Blog

Black letter Nevada law: Racketeering

Racketeering leading up to the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage and the aftermath

NRS 207.360       “Crime related to racketeering” defined.

9.  Taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery

      18.  Grand larceny;

      26.  Receiving, possessing or withholding stolen goods valued at $650 or more;

      29.  Perjury or subornation of perjury;

      30.  Offering false evidence;

      35.  Any violation of NRS 205.377;

Implicated provisions of NRS 207.360
NRS 207.400       Unlawful acts; penalties.

1.  It is unlawful for a person:

      (a) Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any part of the proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of:

             (1) Any title to or any right, interest or equity in real property; or

             (2) Any interest in or the establishment or operation of any enterprise.

      (b) Through racketeering activity to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise.

      (c) Who is employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in:

             (1) The affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity; or

             (2) Racketeering activity through the affairs of the enterprise.

      (d) Intentionally to organize, manage, direct, supervise or finance a criminal syndicate.

      (e) Knowingly to incite or induce others to engage in violence or intimidation to promote or further the criminal objectives of the criminal syndicate.

      (f) To furnish advice, assistance or direction in the conduct, financing or management of the affairs of the criminal syndicate with the intent to promote or further the criminal objectives of the syndicate.

      (g) Intentionally to promote or further the criminal objectives of a criminal syndicate by inducing the commission of an act or the omission of an act by a public officer or employee which violates his or her official duty.

      (h) To transport property, to attempt to transport property or to provide property to another person knowing that the other person intends to use the property to further racketeering activity.

      (i) Who knows that property represents proceeds of, or is directly or indirectly derived from, any unlawful activity to conduct or attempt to conduct any transaction involving the property:

             (1) With the intent to further racketeering activity; or

             (2) With the knowledge that the transaction conceals the location, source, ownership or control of the property.

      (j) To conspire to violate any of the provisions of this section.

      2.  A person who violates this section 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 5 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $25,000.

      3.  As used in this section, “unlawful activity” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 207.195.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1496; A 1995, 12412009, 145)

NRS 207.400
NRS 207.520           Limitation of actions.

A criminal action or proceeding under NRS 205.322 or 207.400 may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the conduct in violation of the section occurs. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 217.007, a civil action or proceeding under NRS 207.470 may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the violation occurs or after the injured person sustains the injury, whichever is later. If a criminal prosecution or civil action or other proceeding is brought to punish, prevent or restrain any violation of the provisions of NRS 205.322 or 207.400, the running of the period of limitations prescribed by this section with respect to any cause of action arising under NRS 207.470, which is based in whole or in part upon any matter complained of in the prosecution or proceeding, is suspended during the pendency of the prosecution or proceeding and for 2 years following termination of the prosecution or proceeding.

NRS 207.520

     

Civil Action to claim damages resulting from racketeering

NRS 207.470  Civil actions for damages resulting from racketeering.

      1.  Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.400 has a cause of action against a person causing such injury for three times the actual damages sustained. An injured person may also recover attorney’s fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The defendant or any injured person in the action may demand a trial by jury in any civil action brought pursuant to this section. Any injured person has a claim to forfeited property or the proceeds derived therefrom and this claim is superior to any claim the State may have to the same property or proceeds if the injured person’s claim is asserted before a final decree is issued which grants forfeiture of the property or proceeds to the State.

      2.  A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the State in any criminal proceeding under NRS 205.322 or 207.400 estops the defendant in any subsequent civil action or proceeding from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense.

      3.  Any civil action or proceeding under this section must be instituted in the district court of the State in the county in which the prospective defendant resides or has committed any act which subjects him or her to criminal or civil liability under this section or NRS 205.322207.400 or 207.460.

      4.  Any civil remedy provided pursuant to this section is not exclusive of any other available remedy or penalty.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1501)

      NRS 207.480  Order of court upon determination of civil liability.  A district court may, following a determination of civil liability under NRS 207.470 or 207.490, take such actions as it deems proper, including ordering the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of the proceedings.

