Standard for granting NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss with prejudice

Warner v. Dillon, 92 Nev. 677, 679 (Nev. 1976) (“In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court is required to accept as true all evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom presented by the plaintiff. Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682 (1962).”)

“However, in deciding whether to dismiss a complaint pursuant to NRCP 12 (b)(5), “[a]ll allegations pled must be accepted as true.” Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 674, 856 P.2d 560, 563 (1993). As * attr(page-number) Bergmann makes clear, the dispositive resolution of questions of fact is not a part of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings.

Brinson v. Jackson, No. CV412-105, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2013) (“the Court can only grant a dismissal motion if it is legally supported”)

A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading, so a plaintiff is free to amend his complaint to eliminate questions about its legal sufficiency, the 4th DCA said.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12 governs federal motions to dismiss. A defendant making a motion to dismiss must do so before filing an answer or other responsive pleading, and the motion is generally due when the defendant’s answer would have been due (see FRCP 12(b)).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Manuela Rubio v. Nevada, 124 Nev. 1032, 1044 (Nev. 2008) (“As other jurisdictions have required, we recognize that district courts should hold an evidentiary hearing for colorable claims of affirmative misrepresentation.”)

A failure to plead with sufficient particularity does not warrant a dismissal of the action with prejudice”.”

Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 146 (Nev. 1981) (“Although appellant has not stated the claimed fraud with particularity and thus has failed to comply with NRCP 9(b) upon the authority of Savage v. Salzmann, supra, “A failure to plead with sufficient particularity does not warrant a dismissal of the action with prejudice”.”)

A motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5) is subject to a rigorous standard of review on appeal

Nevada Power Co. v. Haggerty, 115 Nev. 353, 358 (Nev. 1999) (“In reviewing orders granting motions to dismiss, this court considers whether the challenged pleading sets forth allegations sufficient to establish the elements of a right to relief. Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 109 Nev. 789, 792, 858 P.2d 380, 381 (1993). In making its determination, this court is to accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id. at 792, 858 P.2d at 381 (citing Marcoz v. Summa Corporation, 106 Nev. 737, 739, 801 P.2d 1346, 1347 (1990)).”)

A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading, so a plaintiff is free to amend his complaint to eliminate questions about its legal sufficiency

Seput v. Lacayo, 122 Nev. 499, 501 (Nev. 2006) (“A motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5) is subject to a rigorous standard of review on appeal. “All factual allegations in the complaint are [viewed] as true, and all inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party.” Further, “[a] complaint should only be dismissed if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Dismissal is proper where the allegations are insufficient to establish the elements of a claim for relief.” The district court’s conclusions of law are subject to our de novo review.”)

Hampe v. Foote, 118 Nev. 405, 408, 47 P.3d 438, 439 (2002).

Keife v. Logan, 119 Nev. 372, 374, 75 P.3d 357, 359 (2003).

Squires v. Sierra Nev. Educational Found, 107 Nev. 902, 905 (Nev. 1991) (“The standard of review for dismissals under NRCP 12(b)(5) is rigorous. The court “must construe the pleading liberally and draw every fair intendment in favor of the [appellant].” Merluzzi v. Larson, 96 Nev. 409, 411, 610 P.2d 739, 741 (1980) (citing San Diego Prestressed Concrete Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Corp., 92 Nev. 569, 573, 555 P.2d 484, 487 (1976)). However, the appellant must have presented some relevant legal authority in support of his contention. Plankinton v. Nye County, 95 Nev. 12, 588 P.2d 1025 (1979). In addition, all factual allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Hynds Plumbing v. Clark Co. Sch. Dist., 94 Nev. 776, 777, 587 P.2d 1331, 1332 (1978).”)

Mesi v. Mesi, 478 P.3d 366, 371 (Nev. 2020) (“Although efficiency is normally “best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged,” see Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 128 Nev. 635, 649, 289 P.3d 201, 210 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), the situation is different when a court has already decided to defer jurisdiction and is only choosing whether to stay or dismiss. Cf. id. at 649 n.5, 289 P.3d at 210 n.5 (noting that “courts occasionally find a stay will in fact promote judicial efficiency”). If the first-filed suit is dismissed, the second court’s stay can be lifted and the action can proceed without the need for a wasteful new filing. See Alltrade , 946 F.2d at 629. Conversely, if the first court determines that it does have jurisdiction, the second action can be dismissed without difficulty. See id.”)

Allegations of misconduct against Nationstar attorneys

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it.

Below is my statement of intent which was to clearly show that my claims had been obstructed and never fully heard due to the misconduct of my opponents.

The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence

Summary of 2/23/22 and 2/28/22 Bar complaints against Nationstar’s attorneys

Nationstar’s attorneys: Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP

Melanie Morgan (SBN 8215) Akerman LLP

2/28/22 Complaint to State Bar vs. Nationstar’s attorneys: Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP and

2/23/22 Complaint to Bar vs. Nationstar attorneys Melanie Morgan (SBN 8215) Akerman

Nationstar’s attorneys: Melanie Morgan, Managing Partner Akerman LLP and Wright Finlay Zak, LLP lied about Nationstar being owed a debt; lied about Nationstar having any standing to file a quiet title claim. Abused the HOA quiet title litigation process multiple times as a corrupt business model, representing different lenders who did not NRS 104.3301 standing to foreclose on the 1st deeds of trust they were lying about owning.

