutted.
NRS 111.340
NRS 111.345 Proof taken upon oath of incompetent witness: Instrument not admissible until established by competent proof.
If the party contesting the proof of any conveyance or instrument shall make it appear that any such proof was taken upon the oath of an incompetent witness, neither such conveyance or instrument, nor the record thereof, shall be received in evidence, until established by other competent proof.
(a) Claims an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property in a document that is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid;
(b) Executes or notarizes a document purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, that is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid; or
(c) Causes a document described in paragraph (a) or (b) to be recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid,
Ê has made a false representation concerning title.
2. A person who makes a false representation concerning title in violation of subsection 1 is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
3. A person who engages in a pattern of making false representations concerning title is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 3 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
4. In addition to the criminal penalties imposed for a violation of this section, any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. This penalty must be recovered in a civil action, brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General. In such an action, the Attorney General may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
5. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the owner or holder of the beneficial interest in real property which is the subject of a false representation concerning title may bring a civil action in the district court in and for the county in which the real property is located to recover any damages suffered by the owner or holder of the beneficial interest plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The owner or holder of the beneficial interest in the real property must, before bringing a civil action pursuant to this subsection, send a written request to the person who made the false representation to record a document which corrects the false representation. If the person records such a document not later than 20 days after the date of the written request, the owner or holder of the beneficial interest may not bring a civil action pursuant to this subsection.
6. As used in this section:
(a) “Encumbrance” includes, without limitation, a lis pendens or other notice of the pendency of an action.
(b) “Pattern of making false representations concerning title” means one or more violations of a provision of subsection 1 committed in two or more transactions:
(1) Which have the same or similar pattern, purposes, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics;
(2) Which are not isolated incidents within the preceding 4 years; and
(3) In which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $250.
NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty. [Effective July 1, 2020.]
1. A person shall not, in the course of an enterprise or occupation, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, engage in an act, practice or course of business or employ a device, scheme or artifice which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact that:
(a) The person knows to be false or omitted;
(b) The person intends another to rely on; and
(c) Results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission,
Ê in at least two transactions that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents within 4 years and in which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $1,200.
2. Each act which violates subsection 1 constitutes a separate offense.
3. A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.
4. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order a person who violates subsection 1 to pay restitution.
5. A violation of this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice for the purposes of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive.
6. As used in this section, “enterprise” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 207.380.
1. A person who is a participant in a mortgage lending transaction and who:
(a) Knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation concerning a material fact or knowingly conceals or fails to disclose a material fact;
(b) Knowingly uses or facilitates the use of a false statement or misrepresentation made by another person concerning a material fact or knowingly uses or facilitates the use of another person’s concealment or failure to disclose a material fact;
(c) Receives any proceeds or any other money in connection with a mortgage lending transaction that the person knows resulted from a violation of paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) Conspires with another person to violate any of the provisions of paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) Files or causes to be filed with a county recorder any document that the person knows to include a misstatement, misrepresentation or omission concerning a material fact,
Ê commits the offense of mortgage lending fraud which is a category C felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
2. A person who engages in a pattern of mortgage lending fraud or conspires or attempts to engage in a pattern of mortgage lending fraud is guilty of a category B felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 3 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
3. Each mortgage lending transaction in which a person violates any provision of subsection 1 constitutes a separate violation.
4. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a lender or any agent of the lender is convicted of the offense of mortgage lending fraud in violation of this section, the mortgage lending transaction with regard to which the fraud was committed may be rescinded by the borrower within 6 months after the date of the conviction if the borrower gives written notice to the lender and records that notice with the recorder of the county in which the mortgage was recorded. A mortgage lending transaction may not be rescinded pursuant to this subsection if the lender has transferred the mortgage to a bona fide purchaser.
5. The Attorney General may investigate and prosecute a violation of this section.
6. In addition to the criminal penalties imposed for a violation of this section, any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. This penalty must be recovered in a civil action, brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General. In such an action, the Attorney General may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
7. The owner or holder of the beneficial interest in real property which is the subject of mortgage lending fraud may bring a civil action in the district court in and for the county in which the real property is located to recover any damages suffered by the owner or holder of the beneficial interest plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
8. As used in this section:
(a) “Bona fide purchaser” means any person who purchases a mortgage in good faith and for valuable consideration and who does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the lender or any agent of the lender engaged in mortgage lending fraud in violation of this section.
(b) “Mortgage lending transaction” means any transaction between two or more persons for the purpose of making or obtaining, attempting to make or obtain, or assisting another person to make or obtain a loan that is secured by a mortgage or other lien on residential real property. The term includes, without limitation:
(1) The solicitation of a person to make or obtain the loan;
(2) The representation or offer to represent another person to make or obtain the loan;
(3) The negotiation of the terms of the loan;
(4) The provision of services in connection with the loan; and
(5) The execution of any document in connection with making or obtaining the loan.
(c) “Participant in a mortgage lending transaction” includes, without limitation:
(7) A loan modification consultant as defined in NRS 645F.365;
(8) A mortgage loan originator as defined in NRS 645B.0125;
(9) A mortgage company as defined in NRS 645B.0127; and
(10) A mortgage servicer as defined in NRS 645F.063.
(d) “Pattern of mortgage lending fraud” means one or more violations of a provision of subsection 1 committed in two or more mortgage lending transactions which have the same or similar purposes, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.