      (Added to NRS by 1983, 1502)

Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated

Excerpt from page 2 of Nationtar’s 5/10/16 filing into A-15-720032-C

Note that Nationatar’s 12/1/14 claim that it had acquired Bank of America’s interest in the Hansen deed of trust was fraudulent and Nationstar rescinded it on 3/8/19. Nationstar did not have a recorded claim to the Hansen deed of trust until one week after discovery ended, and that 3/8/19 claim was fraudulent as well.

According to Nationstar’s attorneys, Nona Tobin is NOT entitled to due process before her property was confiscated by Nationstar whose claims were all fraudulent.

Link to “Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?

Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law”?

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2016, Nationstar had standing to assert a quiet title claim under NRS 40.010…

Note that Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming to be the beneficial owner of the disputed Hansen deed of trust due to its many conflicting and false claims made into the court record and in the official Clark County property record.

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2016, Nationstar could not be bound by Jimijack’s default judgment against B of A because Jimijack did not name Nationstar as a defendant

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2019, Nona Tobin’s known interest in the property should be disregarded so Nationstar and Jimijack could settle the title dispute without joining her..and without presenting a case.

Link to 4/23/19 hearing transcript where Nationstar and Jimijack settled the title dispute ex parte by excluding Nona Tobin

Link to “A simple fable: Jimijack and Nationstar weaponize settlement”

According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2019, Nona Tobin did not have standing to assert a quiet title claim as an individual and was bound by the 6/24/19 order from a trial that excluded her.

Link to 6/24/19 trial order that granted quiet title to Jimijack vs. the Gordon B. Hansen Trust which Nationstar claims is preclusive of all Nona Tobin’s claims

Judge Kishner excused Nationstar and the HOA from the trial although neither of whom had any filed claims against Nona Tobin or the Hansen Trust, and despite the fact that the HOA’s motion for summary judgment against only the Hansen Trust’s quiet title claim was improper and unwarranted as the HOA had no interest in the title and would not have been damaged in any way if the HOA’s attorneys had simply done nothing. The effect of the court’s granting the HOA’s motion for quiet title and Nationstar’s joinder was to give the title to give the title to Plaintiff s Nationstar and Jimack without requiring them to put on a case and preventing Nona Tobin from putting on hers.

Judge Kishner compounded her errors of never ruling on Tobin’s claim that Jmiack’s deed was inadmissible and that Nationstar was lying bout owning the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust, by meeting ex parte with Nationstar and Jimijack attorneys, letting them convince her that Nona Tobin’s pro se filings should be stricken from the record unheard, and by letting them “settle” non-existent claims (Jimijack never filed any claims against Nationstar), and by failing to check the settlement documents (to see that neither Jimijack nor Nationstar were parties to the “settlement agreement” that took the title from Nona Tobin without her being given an opportunity to be heard as Nationstar so eloquently demanded for itself in 2016.

Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial all documentary evidence for Joseph Hong’s misconduct, which damaged only Nona Tobin.

Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial five of the six Hansen Trust’s causes of action (equitable relief (noncompliance with HOA governing documents), civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment), made on 1/31/17 CRCM vs SCA, 2/1/17 AACC vs. Jimijack (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and preliminary and permanent injunctions), and 2/1/17 CRCM vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, and civil conspiracy)

Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial Nona Tobin as an individual and ALL of Nona Tobin’s individual causes of action (quiet title & equitable relief (statutory non-compliance), equitable relief (noncompliance with HOA governing documents), civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment) made on 1/31/17 CRCM vs SCA, 2/1/17 AACC vs. Jimijack (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and preliminary and permanent injunctions), and 2/1/17 CRCM vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, and civil conspiracy)

Link to Nona Tobin’s 8/7/19 quiet title complaint as an individual that Nationstar asserted Nona Tobin had no right to file because

Link to Red Rock’s 6/23/19 motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims

Red Rock claims res judicata even though none of Nona Tobin’s claims have ever been adjudicated.