  1. The most critical material facts knowingly misrepresented by all of Nationstar’s attorneys related to the assignments and reconveyance of the 1st deed of trust that was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA sale:           7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
  2. 4/12/12 ASSIGN MERS to BANA by BANA – could not transfer interest:
  3. 1) assignment to BANA was void as it was robo-signed days after BANA signed a 4/4/12 consent decree agreeing not to robo-sign documents to fake ownership of loans that basically had been securitized out of existence;
  4. 2) also void because there is no notary record of it (NRS 111.240);
  5. 3) also void because non-compliant with Nevada’s anti-foreclosure fraud law (AB 284 (2011)
  6. 9/9/14 ASSIGN BANA to Wells Fargo by BANA – could not transfer interest:
  7. 1) assignment is void as BANA’s 4/12/12 assignment to itself above was void;
  8. 2) assignment was recorded almost a month after the deed of trust was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA sale;
  9. 3) servicing banks BANA’s and Nationstar’s failure to record a notice of default on the 7/22/04 deed of trust constitutes a waiver of any right it may have to use the property as security for the Hansen promissory note;
  10. 4) servicers’ failure to record a notice of default was the direct and proximate cause of the HOA sale because an HOA is prohibited from foreclosing if a lender has recorded a notice of default on the 1st deed of trust (NRS 116.31162(6)(2013)
  11. 12/1/14 ASSIGN BANA to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest:
  12. 1) void because BANA had no interest to assign on 12/1/14;
  13. 2) void because it was actually a self-assignment executed without authority by Nationstar;
  14. 3) void because Nationstar did not record or disclose a properly executed power of attorney from BANA;
  15. 4) void because Nationstar rescinded it a week after the end of discovery in the 1st action
  16. 3/8/19 ASSIGN Wells Fargo to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest:
  17. 1) void because Wells Fargo had no interest to assign to Nationstar;
  18. 2) void because Nationstar’s robo-signer executed it without authority;
  19. 3) void because Nationstar recorded it after the end of discovery in the 1st action;
  20. 4) void because Nationstar prevailed in the 1st action by filing a non-meritorious joinder on 2/12/19 claiming to be BANA’s successor in interest and then two weeks later rescinding that claim and then after the end of discovery recording a new robo-signed claim to be Wells Fargo’s successor in interest;
  21. 5) Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that either it or Wells Fargo is the beneficiary due to its repeated conflicting claims regarding when and from whom it acquired its claimed interest;
  22. 6) Nationstar admitted i n discovery two days after this robo-signed assignment was executed on 2/25/19 that Nationstar was then, and always had been since 12/1/13, only the servicer, never the beneficiary.
  23. 3/8/19 RESCIND 12/1/14 BANA to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest as it was rescinding a void assignment:
  24. 1) this rescission was done in bad faith a week after discovery ended after Nationstar learned that Tobin could prove that it was lying about being the beneficiary as BANA’s successor in interest; 2) this was executed by Nationstar robo-signer Mohamed Hammed posing as if he were the V-P of BANA;
  25. 3) In the months following this rescission, Nationstar persisted in its false claim that the sale was valid to extinguish Tobin’s interest by was void to extinguish the interest Nationstar was lying about owning as the successor of BANA
  26. 6/3/19 RECONVEY Hansen DOT to Joel Stokes – not to the borrower’s estate – by Nationstar
  27. 1) void because Nationstar did not have the legal authority to reconvey the deed of trust to anyone, let alone to a non-party two days before the quiet title trial in the 1st action;
  28. 2) void as Nationstar claimed to be both the trustee and the beneficiary when in fact it was neither and therefore had no legal authority to record a reconveyance (NRS 205.395);
  29. 3) Nationstar could not have been both the trustee and the beneficiary as NRS 107.028(2) prohibits it;
  30. 4)  void as it was a fraudulent transfer (NRS 111.175) to consummate the $355,000 devil’s pact between Nationstar and Jimijack recorded on 5/23/19;
  31. 5) underlying deal with Joel Stokes is void as the attorneys misrepresented it as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims to the court to gain its imprimatur fraudulently;
  32. 5) void as the Nationstar-Joel Stokes deal excluded Tobin as a necessary party (NRCP 19, NRS 30.130) as she was denied the opportunity to defend her 3/28/17 deed;
  33. 6) void as the lien was released as a quid pro quo to steal Tobin’s property by obstructing her claims from being heard on their merits;
  34. 7) void as this was recorded when Tobin as an individual and as the Hansen Trust trustee had pending quiet title claims against Jimijack to void the defective HOA sale subject to the deed of trust, i.e., Jimijack’s deed was defective and inadmissible as evidence of title (NRS 111.345) and so if Tobin’s claims had been heard on the merits, Jimijack would have lost. Nationstar knew that Tobin knew it did not have standing to foreclose on her if the title was unwound to put her and Nationstar back as if the sale had never happened. The ONLY way they could both win was to obstruct Tobin’s case from being heard and tell the court that they settled the title dispute out of court.
  35. 7) void as Nationstar never produced any evidence that it had any legal right to collect $355,000 in exchange for releasing a lien it did not own;
  36. 7) underlying deal with Joel Stokes is void as Nationstar dismissed all its quiet title claims without adjudication;
  37. 8) void as Nationstar essentially confiscated Tobin’s property without foreclosure and without adjudication, by lying about being the beneficiary and abusing the HOA quiet title litigation process to collect on a debt it was not owed.
  38. 9) void as Nationstar circumvented the restrictions of the PUD Rider Remedies (F) to turn the alleged payment of delinquent HOA assessments into a de facto foreclosure without notice of due process required by NRS 107.080.

Summary of Bar Complaint against Melanie Morgan

  • 1. Met ex parte with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19 after serving notice on all parties through the court’s e-file Odyssey system on 4/15/19 and 4/22/19 that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19 (NCJC 2.9, NRPC 8.4 and ABA standard 6.31(b))
  • 2. As the managing partner over multiple subordinate attorneys, and as the successor of Nationstar’s and BANA’s prior attorneys, Wright, Finley, Zak, perpetrated fraud on the court
  • by misrepresenting to the court the material facts, (e.g., 1) that Nationstar was owed a debt from the 7/22/04 deed of trust that was extinguished by the disputed 8/15/14 HOA sale,
  • 2) that Nona Tobin had not been granted leave to intervene as an individual
  • 3) that Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed did not give her NRS 40.010 standing anyway
  • 4) that the HOA sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the lien),
  • 5) changed attorneys to create plausible deniability, e.g., removed Karen Whelan after Joe Coppedge asked Nationstar in 2018 to join Tobin in an MSJ to void the sale in its entirety
  • 6) in A-21-828840-C when Nationstar was going to have to respond to Tobin’s claim that it was judicially estopped from claiming to be owed a debt from the Hansen 7/22/04 deed of trust),
  • 7) concealed inculpatory evidence (e.g., all Equator records, communications between Nationstar and Tobin or Nationstar and Red Rock or Nationstar and Wells Fargo) on these dates: 5/15/18, 12/10/18, 2/7/19, 2/12/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/21/19, 2/21/19, 2/27/19, 2/28/19, 2/28/19, 3/7/19, 3/12/19, 3/12/19, 3/18/19, 3/21/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/12/19, 4/15/19, 4/19/19, 4/22/19, 4/23/19, 4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/3/19, 5/21/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 5/31/19, 6/24/19, 6/24/19, 6/25/19, 7/1/19, 7/22/19, 6/25/20, 8/11/20, 4/9/21, 4/26/21, 5/3/21, 5/5/21, 8/19/21, 11/9/21, 11/15/21, 11/16/21, 11/23/21, 11/30/21.
  • 3. In conspiracy with Joseph Hong, made a fraudulent side deal with Joel A. Stokes, that a) was mischaracterized to the court (5/21/19 transcript) status check-settlement documents) as a “Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims” that was recorded on 5/23/19, and
  • b) which allowed Nationstar to be dismissed from the quiet title trial
  • c) so it did not have to produce any evidence to support its quiet title claim
  • and d) evaded either Nationstar or Jimijack having to refute Tobin’s quiet title claims on their merits.
  • 2/23/22 Bar complaint filed against Melanie Morgan Petitioner’s 84371 appendix volume 27 (22-08189) (pages 4045-4154) was supported by exhibits of multiple unadjudicated administrative claims against Nationstar and Akerman.
  • On 2/23/22, Tobin, as the President of Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., filed a complaint against Nationstar’s attorney, Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP (“WFZ”) that initiated Nationstar’s meritless quiet title complaint. The bar complaint is filed concurrently as a Request for Judicial Notice because it their duplicitous filings are the corrupt foundation of this dispute. However, they ceased to be Nationstar’s attorneys on 4/10/18 when Akerman took over.
  • WFZ aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into this quiet title civil dispute 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.
  • Assisting lenders to cheat homeowners is WFZ’s business model.
  • Movant requests the court determine if written findings against the WFZ attorneys separate from Nationstar are appropriate given that the four-year statute of limitations for complaints to be addressed by the Bar has passed, but the five-year statute of limitations for racketeering has not.

Allegations of misconduct against Red Rock Financial Services attorney

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it. Below is my statement of intent.