Link to Nationstar’s 6/25/19 joinder to motion to dismiss that includes Nationstar’s misstatement of the facts to make claims preclusion apply to Nona Tobin’s claims that were never heard.

A. Note that Nationstar fails to mention that Nationstar never filed any quiet title claims against Nona Tobin or against the HOA or against Red Rock or against Nona Tobin as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust.
B. Note that Nationstar fails to mention that Nationstar and Jimijack made a fraudulent side deal excluding Nona Tobin for the corrupt purpose of obstructing judicial scrutiny of Tobin’s evidence.
On 1/10/19, the Court granted leave to amend, but not to add parties or claims which is tantamount to not granting the 11/30/18 motion to amend. Since the order was not entered, Nationstar cannot now claim “Tobin cannot now use this action to complete the efforts she abandoned in the prior action.”
Link to 3/14/19 complaint against Nationstar to the Nevada Attorney General unadjudicated and included as an exhibit to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 opposition to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment against Jimijack
Link to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 opposition to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment and counter-motion for summary judgment that was stricken at the 4/23/19 ex parte meeting between Nationstar, Jimijack and Judge Kishner
Link to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment against Jimijack that was stricken unheard at the 4/23/19 ex parte meeting between Nationstar, Jimijack and Judge Kishner
Link to Nona Tobin’s 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment against all parties that was stricken unheard at the 4/23/19 ex parte meeting between Nationstar, Jimijack and Judge Kishner

Counter-claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services

Factual allegations

  1. 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: APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all parties
  2. 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 sale was void for rejection of assessment payments.
  3.  The Default was cured three times, but RRFS kept pursuing the predatory path to unwarranted, unjustly profitable foreclosure. See Exhibit 3: the alleged default was cured three times.
  4. There was no valid authorization of the sale, but RRFS disclosed deceptive and falsified documents to create the misrepresentation of reality. See Exhibit 4: The HOA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action.
  5. Required notices were not provided, but RRFS falsified records to cover it up. See Exhibit 5: Required notices were not provided, but it was covered up by falsified records.
  6. 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. See Exhibit 6: The HOA Board imposed the ultimate sanction for an alleged violation of the governing documents with NO due process.
  7. 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: Neither Bank of America nor Nationstar ever owned the disputed Hansen deed of trust, but tried to steal the property.
  8. 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: Examples of Red Rock’s corrupt business practices. 
  9. 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: Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal.
  10. 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: The proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. 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: Red Rock’s fraud, unfairness and oppression
  12. 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: Attorney interference in the administration of justice.
  13. 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: Lack of professional ethics and good faith.
  14. Attorneys have knowingly presented false evidence into the court record in discovery. See Exhibit 14: Presented false evidence to cover up crime.
  15. 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: Civil conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages.
  16. Exhibit 16 Republic Services lien releases
  17. Exhibit 17 Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Exhibit 18 Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. Exhibit 19 Relevant HOA governing document provisions
  20. Exhibit 20 Administrative complaints
  21. Exhibit 21 Nevada court cases regarding the wrongful foreclosure of 2763 White Sage
  22. Exhibit 22 Nona Tobin’s 1/31/17 cross-claim vs Sun City Anthem, DOEs & ROEs excerpts: statement of facts, 5th cause of action: unjust enrichment, identification of parties

First cause of action: Interpleader

The court must find that the proceeds of the 8/15/14 must be distributed to the only claimant, Nona Tobin, immediately with interest, sanctions and penalties for failure to comply with the statutory requirement to distribute the proceeds immediately after the sale.

Red Rock did not comply with the statute

RRFS’s agent/employee Christie Marling was the “person who conducted the sale”.

NRS 116.31164(3) (2013) defines Christie Marling’s ministerial duties following the sale
RRFS 052 shows Christie Marling COMPLIED with 3(a) and sent a foreclosure deed to the purchaser.
Ombudsman’s records show that Christie marling DID NOT COMPLY with 3(b) as no foreclosure deed was sent to the Ombudsman following the unnoticed 8/15/4 sale.
RRFS 047 and RRFS 048 show that Christie Marling TRIED TO COMPLY with 3(c) by instructing Steven Scow to deposit the funds with the court for interpleader.
Steven Scow DID NOT COMPLY with 3(c) and did not deposit the funds with the court as instructed by the person who conducted the sale.

Steven Scow DID NOT COMPLY with SCA bylaws to deposit the funds in an account controlled by the SCA Board when he did not deposit the funds with the court and he did not distribute them according to the statute.

Second cause of action:

Unjust enrichment or Conversion

1. Link to HOA bylaws restriction on delegation of control over funds collected for the HOA
2. Page 1336 Resident Transaction Report 8/27/14 ledger entry $2,701.04 paid the HOA in full, but RRFS provided falsified ledgers in response to subpoena.
3. Excerpt of 10/15/14 email shows RRFS rebuffed my attempt to make a claim for the excess proceeds by saying it was deposited with the court.
4. Link to 4/27/12 RRFS debt collection contract that was concealed in discovery that contains the unenforced indemnify provision that Red Rock has unjustly profited from at the expense of Sun City Anthem homeowners.
5. Link to Red Rock’s duplicitous 6/23/20 motion to dismiss my quiet title and unjust enrichment claims per NRCP 12(b)(5) and NRCP 12(b)(6)
6. Link to Red Rock’s duplicitous 2/15/21 interpleader complaint

Third cause of action: Racketeering

  1. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR engaged in racketeering activities as defined in NRS 207.360 and a racketeering enterprise as is defined in NRS 207.380;
  2. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR, acting directly, and in conspiracy with one another or through their syndicate(s), participated directly in racketeering activity by engaging in at least two crimes related to racketeering;
  3. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s activities have the same or similar pattern, intent, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events;
  4. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR acquired or maintained directly or indirectly an interest in, or control of, any enterprise, or defendants are employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate directly or indirectly in the affairs of the enterprise through a racketeering activity;
  5. COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s injuries flow from the defendant’s violation of a predicate Nevada RICO act;
  6. NONA TOBIN’s injury was be proximately caused by the defendant’s violation of the predicate act;
  7. NONA TOBIN’s did not participate in the commission of the predicate act; and
  8. NONA TOBIN’s is entitled to institute a civil action for recovery of treble damages proximately caused by the RICO violations. NRS 207.470(1).
  9. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS conspired with, aided and abetted CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR, and many other lenders, to perpetrate a fraud on the court with a quid pro quo of Nationstar’s (and fill-in-the-blank OTHER LENDER’S NAME)’s not asserting a claim for the excess proceeds so Koch & Scow could keep whatever proceeds they wanted without fear of audit or challenge.

Prayer for relief

  1. COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND 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. 
  2. This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 
  3. 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.[1] 

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 the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title;
  • 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.
  • that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales;
  • that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds;
  • 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 (1) and (4);
  •  That Nona Tobin is entitled to is entitled to recoup damages equivalent to 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;
  • 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)

[1] 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).

Cause of Action: Conversion

  1. According to Jay Young, Nevada Law Blog:

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of conversion are:

  1. A distinct and intentional act of dominion by one which is wrongfully exerted over the property of another;
  2. Act committed in denial of, or inconsistent with the rightful owner’s use and enjoyment of the property;
  3. Act committed in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of the owner’s rights or titled in the property; and
  4. Causation and damages

M.C. Multi-Family Development, L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assoc., Ltd., 193 P.3d 536, 543 (Nev., 2008); Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 5 P.3d 1043 (Nev. 2000); Bader v. Cerri, 96 Nev. 352, 609 P.2d 314 (1980); Wantz v. Redfield, 74 Nev. 196 (1958); Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nev. 345 (1873).