The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence

Summary of 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Red Rock attorney Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC

  1. Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC is the attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that conducted the disputed HOA foreclosure sale usurping the statutory authority of the HOA.
  2. Scow knew that this critical case-concluding phrase in the 4/18/19 order was false, “The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.
  3. Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Scow himself produced, Scow and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 6/23/20, 8/3/20, 8/11/20, 4/16/21, 4/27/21, 4/29/21, 5/11/21, 8/19/21, 10/22/21, 11/16/21, 12/28/21, 1/19/22, 5/25/22, 6/13/22.
  4. The 3/1/22 complaint overview to the Bar vs. Scow and table of contents of exhibits are quoted here:
  5. 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906) is quoted/summarized here:
  6. Steven Scow, the subject of this instant complaint, represents Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132), that secretly sold my late fiancé’s house allegedly at a properly noticed and conducted HOA sale.
  7. Steven Scow produced false evidence and concealed inculpatory evidence in response to my 2/4/19 subpoena that was relied on by the court to grant a meritless motion for summary judgment for quiet title by the HOA (even though the HOA had no interest in the title to protect). Upon information and belief, the HOA filed the motion for improper purposes, i.e., to cover up the fraudulent conduct of the sale and/or to retaliate against me for being a whistleblower.
  8. The HOA’s motion, and Nationstar’s equally meritless joinder, were granted by the order entered on 4/18/19 by the court’s relying solely on Steven Scow-produced Red Rock’s unverified, uncorroborated, and sometimes blatantly falsified, foreclosure record.
  9. Steven Scow’s and David Ochoa’s fraudulent misrepresentation to the court of the Red Rock unverified file as the HOA’s official records, is the proximate and direct cause of three more years of litigation for which I have accrued $317,532.76 in attorneys’ fees and much more in personal and financial cost.
  10. All subsequent orders in district court cases A-15-720032-C, A-19-799890-C, A-21-828840-C and in appeals 79295 and 82294 were the fruit of this poison tree of falsified documents used to inaccurately depict the HOA sale as compliant with all legal requirements in Nevada statutes and the HOA governing documents.
  11. My complaint against Steven Scow is much larger than my individual case. It also focuses on his refusal to distribute the excess proceeds from this sale (despite my repeated unheard civil and administrative claims), AND from a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 sales, AND from an unknown number of other sales conducted by Red Rock over the years.
  12. 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906was supported by the following exhibits that were rejected by the Assistant Bar Counsel without the investigation required by SCR 104(1)(a):
  13. Exhibit A Scow presented false evidence in response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena.
  14. Exhibit B Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained, to this day, the excess proceeds of Sun City Anthem HOA foreclosure sales after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
  15. Exhibit C Scow also unlawfully retained excess proceeds from foreclosures by other HOAs after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
  16. Exhibit D Scow did not produce subpoenaed documents that contained inculpatory evidence without claiming privilege.
  17. Exhibit E Steven Scow failed to identify the partners who are unfairly profiting by these statutorily non-compliant sales and Scow’s failure to distribute the excess proceeds.
  18. Exhibit F Steven Scow filed meritless claims, motions, and oppositions to evade judicial scrutiny of inculpatory evidence.
  19. Exhibit G-1 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws after being intentionally misinformed about the law by Scow’s clients.
  20. Exhibit G-2 Legal limits on closed HOA meetings in SCA governing documents were disregarded because Scow’s clients intentionally misinformed the SCA Board about them.
  21. Exhibit H-1 “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”
  22. Exhibit H-2 “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”
  23. Exhibit H-3 “The House that took over a Life”
  24. Exhibit H-4 Exhibit 5 of 3/8/21 Tobin’ A-21-828840-C Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-claims that shows that required notices for the sale were not provided, but the records were falsified to cover it up and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think”  Cost more
  25. Exhibit H-5 Call for an audit of the co-mingled, unaudited account(s) where Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained the excess proceeds he was instructed to remit to the court in 2014.
  26. Scow knew, but concealed that Red Rock unlawfully sold the property for $63,100 without notice on 8/15/14, three months after Nona Tobin had already been accepted the high bid of $367,500 on 5/8/14 from MZK Properties on, but that Nationstar would not let escrow close on a sale that was five times higher than the Red Rock sale.
  27. Pages 14 to 20 of the draft complaint against Scow list and describe the specific false evidence he entered into the court record in response to subpoena.
  28. False evidence (partial list) was entered into the court record via the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425).
  1. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf– the date was scrubbed, Red Rock misrepresented to the Board “As of today, RRFS is unaware of any buyer that is lined up…” when Red Rock was aware the property had already been sold on three months earlier and Nationstar had sent a notice that it would pay one year of assessments to close escrow on the 5/8/14 sale.
  2. RRFS 095 is SCA 277..png is a doctored combination of unrelated emails to misrepresent that no notice was actually sent to the owner in response to Nationstar’s 5/28/14 $1100 offer. Annotated version – (SCA 277)
  3. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a letter that was provably never sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14 as “no return to sender – deceased” was disclosed
  4. RRFS 123 DATE SCRUBBED RE 140515 SCHEDULED SALE.pdf– date was scrubbed
  5. RRFS 124 IS 140318 REQ 4 PAYOFF .pdf– on 3/18/14 Red Rock agent Christie Marling acknowledged Chicago Title’s request for payoff figures but asked to delay response until the Board reviewed a pending request for a waiver on 3/27/14. (RRFS 129)
  6. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf has scrubbed out the 3/18/14 Chicago Title request for payoff figures, the 3/27/14 Board approval of a $400 fee waiver, and the 3/28/14 Red Rock demand for $
  7. RRFS 128 IS SCA 315.pdf and SCA 315 misrepresented how the Board approved the sale. Board Resolution R005-120513 at the 12/5/13 meeting did not approve the sale of this property or any other SCA property.
  8. Red Rock concealed in discovery its 3/28/14 demand to Chicago Title that shows on page 6 that the board approved a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction on 3/27/14.
  9. Red Rock provided falsified accounts so that the Board’s approval of a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction did not show as an entry on 3/27/14 on future ledgers. (RRFS 076) and (SCA 255) and (SCA 303) and (RRFS 103)
  10. Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 debt collection contract that required Red Rock to indemnify Sun City Anthem and hold it harmless if any claims were brought alleging misconduct Red Rock’s part which caused a minimum of $150,000 in damages to the HOA.
  11. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a falsified notice that was never sent to Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave. as alleged. Tobin has stated multiple times under oath that she received no notice whatsoever from Red Rock after the 2/12/14 notice of the 3/7/14 sale which was not held because the property was in escrow with a $340,000 cash offer pending lender approval.
  12. RRFS 189-190 RES TRAN NO PAGE NUMBERS.pdf scrubbed the sequentially-numbered page numbers 1335 and 1336 from the resident transaction report (Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage and Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights)
  13. RRFS 398-399 RES TRAN 376.21 121205.pdf scrubbed the sequentially numbered page numbers 1334 and 1335 from the resident transaction report
  14. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf scrubbed the sequentially-numbered page numbers 1334 – 1336 from the resident transaction report
  15. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf Red Rock withheld in discovery all the financial transactions on resident transaction report pages 1336 – 1337 from 7/31/14 through 9/25/14, concealing thereby that the HOA has no record that 2763 White Sage was ever sold on 8/15/14, or any other date, and shows no entry in any ledger that confirms the alleged $63,100 was collected from a sale.
  16. Red Rock concealed page 1337 of the Resident Transaction Report that shows that Jimijack – not Opportunity Homes – became the second owner of the property on 9/25/14 and that there is no record of Opportunity Homes LLC or F. Bondurant LLC ever owning the property.
  17.  RRFS 305 – 311 shows that Red Rock responded to a payoff request from Ticor Title on 5/29/13 with a demand for $3,055.47 three weeks after Red Rock covertly rejected the Miles Bauer $825 tender when only $825 in assessments were then delinquent.

Nationstar did not have standing


  1. NSM never was beneficiary of the Hansen 7/22/04 1st Deed of Trust, but recorded false claims to confiscate Tobin’s property without foreclosing.
  2. NSM was not BANA’s successor in interest and so even if Miles Bauer’s 5/9/13 tender of $825 preserved the security interest, NSM has no right to any benefit from the preservation of the security interest
  3. Tobin/Hansen trust did not file any claims against NSM in the first proceedings because she was joining NSM in its bid to void the defective sale in its entirety.
  4. NSM had no standing to claim that the sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the HOA’s lien because there was no sub-priority portion on 5/9/13, and NSM made that claim for the sole improper purpose of stealing the house from Tobin because NSM knew it had no standing to foreclose on Tobin if the sale were voided in its entirety.
  5. The PUD rider remedies provision limits any lender’s recovery of delinquent assessments on behalf of the borrower to adding the amount paid to the outstanding balance of the loan plus interest at the note rate, and NSM’s attempt to get relief by confiscating Tobin’s property without meeting the foreclosure requirements of NRS 107.080, as amended by AB 284 (2011) is fraud.
  6. NSM was not the servicing bank on behalf of Wells Fargo as it first claimed the hour before discovery ended, but whether it was or not, NSM did not protect the interest of the beneficiary by foreclosing on the Hansen deed of trust in 2012 after the owner died and payments stopped. should have protected t
  7. NSM did not have a recorded power of attorney for its agent Mohamed Hameed to execute an assignment of the Hansen 1st DOT from Wells Fargo to itself, recorded on 3/8/19 and disclosed two weeks after the end of discovery.
  8. it is not Wells Fargo’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the 1st DOT
  9. NSM concealed its 5/28/14 $1100 super-priority offer so it cannot now claim that its rejection by Red Rock
  10. it is judicially estopped by its false and inconsistent claims, concealing of evidence, and its unwarranted civil action, from claiming any of Tobin’s statements of fact are false.

Table of Violations


NRS 116.3116Super-priorityMiles Bauer tendered $825 that SCA agents rejected
NRS 116A.640 (8)HOA Manager can’t: “8.  Intentionally apply a payment of an assessment from a unit’s owner towards any fine, fee or other charge that is due.”   “check (142) for HOA dues”  was applied first to fees 10/18/12 by RRFS as partial payment; 11/9/12 applied as “RRFS collection payment” in Resident Transaction Report   See “RRFS Claims vs Actual”  
NRS 116A.640(9)HOA Manager can’t: “9.  Refuse to accept from a unit’s owner payment of any assessment, fine, fee or other charge that is due because there is an outstanding payment due.”  RRFS refused BANA’s 5/9/13 tender of $825. RRFS did not present Nationstar’s $1100 offer to close the escrow opened on 5/8/14 on the $350,000 sale (SCA 302) rejection of BANA tender was when only nine months were delinquent as of 4/30/13 NSM $1100 offer rejected as if it was an owner request for waiver
NRS 116A.640(10)HOA Manager can’t: “10.  Collect any fees or other charges from a client not specified in the management agreement.”    Nature of the financial intertwinement of the manager and debt collector was concealed, allowing for the covert, unaudited, unsupervised application of unauthorized fees and charges.

Managing agent FSR (fka RMI) held the NRS 649 debt collection license dba Red Rock Financial Services (RRFS)       4/27/12 RRFS debt collection agreement   2/26/10 RMI management agreement   3/31/14 FSR management agreement    

Red Rock’s response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena concealed the 4/27/12 contract. The lack of enforcement of the 4/27/12. contract’s indemnification provision has resulted in over $100,000 in charges to be forced onto HOA homeowners and unlawfully avoided by Red Rock for 11 cases stemming from 2014 SCA foreclosures, i.e.,

A-15-720032 Jimijack Irrevocable Trust v. BANA, N.A. & SCACAI,

A-14-707237-C  LN Management LLC series Pine Prairie v. Deutsche Bank

A-15-711883-C  My Global Village LLC v BAC Home Servicing

A-15-724233-C  TRP Fund IV LLC v Bank of Mellon et al

A-14-702071   Citi-mortgage, Inc v. SCA, (SCA paid $55K to settle in 2017)

2:17-cv-1800-JAD-GWF   FNMA v SCACAI

2:17-cv-02161-APG-PAL Bank of NY Mellon v. SCACAI

A-16-735894-C    TRP FUND IV v. HSBC Bank
NRS 116.31162 –   SCA Board Resolution Delinquent Assessment Policy and Procedure           Can’t file a notice of intent to lien “or take any other action to collect prior to “60 days after the obligation becomes due’.

7/30/12 was date “obligation was past due’ for quarter ending 9/30/12   10/3/12 check 143 for $300 submitted & ID’d as “check for HOA dues” to pay $275 assessments and $25 late fee   lien recorded with no prior notice for $925.76 when only $300 was due     See annotated SCA 168-SCA 175  SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy  
NRS 116.31162 (4)Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + proceduresNo schedule of fees, repay plan, or hearing provided ever. No exception exists in the law to providing these notices or holding a hearing if an account has been sent to collections as claimed by SCA.   See 3/26/19 RTRAN, pgs. 23-24.
NRS 116.311635NOS – publish 3 times. Date & time & place of sale, mail certified to owner,2/12/14 NOS  complied with NRS 116.311635, but the single complaint notice was cancelled by notice to Ombudsman  on 5/15/14. See Ombudsman NOS compliance record of HOA notice published 2/12/14 for a 3/7/14 sale. No new compliant NOS was published prior to the 8/15/14 sale. All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were explicitly excluded from notice of the sale and were given no notice after it was sold. See
NRS 116.311365(2b3)Give NOS to OMBNo 2nd NOS – 8/15/14 sale held without notice to any party with a known interest.   RRFS did provide a 2nd NOS in two other SCA foreclosures where the 1st NOS was cancelled  
NRS 116.31164(3)(b)Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale8/15/14 sale was held without having a 2nd NOS and without giving the OMB the foreclosure deed EVER   All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were not given any notice after the property was sold
NRS 116.31164(3)(c)Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributedOn 11/30/18, Steve Scow said that the funds were still in the Red Rock Financial Services account.   SCA 217 & SCA 223-224 were deceptive.     SCA 224 disclosed a $57,282 check, dated 8/27/14, to Clark County District Court, to create to mis-perception that the funds had been distributed.   In 2014, RRFS misled Tobin so she could not submit a claim for the proceeds through interpleader.   Tobin has been prevented from making the claim that she is entitled to the proceeds because NSM is not entitled to them as NSM’s claims to be the beneficial owner of the Western Thrift deed of trust are provably false.  
NRS 116.31166Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemptionDeed recitals were false.   The HOA & its agents failed to comply with all legal requirements that were conditions precedent to a valid sale.   The default did not occur as was stated on the 3/12/13 rescinded Notice of default (NOD).   Payments were made after 7/1/1, i.e. check 143 was credited as paying all the quarter ending 9/30/12.   The Miles Bauer tender of $825 on 5/9/13 would have paid all delinquent assessments through 6/30/13.   RRFS misrepresented SCA 302 (NSM 5/28/14 offer of $1100) and called it an owner request for waiver in SCA 295 .  
NRS 116.1113Obligation of good faithFSR d/b/a RRFS had a financial conflict of interest serving both as the HOA’s managing agent and as its debt collector. FSR and RRFS advised the HOA BOD that it was required to handle collections and foreclosure in secret meetings.   FSR/RRFS falsely advised the HOA BOD that all BOD decisions related to “public” auctions of foreclosed properties were confidential by law.   FSR/RRFS did not act in good faith when it advised the BOD that there was an exception to due process requirements and owner protections in the law and in the deed restrictions if the proposed sanction was foreclosure.   FSR/RRFS prevented the BOD from complying with the requirements for taking valid corporate actions by getting the BOD to make all the decisions leading up to the sale of the property in unnoticed, closed meetings and without giving the owner an opportunity to prevent the sale.  
NRS 116.3102 (m)(1) (m) May impose reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents of the association only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.  FSR/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that this provision did not apply when the HOA was imposing fines that were mis-named collection costs.   FRS/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that selling an owner’s home for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments was not a fine or a sanction.
NRS 116.3102 (3)(4) 3.  The executive board may determine whether to take enforcement action by exercising the association’s power to impose sanctions or commence an action for a violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules, including whether to compromise any claim for unpaid assessments or other claim made by or against it. The executive board does not have a duty to take enforcement action if it determines that, under the facts and circumstances presented:       (a) The association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action;       (b) The covenant, restriction or rule being enforced is, or is likely to be construed as, inconsistent with current law;       (c) Although a violation may exist or may have occurred, it is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or       (d) It is not in the association’s best interests to pursue an enforcement action.  
NRS 116.3102 (3)(4)Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious4.  The executive board’s decision under subsection 3 not to pursue enforcement under one set of circumstances does not prevent the executive board from taking enforcement action under another set of circumstances, but the executive board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.   The BOD was arbitrary and capricious in its decision to make foreclosure decisions based solely on the allegations of its financially-conflicted agents,.   The HOA BOD allowed non-uniform enforcement and unjust enrichment of the agents to occur without supervising or auditing the agents’ actions or allowing owners to know what actions the agents were taking.  
NRS 116.3103BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOAHOA agents were unjustly enriched by usurping the policy authority and duties the SCA Board is prohibited from delegating by its governing documents.   It is not in the best interests of the HOA for the Board to allow agents to give higher priority to their own business interests than to the interests of the SCA membership given that the HOA a mutual-benefit association that exists solely to protect the common good (common areas and general property values) of the homeowners.   SCA agents have no statutory or contractual authority independent of the association.   The Association owes no duty to its agents.  
NRS 116.31031   CC&Rs 7.4   Bylaws 3.26   Resolution Establishing the Governing Documents Enforcement Policy & ProcessLimits on BOD power to impose sanctions   HOA BOD must provide:   Notice of violation Notice of hearing and procedures Notice of sanction & chance to appeal Notice of appeal hearing procedures AppealSCA alleged it sent a 9/20/12 notice of hearing for proposed sanction of suspension of membership privileges, but there was no hearing and no notice of sanctions alleged.   None of the contractually-defined  notice requirements guaranteed to all SCA homeowners prior to the imposition of a sanction for an alleged violation of any kind were met:   No Notice of violation (also no quarterly delinquency report as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v))   No Notice of hearing and proceduresNo Notice of sanction & chance to appealNo Notice of appeal hearing proceduresNo Appeal hearing held   Check 143 for $300 was submitted on 10/3/12 to pay $275 assessments through 9/30/12 plus $25 late fee authorized (SCA170).   RRFS credited $300 on 10/18/12 to unauthorized fees instead of to cure the delinquency as the owner stated was her intention.  
NRS 116.310313An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agentRRFS claims to have independent authority to charge fees unlimited by this provision.   SCA BOD has abdicated to that view and memorialized it in SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA168-175).  
NRS 116.116.3106 (1)(d)HOA must define in its bylaw which of BODs duties SHALL not be delegated  FSR/RRFS misled the HOA Board
SCA Bylaws 3.20/ 3.18a, b, e, f, g, i Adopted pursuant to NRS 116.3106(d)Can’t delegate (a) budget; (b) levying or collecting assessments, (e) deposit in approved institutions for HOA’s behalf, (f) making/ amending use rules, (g) opening bank accounts and controlling signatories, (i) enforcing governing documentsFSR/RRFS usurped the collection and foreclosure process by asserting total proprietary control over all financial records. They structured a system that excluded the HOA Board from ability to supervise or audit the agents’ work.   FSR/RRFS had signatory control over SCA accounts covering all assessments collected.   SCA maintained no independent records to document that the sale occurred in the manner claimed by FSR/RRFS (or occurred at all).   SCA’s ownership records (Resident Transaction Report) show only two owners of the property (Hansen and Jimijack before 2016 while RRFS shows three owners and Jimijack claims there were four.    SCA has no record that the property was sold on 8/15/14 or on any other date.   The HOA has no record that $63,100, or for any other amount, was collected from selling the property.   The HOA has no records of what happened to whatever money was collected for whatever properties were sold by agents exercising the HOA’s statutory right to foreclose in whatever unknown manner they chose.
NRS 116.31083Defines Requires HOA BOD meetings to be open to all owners except in four limited circumstances  No notice to the membership when any decision to foreclose a particular property was made.   The Board meets in closed session to discuss and act on topics outside the four permissible ones.
NRS 116.31083 (6)   NRS 116.3108(4)  agenda must clearly describe topicsThis property was never on any Board agenda for any reason.   NRS 116.3108 (4) 4.  The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of:       (a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, including, without limitation, any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any fees or assessments to be imposed or increased by the association, any budgetary changes and any proposal to remove an officer of the association or member of the executive board.       (b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.       (c) A period devoted to comments by units’ owners regarding any matter affecting the common-interest community or the association and discussion of those comments. Except in emergencies, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to paragraph (b).  
NRS 116.31083 (9)minutes must include date, time and place of meeting; directors present, substance of matters discussed, record of vote, owners’ commentsNothing in any minutes indicate the SCA Board authorized this property to be sold.   No Board vote on record related to this property at all.
NRS 116.31065Rules must be uniformly enforced or not at allSCA asserts that foreclosure is a statutory right that exempts the HOA Board & its agents from providing an owner the notice and due process required by NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 prior to the Board’s imposing any sanction against an owner for an alleged infraction of the HOA’s governing documents.   Tobin asserts that there is no exception in the law that exempts an HOA from providing all of the notice and due process delineated in NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 when the Board imposes any sanction. It is ludicrous for an HOA Board to assert that the ONLY exception to an owner’s rights to due process was when an unsupervised agent imposed the harshest possible sanction, i.e., permanent revocation of membership privileges, 100% of the owner’s title rights and a fine 200 times the debt, for an alleged violation of the governing documents fo delinquent assessments.
NRS 116.31175     SCA bylaws 6.4 SCA bylaws 3.26  HOA agents do not control HOA records. The Board controls the records and must provide owners access to all BOD agendas, minutes, & all HOA records (with statutorily-defined exceptions), including contracts, court filings when HOA is a party. which must be reported quarterly by nameThe HOA and its agents did not put provide any agenda that specified any proposed action to sanction the owner of 2763 White Sage for delinquent assessments or to sell the property to collect.   SCA did not  provide any minutes of meetings where those actions are taken and does not allow access to court records or contracts so they allow people to basically steal. There is no record of which houses are taken and sold or where the money went   SCA withheld compliance records requested in 2016 unless they received a request from the court.   SCA withheld all minutes of Board meetings at which the owner or the property or Nona Tobin were discussed or actions taken to impose sanctions   SCA withheld all the documents requested in discovery.   SCA withheld reports given to the Ombudsman and told Tobin she had to obtain them from the Ombudsman. Then, SCA told the court that the red Rock foreclosure file was SCA’s official record, and the Ombudsman’s compliance records were inadmissible.    
NRS 116.31175   SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”  FSR f/k/a RMI, as the HOA’s managing agent, never provided a quarterly delinquency report to the HOA BOD. The absence of this mandated report facilitated FSR d/b/a RRFS’s predatory collection practices which included adding
NRS 116.31085(4)BOD SHALL meet in exec session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who is about to be sanctioned requests an open hearing by the BOD. If the person requests in writing that an open hearing be conductedNo hearing was ever provided because no notice was ever given to the owner that the Board intended to impose a sanction of permanent revocation of membership privileges by selling the house.   SCA alleges that it offered on 9/20/12 a hearing scheduled for 10/8/12 prior to the imposition of a sanction of the temporary loss of membership privileges because, as of 9/20/12, the $275 assessment payment for the quarter ending 9/30/12  had not yet been received.
NRS 116.31085(4a)Owner who is being sanctioned for an alleged violation is entitled to attend all portions of the Board hearing, including the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnessesNo notice to attend
NRS 116.31085(4b)Owner is entitled to due process which must include without limitation the right to counsel, right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel (BOD)No due process provided
NRS 116.31085(5)subsection 4 establishes the MINIMUM protections the BOD must provide before it makes a decisionSCA didn’t provide the minimum protections
NRS 116.31085(6f)any matter discussed in exec session must be noted briefly in the minutes of the Executive Board. The Board shall maintain minutes of any decision related to subsection concerning the alleged violation and upon request shall provide a copy of the decision to the owner subject to being sanctioned or repNever gave info that could be considered actual or constructive notice
NRS 116.31087(1)right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BODTobin was blocked multiple times from telling the HOA BOD that their agents were stealing.   Tobin was told she would have to get a court order to even see the records about the sanctions they took sanctioning for dead trees at the property  
NRS 116.31087(2)Board has 10 business days to place on next regular BOD meetingDidn’t do it


See SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws

See “The sale was void for rejection of assessments

See “RRFS Claims vs Actual $$ Due

SeeWhat Lawsuit?” originallypublished 3/18/17

See “Abusive debt collection practices cost us all more than you think

Request for judicial notice: unadjudicated claims and administrative complaints

Administrative Complaints have been rejected for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending adjudication of A-21-828840-C by Judge Jessica K. Peterson

Link to 1/28/21 NCJD complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline vs. Judge Joanna Kishner
Link to “Recommendation to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
Link to 3/14/19 AG complaint vs. Nationstar & Jimijack Irevocable Trust
Link to 11/10/20 2nd AG complaint vs Nationstar; Akerman; Wright Finley Zak; Bank of America
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.

Link to “Nationstar’s evidence was not examined

Link to 3/8/21 Request for Judicial Notice of the Clark County official property records for APN 191-13-811-052 that shows the fraudulent claims that were recorded by Nationstar, Red Rock Financial Services, Joel A. Stokes, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, Bank of America, Quicken Loans, Brian & Debora Chiesi.

Nationstar’s pleadings were unadjudicated

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.

Nationstar’s only filed claims

Link to Nationstar’s 1/11/16 A-16-730078-C complaint Nationstar vs. Opportunity Homes

Link to Nationstar’s 6/2/16 AACC answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claim vs. Jimijack

Nationstar’s stipulations to dismiss disposed of ALL its claims

Link to 2/20/19 Nationstar’s stipulation to voluntarily dismiss all its filed claims except against Jimijack.

Link to 5/31/19 Nationstar’s stipulation to voluntarily dismiss all its filed claims against Jimijack.

Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated pleadings

Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Sun City Anthem

Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Jimijack unadjudicated claims

Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC

Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Thomas Lucas dba Opportunity Homes LLC

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 8/7/19 quiet title & equitable relief, unjust enrichment & abuse of process complaint

Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated district court motions

Link to 3/3/17 Nona Tobin’s unheard motion to void the sale for statutory non-compliance

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack Irrevocable Trust

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment vs. all parties

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/24/19 motion to vacate 4/18/19 order pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) and motion for summary judgment

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 6/17/19 motion to intervene as an individual

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54(b) and NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(F)

Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310(2)

Orders that disposed Nona Tobin’s claims did not consider any evidence

Link to 8/11/17 order granting Opportunity Homes’s motion for summary judgment vs Nona Tobin and the Hansen Trust that was filed after order denying Opportunity Homes’s motion for summary judgment vs. Nationstar was entered on 6/22/17.

Link to 9/20/17 stipulation and order to dismiss Nona Tobin’s and the Hansen Trust’s 1/31/17 cross-claims, except for quiet title, and withdrawing her 3/3/17 motion to void the sale and SCA’s 3/31/17 opposition thereto pending the completion of NRS 38.310 mediation

Link to 4/18/19 order that granted SCA motion for summary judgment as to the Hansen Trust’s quiet title cause of action and Nationstar’s joinder

Link to 5/31/19 order denying motion to reconsider 4/18/19 order

Link to 6/24/19 order granting quiet title to Jimijack who had no deed, denying all the Hansen Trust’s claims, not just quiet title, expunging Nona Tobin’s lis pendens, and declaring the ruling binds non-party Nona Tobin as an individual

Link to 9/4/19 order that denied Nona Tobin the right to appeal as an individual

Link to 11/22/19 order that formalized Judge Kishner’s 4/23/19 striking of all Nona Tobin’s individual claims and motions from the court record unheard and expunged her lis pendens

Link to 4/30/20 order that denied Nona Tobin any right to appeal the 11/22/19 order that declared her a non-party, as an individual, but which bound her to the rulings that excluded her and struck her filings unheard from the court record

Link to the 10/8/20 order that sanctioned Nona Tobin $3,455 to Joel A. Stokes’s attorney pursuant to EDCR 7.60 (1) and/or (3) for filing the A-19-799890-C complaint on 8/7/19, one week before the five-year statute of limitations, after being denied access to the A-15-720032-C 6/5/19 trial.

Link to the 11/17/20 order that sanctioned Nona Tobin $8,849 pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) on the grounds that her filing the A-19-799890-C complaint on 8/7/19, one week before the five-year statute of limitations, was unwarranted and for the sole purpose of harassing Quicken Loans & Brian & Debora Chiesi who recorded claims adverse to Tobin on 12/27/19 while Tobin had two recorded lis pendens.

Lik to 12/3/20 order that dismissed all Nona Tobin’s claims unheard pursuant to NRCP 12(b) (5), on the grounds of non-mutual claims preclusion, and NRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to join the HOA as a necessary party regarding the distribution of the excess proceeds.

Nona Tobin’s pending appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court

79295 Gordon B. Hansen Trust vs. Jimijack, Nationstar, Sun City Anthem, Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC

Link to appellant Gordon B. Hansen Trust’s opening brief 12/19/19. Link to respondents’ 7/1/20 joint answering brief. and Nationstar’s joinder. Hansen Trust appeal was referred to the Nevada Court of Appeals on 8/27/20. Link to 9/10/19 Nona Tobin’s rejected individual docketing statement

82094 Nona Tobin vs. Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual

Link to appellant Nona Tobin’s 12/9/20 docketing statement. Opening brief is due 5/20/21.

82234 Nona Tobin vs. Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi

Link to appellant Nona Tobin’s 1/19/21 docketing statement. Opening brief is due 5/20/21.

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

Link to appellant Nona Tobin’s 2/03/21 docketing statement. Opening brief is due 5/20/21.

Nationstar Mortgage’s Fraud

What is the dispute with Nationstar?

The dispute is over a $436,000 Western Thrift & Loan Deed of Trust (DOT) executed by Gordon Hansen on 7/15/04. Nationstar serviced the loan beginning on 12/1/13 on behalf of an investor NSM refused to identify.

On 12/1/14, Nationstar recorded a claim that Nationstar was owed the $389,000 balance that remained outstanding after the borrowerʼs death.

Link to Nationstar’s 12/1/14 claim
Link to Nationstar’s 3/8/19 rescission of its 12/1/14 claim

That Nationstar rescinded its provably false, opportunistic claim didn’t stop Nationstar from stealing a house for a debt it was not owed. 

Laws implicated when considering appropriate sanctions for Nationstar and its attorneys


  1. NRS 205.330  Fraudulent conveyances.  
  2. NRS 205.372  Mortgage lending fraud; penalties; civil action.
  3. NRS 205.377  Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty.
  4. NRS 205.380  Obtaining money, property, rent or labor by false pretenses.
  5. NRS 205.395  False representation concerning title; penalties; civil action.
  6.  NRS 205.405  Falsifying accounts.  
  7. Racketeering
  8. NRS 207.360       “Crime related to racketeering” defined.
  9. NRS 207.400       Unlawful acts; penalties.
  10. NRS 207.470       actions for damages resulting from racketeering.
  11. NRS 207.480  Order of court upon determination of civil liability.  
  12. NRS 207.520           Limitation of actions.


  1. NRS 40.050  Mortgage not deemed conveyance.  
  2. PUD Rider F. Remedies

Attorney sanctions


(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Link to Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct

No bank foreclosure was ever initiated on the Hansen deed of trust. Nationstar just stole it.

Neither servicing bank, (Nationstar succeeded Bank of America as servicing on 12/1/13) foreclosed on the Hansen DOT even though it was in default after Hansen died on 1/14/12.

Had Nationstar been the beneficiary of the DOT, it would have foreclosed or collected the debt by allowing the property to be sold at fair market value. NSM did not record a notice of default on the Hansen DOT.

Nationstar did not allow the property to be sold to MZK for $367,500 on 5/8/14. Nationstar did not complain when RRFS rejected its 5/28/14 super-priority offer of $1100 to close the MZK escrow.

Nationstar allowed the property to be sold for $63,100 while a $358,800 was pending lender approval .

Then, three months after the HOA foreclosed to collect $2,000 in delinquent HOA dues, NSM claimed that Bank of America gave NSM the Hansen DOT on 10/23/14. 

Nationstar recorded and filed false claims and dismissed all its claims without adjudication

Link to Plaintiff Nationstar’s 1/11/16 complaint

Link to Nationstar’s 2/20/19 stipulation to dismiss its claims
Link to Nationstar’s 4/12/16 motion to substitute as real party in interest, set aside default and intervene

Link to Nationstar’s only other filed claims: 6/2/16 AACC claims against Jimijack

Link to Counter-claimant Nationstar’s 5/31/19 stipulation to dismiss its 6/2/16 claims

Nationstar did not file any claims against Nona Tobin or against the Hansen Trust

Nationstar never refuted any of the claims Nona Tobin asserted against Nationstar, but got away with it by lying to the court

Link to 4/10/19 Nona Tobin opposition to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment vs Jimijack and motions for summary judgment that was stricken from the record unheard due to Nationstar’s attorney Melanie Morgan’s ex parte misrepresentations to Judge Kishner
Link to 4/17/19 Nona Tobin reply in support of joinder to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment vs Jimijack and motions for summary judgment that was stricken from the record unheard due to Nationstar’s attorney Melanie Morgan’s ex parte misrepresentations to Judge Kishner
Link to 7/22/19 Nona Tobin motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP (b) and NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(F) that was stricken from the record unheard due to ALL opposing counsels’ misrepresentations to Judge Kishner
Link to 7/29/19 Nona Tobin motion to dismiss Judge Kishner’s orders for lack of jurisdiction for Nationstar’s and Jimijack’s noncompliance with NRS 38.310 that was stricken from the record unheard due to ALL opposing counsels’ misrepresentations to Judge Kishner
Link to unheard 4/24/19 MVAC & MSJ Nona Tobin motion to vacate Judge Kishner’s 4/18/19 order that granted Nationstar’s limited joinder to the HOA’s unwarranted motion for summary judgment pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) fraud on the court and motion for summary judgment vs. all parties that languishes on the record unheard due to ALL opposing counsels’ misrepresentations to Judge Kishner about Nona Tobin’s right to represent herself.

Nationstar prevailed despite ALL declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin and not Nationstar, by tricking the court into ignoring all the evidence, such as…



Exhibit “1”; April 20, 2019 Tobin declaration
Exhibit “2”May 11, 2018 and May 13, 2019 Leidy declaration
Exhibit “3” May 20, 2019 Proudfit declaration
Exhibit “4″ Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage 2664 Olivia Heights
Exhibit “5” No valid Board authorization for sale
Exhibit “6” Proposed Findings of Fact
Exhibit “7” Authenticated OMBUDSMAN NOS records for 17 foreclosures
Exhibit “8” 2nd NOS for two sales but not for 2763
Exhibit “9” March 22, 2019 Tobin DECL opposing NSM MSJ vs. Jimijack
Exhibit “10” April 12, 2019 MSJ v. Jimijack

No affidavits support Nationstar’s claims, but so what?

In its 3/27/17 OMSJ, Nationstar claimed that on 12/1/14 Wells Fargo had given NSM the DOT. This was supported by a duplicitous declaration regarding business records.

Link to 3/8/19 Nationstar rescission of its 12/1/14 claim that Bank of America assigned its interest to Nationstar

Link to 3/8/19 Nationstar claim Wells Fargo assigned its interest to Nationstar

In February 2019, Nationstar refused to produce any documents in response to Tobinʼs RFDs and interrogatories to prove any of its claims.

On 3/8/19, Nationstar recorded that it rescinded its 12/1/14 claim that it got its interest from Bank of America, and then two hours later recorded that it had Wells Fargoʼs undisclosed power of attorney to give Nationstar the authority to assign Wells Fargoʼs non-existent interest to Nationstar. 

Nationstar produced no proof that it owned the Hansen DOT during two lawsuits over the validity of the HOA sale.

All the evidence Nationstar entered into the record actually proved the opposite, but it was never subjected to judicial scrutiny Nationstar.

The real owner of the Hansen DOT would have supported Tobinʼs efforts to void the sale so the DOT would not have survived as it the sale had never happened.

Tobin and Nationstar were initially aligned to get the court to void the HOA sale until Nationstar learned that it would be impossible to foreclose on Tobin since Tobin had put it into the record that she had documents that could prove NATIONSTAR did not have the standing to foreclose.

Nationstarʼs covert deal with Joel Stokes was solely to prevent the Court from conducting an evidentiary hearing that would have exposed the inconvenient truth that neither Nationstar nor Stokes could prove their claims.

Nationstar was excused from trial by saying all claims had been resolved by Nationstar-Jimiack settlement.

Link to Nationstar-Jimijack “settlement which was really a $355,000 deal between Civic Financial services and Joel Stokes

The HOA wrongly foreclosed, but not without Nationstarʼs assistance.

The banks could have stopped the HOA from foreclosing by recording a Notice of Default (NRS 116.31162(6)).

The HOA sale should have been cancelled when BANAʼs agent tendered $825 on 5/9/13 to cure the nine months that were then delinquent.

The HOA sale would have been avoided if the serving banks had not prevented four escrows from closing as escrows instructions were to pay the HOA whatever it demanded.

The HOA sale would have been avoided if Nationstar had not rejected the 5/8/14 $367,500 sale to MZK Properties.

Nationstar, the servicing bank that is supposed to be a fiduciary, acting on behalf of the investor, turned a blind eye to an 8/15/14 HOA sale for 18% of the $367,500 sale price that Nationstar had just rejected.

NATIONSTAR does not hold the original Hansen promissory note.

NSM 258-259 is a COPY of the Hansen promissory note that Nationstar entered into the record to trick the Court.

NSM does not have Hansenʼs original note, but NSM tried to conceal that fact by disclosing a COPY in NSM 258

NRS 52.235 “Original required. To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in this title.”

NSM 260 shows no endorsement of Hansenʼs note to Nationstar or to ANY of the lenderʼs NSM claims assigned the note to Nationstar. 
3/27/17 NSM filed a DECL that misrepresents its servicing bank record to deceive the court that NSM had no proof it owned the DOT 

All Nationstar’s and Bank of America’s recorded actions affecting the Hansen deed of trust are fraudulent

All Nationstar’s disclosures in discovery were deceptive and fraudulent

Link to 12/26/18 Nona Tobin’s statement of claims vs Nationstar
Link to 2/9/18 Nationstar Individual Case Conference Report and initial disclosures
Link to 2/7/19 Nationstar 1st supplemental disclosures
Link to 2/12/19 Nationstar 2nd supplemental disclosures
Link to 2/27/19 Nationstar 3rd supplemental disclosures
Link to 3/12/19 Nationstar 4th supplemental disclosures (served two weeks after discovery ended on 2/28/19)

Nationstar refused to produce any documents requested in discovery

Link to 2/21/19 Nationstar response to Nona Tobin’s request for documents
Link to 2/21/19 Nationstar response to Nona Tobin’s interrogatories
Link to 2/28/19 Nationstar 1st supplemental response to Nona Tobin’s request for documents
Link to 2/28/19 Nationstar 1st supplemental response to Nona Tobin’s interrogatories

Wells Fargo did not assign anything to Nationstar.

Page 7 is Morgan’s totally deceptive ploy to obfuscate the fact that Nationstar has no valid claim to be the beneficiary.

Servicing banks (those that handle the paperwork on behalf of the “beneficiary” who is the investor to whom the debt is actually owed).

The dispute with Nationstar is not because Nationstar wrongly foreclosed on the Hansen deed of trust.

The dispute is caused by:

  1. Both BANA & Nationstar obstructing multiple fair market value, arms-length sales, approved by the Hansen Estate.
  2. Nationstar’s letting the HOA foreclose without notice for 18% of the $367,500 sale that Nationstar had just rejected, and then
  3. After the Hansen DOT was extinguished by the HOA foreclosure, Nationstar lied on the record about being owed the $389,000 outstanding balance on Hansenʼs DOT.
  4. According to NRS 107.28, (2.) A trustee under a deed of trust must not be the beneficiary of the deed of trust for the purposes of exercising the power of sale pursuant to NRS 107.080, but Nationstar claimed to be both the beneficiary and the trustee – when it was neither – and reconveyed the property to Joel Stokes on 6/3/19 to steal the house from Nona Tobin
  5. The Clark County Recorderʼs Office Property Record shows NSM began recording conflicting claims on 12/1/14, more than three months after the HOA sale.
  6. Nationstar lied in its 1/11/16 complaint to say that some unspecified entity had assigned its interest to Nationstar on 2/4/11
  7. BANA & NSM recorded 11 claims regarding the Hansen DOT, but neither ever recorded a Notice of Default, the mandatory condition precedent to the trusteeʼs executing the power of sale on behalf of the beneficiary.
  8. No bank has the right to confiscate a property without foreclosing by following the notice and due process steps defined in NRS 107.080, as amneded by AB 284 (21011), Nevada’s anti-foreclosure fraud law.
Link to Nationstar’s former attorney Robin Wright’s white paper on the affidavit requirements of AB 284 (2011)
Link to ANTI-FORECLOSURE FRAUD LAW AB 284 (2011) and legislative digest

2020 Court hearings Part 1

August 11, 2020 hearing before Judge Susan Johnson

12/3/20 NODP notice of dismissal with prejudice

12/3/20 order is being appealed in NV Supreme court case 82294

8/7/19 Nona Tobin’s A-19-799890-C Complaint

8/13/ 19 Nona Tobin’s filed Notice of Lis Pendens

Three Recorded Lis Pendens that Judge Johnson expunged by 12/3/20 order

“Said cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original order”

Judge Johnson’s way of giving Joel Stokes, Sandra Stokes, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, Brian Chiesi, Quicken Loans, Inc., a get-out-of-jail-free card by erasing the property record that shows they all recorded title claims adverse to Nona Tobin while three of her lis pendens were on record.
2019081400030848/14/19 15:16LIS PENDENS
2019081400030838/14/19 15:16LIS PENDENS
2019080800020978/8/19 16:00LIS PENDENS

6/3/20 Nona Tobin’s 1st Amended Complaint

7/20/20 Nona Tobin’s opposition to motion to dismiss and joinders

Red Rock’s motion to dismiss was joined by all defendants

6/23/20 Red Rock Financial Services motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) (failure to state a claim, non-mutual claims preclusion, res judicata) and NRCP (b)(6) (failure to join the HOA as a necessary party pursuant to Rule 19 “to protect its interest in the excess proceeds”)
8/3/20 Red Rock Reply in support of its motion to dismiss

Red Rock’s motion to dismiss was joined by all defendants even though ALL the attorneys knew what they were saying was false.

Joseph Hong’s joinder and motion to sanction Nona Tobin for filing the complaint misled Judge Johnson

6/25/20 Joinder Joel A Stokes, Joel A Stokes & Sandra f. Stokes, and Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust
 8/3/20 RIS annotated Hong reply to support motion to dismiss and motion to sanction Tobin per EDCR 7.60 (1) &/or (3)
8/3/20 RIS Hong

9/6/20 OGM Judge Johnson’s sua sponte order to sanction me per EDCR 7.60

9/6/20 Order to sanction annotated
order granting Hong $3,455 as EDCR 7.60 sanction Hong’s EDCR 7.60 (1) and/or (3) $3,455 sanction for filing my A-19-798990-C complaint is being appealed in NV Supreme Court case 82094

6/25/20 Joinder Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust

Link to “Nationstar Mortgage’s Fraud

7/6/20 Joinder Quicken Loans, Inc., Brian & Debora Chiesi

7/6/20 RFJN Quicken Chiesi   Request for Judicial Notice was duplicitous    

 7/6/20 RFJN pages 1-4 lists the documents Brittany Wood requested the court notice. Brittany Wood’s complicity with the fraud will be addressed in the next episode.

8/11/20 court reporter’s transcript

8/11/20 minutes