Cause of Action: Defamation

Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein. 

Plaintiff is a homeowner in good standing of Sun City Anthem since 2/20/04.

Defendants, and each of them, made at least one false statement of fact to a third party that interferes with the Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of her property, her good name in the community, and her rights as a Sun City Anthem homeowner (each a “Defamatory Statement”). 

Each Defamatory Statement constitutes a non-privileged publication to a third party.  Each Defamatory Statement was made with malice.  Plaintiff suffered special damages due to each Defamatory Statement.  As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $15,000, and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Plaintiff to secure the services of an attorney, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages.

Link to published 2017-2020 quarterly litigation reports

Civil complaint against attorneys

Causes of Action: Abuse of process, civil conspiracy, fraud, and racketeering

Link to PDF of 3/22/21 third-party complaint into A-21-828840-C & exhibits

Exhibit 1: Cause of action: Fraud

Exhibit 2: Cause of action: Abuse of process

Exhibit 3: Civil damages due to Racketeering

Exhibit 4: Cause of action: Conspiracy

Exhibit 5: Alleged facts

Exhibit 6: What does it take to get disbarred in Nevada?

Exhibit 7: 1st complaint to the Nevada Attorney General

Exhibit 8: 2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General

Exhibit 9: Why Nationstar & its attorneys must be sanctioned & pay punitive damages

Exhibit 10: All declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin’s claims

When all statements under oath support Nona Tobin, why does she keep losing?

Exhibit 11: What is the PUD Rider?

Exhibit 12: A Duel to the Death

Exhibit 13: We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case

Exhibit 14: Complaints to the State Bar of Nevada Ethics & Discpline Panel vs. Brittany Wood

Exhibit 15: Complaint against Melanie Morgan

Exhibit 16: Complaint to the Mortgage Lending Division

Exhibit 17: Complaint vs. Brittany Wood

Exhibit : 2020 court hearings Part 1

Exhibit 19: Complaints to law enforcement

Exhibit 20: Harassment or bullying an HOA homeowner is a crime

Exhibit 21: How the crooks steal HOA houses

Exhibit 22: Implicated Nevada law

Exhibit 23: Interpleader complaint was filed with an ulterior motive

Exhibit 24: Joseph Hong: pay Nona Tobin treble damages for stealing her house and be disbarred

Exhibit 25: Judicial Jiu-Jitsu is fraud on the court

Exhibit 26: Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud

Exhibit 27: Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Complaint

Exhibit 28: Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure

Exhibit 29: Implicated Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct

Excerpts related to attorney misconduct in this situation as well as a link to the full Nevada rules for professional conduct. Here is a link to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions which also should weigh heavily in the Court’s decision to appropriate level of discipline to impose.

Exhibit 30: Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the property record

Exhibit 31: Recommendation to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

Exhibit 32: Complaints to the Nevada Attorney General

Exhibit 33: What is Lis Pendens?

Exhibit 34: Why Alternative Dispute Resolution

Cause of Action: Misappropriation of money

Plaintiff Nona Tobin repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein. 

Defendants, and each of them, misappropriated or otherwise improperly took possession of monies which belonged to or should have gone to Plaintiff. 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $15,000 and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Plaintiff to secure the services of an attorney, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages.

Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy

Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein. 

Defendants collectively constitute a combination of two or more persons.  

Defendants acted in concert by agreement, understanding, or a “meeting of the minds” regarding the objective and the means of pursuing it, whether explicit or by tacit agreement (the “Scheme”). 

Defendants, and each of them, intended to and did accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming Plaintiff Nona Tobin through the Scheme. 

The Scheme harmed Plaintiff Nona Tobin 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Scheme, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $15,000 and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff Nona Tobin to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial. 

As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Nona Tobin to secure the services of an attorney, and Nona Tobin is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages.