Tobin motion for summary judgment vs. Red Rock, Nationstar & Wells Fargo

Comes now, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin, an individual, in proper person, to hereby move for summary judgment vs. counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, and cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo and moves that relief be granted to Nona Tobin as requested, including punitive damages and sanctions, pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 2/16/21 Red Rock served its complaint with one cause of action: interpleader to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage.
  2. On 3/8/21 counter-claimant/ cross-claimant  Nona Tobin filed NONA TOBIN’S (Herein “AACC’) ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIM VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A., AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, AND/OR NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE DBA MR. COOPER PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
  3. As there has been no timely responsive pleading from Red Rock, Nationstar, or Wells Fargo denying Tobin’s allegations, the court has the discretion to deem their silence as admission.
  4. However, out of an abundance of caution, Tobin moves herein for summary judgment and sanctions to obtain relief instead of filing a notice of intent to take default.
  5. Due to the seriousness of  the allegations and the high level of declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages sought, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests a hearing to allow defendants an opportunity to reply and to show cause why the relief, sanctions and punitive damages requested should not be imposed.

“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”

 Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963) 

“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”

Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)

“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)

Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

  1. Counter-claimant/cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests the court judicially notice the Requests for Judicial Notice Tobin filed into this case on 3/15/21 (APN 191-13-811052 Clark County complete property record), 4/4/21 (unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims), 4/7/21 (relevant laws, regulations and HOA governing document provisions) and 4/9/21 (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record).
  2. NRS 47.130(2) (b) permits courts to judicially notice facts “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, so that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute.”
  3. Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”
  4. Pursuant to NRS 47.160 “A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be noticed.”

Nona Tobin’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed into this case on 3/15/21, 4/4/21, 4/7/21 and 4/9/21, are proper for judicial notice because they were 1) recorded against the property and are part of the Clark County Recorder’s Office records, or 2) were filed at some point into the court records of prior proceedings, or 3) fit the definition of NRS 47.140 (matters of law), and 4) are timely pursuant to NRS 47.150.  Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

  1. The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud. Red Rock, Nationstar and Sun City Anthem withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
  2. Defendants, acting alone or in conspiracy with others, covered up the fraud and successfully suppressed Tobin’s evidence so the courts acted on false evidence to rule against her and deny her access to the appellate courts.
  3. On 6/24/19 she lost title by being denied access to the trial and all documentary evidence excluded. See A-15-720032-C case summary without stricken documents vs. annotated summary and annotated 5/4/19 case info file.
  4. On 9/10/19 the Supreme Court denied her individual right to appeal.
  5. On 11/22/19 Tobin’s 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54b and NRCP 59a(1)ABCDF and 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310 were stricken unheard along with all her pro se filings and motions stricken by 4/23/19 ex parte bench order
  6. On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
  7. On 7/1/20 Sun City Anthem, Nationstar and Jimijack filed a joint respondents’ brief that was based on the false evidence from the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) and (SCA 176-643 ignoring SCA 168-175) in response to the Gordon B. Hansen 12/19/19 opening brief.
  8. On 12/3/20 her A-19-799890-C complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata/non-mutual claims preclusion and three of her lis pendens (recorded on 8/7/14, 8/14/19, and 8/14/19) were expunged as if they had never been recorded.
  9. Dismissal of her A-19-799890-C complaint occurred after two order imposing sanctions on her for filing a quiet title complaint as an individual, , had been entered on 10/8/20 and 11/17/20 ($3,455 to Joseph Hong pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) &/or (3) and $12,849 to Brittany Wood per NRS 18.010(2))
  10. On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.

ANSWER

  1. Tobin’s AACC ANSWER basically denied that Red Rock had any proper purpose for filing a claim for interpleader after holding the funds, without legal authority, all the while obstructing Tobin’s multiple efforts for over the six years to stake a claim.
  2. Related to Tobin’s opinion of Red Rock’s motives, Tobin published on her blog SCAstrong.com: “Interpleader complaint was filed with an ulterior motive” and “Cause of Action: Abuse of Process” and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Tobin’s AACC had nineteen affirmative defenses:

  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.330, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  8. Priority
  9. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  10. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  11. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  12. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  13. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  14. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11(b)
  15. Failure to mitigate damages
  16. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  17. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  18. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  19. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation

COUNTER-CLAIMS

Tobin’s AACC had five causes of action in the counter-claim vs. RRFS: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering. See also published “Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services”.

First Cause of Action: Interpleader

  1. The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale.
  2. There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.
  3. Using the Nevada legal rate of interest table, total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”
  4. Alternatively, if the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount due to Tobin presently is $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the total undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.
  5. Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.
  6. No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.

Second COA: Conversion

See the published “Cause of Action: Conversion” and “Cause of Action: Misappropriation of money” and “Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy

Third COA: Fraud

  1. See the published “Cause of Action: Fraud” and “What’s being human got to do with it?
  2. See the published “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014
  3. See the published “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock
  4. See the published “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  5. See the published “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148
  6. See the published “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws
  7. See the published Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  8. See the published “Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated

Fourth Cause of Action: Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil

See Exhibit 22 Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

Fifth COA: Racketeering

  1. See the published “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering
  2. Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.
  3. Sun City Anthem disclosed the same unverified, uncorroborated Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643) and misrepresented it to the court as the HOA’s official records of the collection and foreclosure process.
  4. Sun City Anthem concealed all the HOA’s records of what actually occurred, including but not limited to all the SCA Board agendas and minutes, un-doctored Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage, and all the HOA’s compliance and enforcement records for the foreclosures conducted by Red Rock under the HOA statutory authority.
  5. See 4/9/21 Request for Judicial Notice  (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record) which contains:

EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM

  1. 5/31/18 SCA Initial disclosures
  2. SCA 001-116 Sun City Anthem CC&Rs 2008 3rd restatement
  3. SCA 117-145 Sun City Anthem bylaws 2008 3rd restatement
  4. SCA 146-163 Sun City Anthem Rules and Regulations
  5. SCA 164-167 Sun City Anthem 2007 Red Rock Financial Services Debt Collection contract
  6. SCA 168-175 Sun City Anthem 2013 Delinquent Assessment Policy
  7. SCA 176-643 Red Rock Financial Services Foreclosure File redacted
  8. 2/11/19 SCA 1st supplemental disclosures
  9. 2/26/19 SCA response to Tobin interrogatories
  10. 2/26/19 SCA Response to Tobin Request for Documents
  11. 2/26/19 SCA response to Tobin Request for documents annotated
  1. In addition to refusing to provide HOA records of probative value to Tobin’s case, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson required Nona Tobin, as an elected, sitting member of the HOA Board to recuse herself from all SCA collection matters, past or present, instead of relying on NRS 116.31084 (Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.) See 6/5/17 recusal acknowledgement.
  2. Because Tobin was a party to this quiet title litigation, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson deemed her elected Board seat vacant “by operation of law” and removed her from her elected Board seat without an NRS 116.31036 removal election.
  3. See 8/24/17 Clarkson letter that accused Nona Tobin of profiting from her elected seat on the Board by being party to this quiet title litigation.
  4. See 8/16/17 Complaint to the Nevada State Bar vs. Clarkson and 9/12/17 rejection letter.
  5. See the 9/7/17 Complaint to NRED Ombudsman and 8/9/18 rejection letter.
  6. See the published “Why can’t I be a candidate for the Board?” and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think” and “Fire the debt collector” and “Elder Abuse: Part II – SCA Agents” and “On the advice of counsel is no defense”.
  7. SCA attorney/debt collector has ruled without legal authority (NRS  that Nona Tobin is ineligible to run for election or return to her elected Board seat as long as the quiet title litigation is in the appellate courts, even if Sun City Anthem is not a party. See Clarkson “notice(s) of ineligibility” dated 2/9/18, 2/12/19, 2/06/20, and 2/12/21. See also 11/9/20 Tobin email to the HOA Board to fill vacant Board seat with 2017-2020 timeline and links. See the published “No 2021 Board election
  8. SCA attorneys Adam Clarkson and David Ochoa published quarterly litigation reports that falsely claimed that Nona Tobin had been removed from her elected Board seat “for cause”.
  9. See also the published “Election committee was inhospitable, angry even. Nevertheless I persisted
  10. SCA disclosed, and RRFS provided in response to Tobin’s subpoena, misleading and falsified documents to deceive the court into concluding that the sale had been fair and properly noticed and the proceeds properly handled, including but not limited to SCA 276, SCA 277, SCA 278, SCA 286, SCA 635, SCA 642 , SCA 643. SCA 277, SCA 628, RRFS 071-083 (SCA 250-262), RRFS 047-048 (SCA 223-224), RRFS 119 (SCA 302), RRFS 128 (SCA 315), RRFS 238-244, RRFS 218-219 (SCA 415-416), RRFS 298-299, RRFS 312-326 (SCA 513-530), RRFS 398-399; RRFS 402 (SCA 618), RRFS 409-423, RRFS 424-425, RRFS 123, RRFS 124,

CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR & WELLS FARGO

  1. Tobin’s AACC had three causes of action vs. cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.
  2. See “Nona Tobin’s cross-claim vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo” See “Nationstar Mortgage’s Fraud” and “Black letter law: anti-foreclosure fraud
  3. See “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering
  4. Cross-defendant Nationstar’s fraudulent misrepresentations and presentation of false evidence to two district courts obstructed a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims in prior proceedings and before the Nevada Supreme Court.
  5. Cross-defendant Nationstar’s ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19  damaged Nona Tobin and caused her pro se filings to be stricken unheard.
  6. See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
  7. Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.
  8. Cross-defendant Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that it ever was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. See Complaint against Melanie Morgan.

PRAYER

Nona Tobin’s AACC Prayer for relief is quoted here with links added to laws, regulations, documentary evidence or argument to support claims for relief and punitive damages. See the published “Nona Tobin’s, Red Rock’s & Nationstar’s prayers for relief

This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).

COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:

  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title; See “Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury” and Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds; See “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure to distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3): (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence,  defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
  10. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  11. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  12. that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345; (See 1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary fraud)
  15. 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 NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4);
  16. 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).
  17.  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;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. 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 205.395NRS 205.377NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480; See “All Declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin” and “Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud” and “Why Nationstar’s attorneys must be sanctioned and pay damages” and “Complaint against Melanie Morgan” and “1st complaint to the Nevada AG” and “2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
  22. 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).

Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC had 22 Exhibits

  1. APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all opposing parties
  2. the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
  3. The alleged default was cured three times,
  4. SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
  5. Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to cover it up
  6. SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process 
  7. Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed DOT
  8. Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
  9. Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
  10. the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
  12. attorney interference in the administration of justice
  13. lack of professional ethics and good faith
  14. Presented false evidence to cover up crime
  15. Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
  16. Republic Services lien releases
  17. Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. RELEVANT HOA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROVISIONS
  20. Administrative Complaints related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  21. Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  22. Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT

Motion for summary judgment

MSJ must be granted because counter and cross defendants didn’t file a responsive pleading to disput

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24106 S.Ct. 254891 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion,” and can do so in either of two ways: by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. A ‘genuine issue’ of material fact arises if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248106 S.Ct. 250591 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Conversely, where the evidence could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue exists for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587106 S.Ct. 134889 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28988 S.Ct. 157520 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).

The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006). The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987). The nonmoving party must instead set forth “significant probative evidence” in support of its position. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting First Nat’l, 391 U.S. at 29088 S.Ct. 1575).Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630–31. Accordingly, if “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment will be denied. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250–51106 S.Ct. 2505.

Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)

Tobin’s motion to distribute the proceeds

DEFENDANT NONA TOBIN, AN INDIVIDUAL, filed a motion to distribute on 4/12/21, but it was returned as a non-conforming document for failure to request a hearing. This amended motion corrects that error and other errors as well as removes from the caption the third-party defendants as the 3/22/21 third-party complaint will not be served until after this Court rules on COUNTER-CLAIMANT & CROSS-CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT VS. COUNTER-DEFENDANT RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES & CROSS- DEFENDANTS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC & WELLS FARGO, N. A.  AND MOTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.

Defendant Tobin moves the court for an order to Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services to distribute the excess proceeds plus interest and penalties in the amount of $91,855.11 to Nona Tobin, the sole defendant with a current recorded claim and the sole claimant.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

UNDISPUTED FACTS

On 5/8/14 Nona Tobin signed a purchase agreement to sell 2763 White Sage for $367,500. See 5/8/14 high bidder MZK Properties, LLC’s signed purchase agreement.

On 8/15/14, Red Rock Financial Services sold the same property for $63,100 without notice to Nona Tobin or to MZK Properties, LLC, or to any other party with a known interest. See 8/22/14 foreclosure deed.

On 8/21/14 FirstService Residential recorded a ledger entry on Page 1336  of the Sun City Anthem Resident Transaction Report for 2763 White Sage that a “collection payment” of  $2,701.04 was payment in full of the delinquent assessments, interest and late fines of the deceased owner, Gordon (Bruce) Hansen.

On 8/28/14, Red Rock directed attorney Steven Scow to interplead check 49909 made out the Clark County District Court $57,282.32 in excess proceeds. See RRFS 047 (8/28/14 RRFS memo to Steven Scow) and RRFS 048 (check 49909)

Steven Scow did not follow Red Rock’s instructions to deposit check made out to the Clark County District Court when he chose to retain, without legal authority, proprietary control over the funds in an unaudited, unsupervised account, allegedly for the benefit of Red Rock Financial Services.

Sun City Anthem bylaws prohibit Red Rock, FirstService Residential, Steven Scow or anyone else from depositing funds collected for the benefit of Sun City Anthem in an account not controlled by the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors. See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 adopted pursuant to NRS 116.3106(1)(d).

In September, 2014 Nona Tobin attempted to make a claim for the excess proceeds, but was rebuffed by Red Rock Financial Services. See 5/11/18 Craig Leidy Declaration with attached email.

On 1/31/17, in case A-15-720032-C, Nona Tobin filed a cross-claim against Sun City Anthem in which the fifth cause of action, Unjust Enrichment, sought to get the undistributed proceeds plus interest distributed to her.

1/31/17 CRCM, PAGES 18-19, relevant excerpt is quoted here below:

95. Cross-Claimant incorporates and re-alleges all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges:

96. That HOA AGENTS unfairly deprived Cross-Claimant of the Subject Property and unjustly profited from excessive and unauthorized charges added to delinquent dues.

97. That HOA AGENTS unjustly and covertly failed to distribute the $63,100 proceeds of the sale as mandated by 2013 NRS 116.31164 (3)( c), in that:

a) There were no expenses of sale as the cost to conduct a foreclosure sale is limited to $125.00 by the April 27, 2012 RRFS Delinquent Assessment Collection Agreement, and the lien of $5,08l.45 already included erroneous, duplicative and unauthorized charges.

b) There WAS no expense of securing possession. The Subject Property was vacant, and the key just handed to the Buyer by TOBlN’s agent.

c) Satisfaction of the association’s lien. The HOA Resident Transaction Record for the Subject Property shows that the HOA AGENT credited the HOA  with $2,701.04 on August 27, 2014. There is no indication that HOA. AGENTS paid the mandated asset enhancement fee (1/3 of 1 % of the price of every sales price) the HOA mandated for every transfer of title by CC&Rs section 8.12. (Exhibit 8)

d) Satisfaction of subordinate claims. None of the excess proceeds went to any of the entities who had recorded liens. Or, alternatively, if any of the lienholders did receive the excess proceeds, none of the lienholders properly accounted for receiving any funds, and none removed their liens.

e) Remittance of any excess to the unit’s owner.

Within a few months after the sale, TOBIN attempted to claim the excess proceeds since it was clear the HOA AGENTS were treating the bank loan as “extinguished”. In response to direct inquiries, HOA AGENTS were deceptive about their illegal retention of the proceeds of the illegally-conducted sale and refused to speak with TOBIN about her claim, stating at different times in late 2014:

1) that she had no standing, 2) that RRFS had no record of her in relation to the Subject Property, and 3) that RRFS had turned the money over to the court to distribute.

1/31/17 CRCM, PAGES 18-19
None of Nona Tobin’s claims were adjudicated in case A-15-720032-C as a result of Nationstar attorney, Melanie Morgan, and Jimijack Irrevocable Trust attorney, Joseph Hong, met ex parte with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19.

See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

On 8/7/19, Nona Tobin filed a new district court case to beat the five-year statute of limitations, in which she made another attempt to get the funds distributed. See 8/7/19 Tobin complaint A-19-799890-C.

Excerpt from page 20, Nona Tobin’s 8/7/19 A-19-799890-C complaint under Tobin’s third cause of action: Unjust Enrichment, is quoted here:

SCA bylaws prohibit the SCA Board from delegating certain functions, including the signatory control over bank accounts holding assessments collected for the benefit of the association.

RRFS and/or Scow & Koch have unjustly profited from the retention and total proprietary control over of $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale and they should not be permitted to further profit by failing to pay interest or by charging unnecessary fees to distribute according to the mandates of NRS 116.31164;

All Nona Tobin’s claims in A-19-799890-C against all defendants were dismissed with prejudice on 12/3/20 when Judge Johnson granted Red Rock Financial Services motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) and NRCP (b)(6) and all joinders thereto.

See 6/23/20 Red Rock Financial Services motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) reliance on the legal doctrines of non-mutual claims preclusion and NRCP (b)(6) failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its interest in the excess proceeds was not supported by the facts.

See 12/3/20 order to dismiss ALL Nona Tobin’s claims with prejudice that was entered without the strenuous objections in the letter attached to the order.

On Nona Tobin appealed from the 12/3/20 order that dismissed all her claims to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The parties were all referred to the Settlement Program, but all opposed Nona Tobin’s claims being heard and did not participate in good faith.

On 2/3/21 Red Rock electronically issued a summons to five defendants to initiate the instant unwarranted complaint for interpleader.

On 2/16/21 five defendants were served:

  1. Nona Tobin, as an individual
  2. Nona Tobin, as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08
  3. Republic Services, Inc.
  4. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
  5. Wells Fargo, N. A.

On 2/17/21, Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest.

On 3/8/21, Nona Tobin, an individual,  filed and served on the parties in the Odyssey eFileNV service contact list, an answer, affirmative defenses, and counter-claim vs. Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services and cross-claims vs. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Wells Fargo, N.A. See 3/8/21 Tobin AACC.

Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC, Tobin identified that she was the sole defendant with a current recorded claim. See 3/15/21 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Clark County official property records for the subject property APN 191-13-811-052.

All other defendants’ liens have been released:

On 3/28/17, the Gordon B. Hansen Trust’s title claims were transferred to Nona Tobin, as an individual, when the transfer of Hansen Trust’s sole asset caused the Trust to be empty and closed. See 200705100001127 3/28/17 DEED Gordon B. Hansen Trust to Nona Tobin, an individual.

On 3/30/17, Republic Services released both its garbage liens that were recorded on 9/23/13 and 5/6/14. See 201703300003859 and 201703300003860 3/31/17 release of garbage liens.

On 3/12/15 Wells Fargo reconveyed and released the of Gordon Hansen’s second deed of trust. See 201503120002285 3/12/15 reconveyance release of Wells Fargo lien of 5/10/07 Hansen open-ended DOT

On 6/3/19, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper, released the lien of Gordon Hansen’s first deed of trust, recorded on 7/22/04. See 7/22/04 Western Thrift & Loan deed of trust (NSM 145-161) lien was released by 6/3/19 Nationstar reconveyance when Nationstar fraudulently reconveyed the property to Joel A. Stokes, an individual, instead of to the estate of the borrower.

On 3/22/21, Nona Tobin filed, but did not electronically serve, a third-party complaint vs. attorneys Steven R. Scow, Brody R. Wight, Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, David Ochoa and Brittany Wood that includes four causes of action: abuse of process, fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering. See 3/22/21 Third-party complaint vs. Steven R. Scow, Brody R. Wight, Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, David Ochoa and Brittany Wood includes four causes of action: abuse of process, fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering

On 4/4/21, Nona Tobin filed a Request for Judicial Notice of the unadjudicated administrative complaints and the unadjudicated civil actions related to this case. See 4/4/21 RFJN unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims.

On 4/7/21, Nona Tobin filed a Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civ Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem governing documents germane to the instant action. See 4/7/21 RFJN of relevant laws & regulations.

On 4/9/21, Nona Tobin filed a Request for Judicial Notice of the NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720332-C and disputed facts in the court record.  See 4/9/21 RFJN of evidence and false evidence in the court record.

On 4/9/21, Melanie Morgan filed an answer to Red Rock’s 2/16/21interpleader complaint for Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo. See 4/9/21 Nationstar and Wells Fargo answer.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s and Wells Fargo’s 4/9/21 answer did not include any claim by either defendant bank for any of the proceeds.

Counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services received service of Nona Tobin’s efiled and served 3/8/21 counter-claim through the Odyssey eFileNV system, but had not filed a responsive pleading as of 4/12/21.

Nona Tobin asserted five causes of action in her 3/8/21 counter-claim against Red Rock: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering.

Nona Tobin efiled and served her 3/8/21 cross-claims Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo through the Odyssey eFileNV system on cross-defendants.

Cross-defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo had not filed a responsive pleading as of 4/12/21 to Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 counter-claim’s three causes of action: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.

On 4/11/21, Nona Tobin published the case details of this instant interpleader case A-21-828840-C  on her blog www.SCAstrong.com. See Case Detail: A-21-828840-C Nona Tobin vs. banks, debt collectors & attorneys.

On 4/15/21 Tobin filed a motion for summary judgment as to her 3/8/21 counter-claims vs. Red Rock and cross-claims vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo as no defendant filed a timely responsive pleading.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT

A. Proceeds SHALL be distributed after the sale.

The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale:

            3. After the sale, the person conducting the sale shall:

(a) Make, execute and, after payment is made, deliver to the purchaser, or his or her successor or assign, a deed without warranty which conveys to the grantee all title of the unit s owner to the unit;

(b) Deliver a copy of the deed to the Ombudsman within 30 days after the deed is delivered to the purchaser, or his or her successor or assign; and

(c) Apply the proceeds of the sale for the following purposes in the following order:

(1) The reasonable expenses of sale;

(2) The reasonable expenses of securing possession before sale, holding, maintaining, and preparing the unit for sale, including payment of taxes and other governmental charges, premiums on hazard and liability insurance, and, to the extent provided for by the declaration, reasonable attorney s fees and other legal expenses incurred by the association;

(3) Satisfaction of the association s lien;

(4) Satisfaction in the order of priority of any subordinate claim of record; and

(5) Remittance of any excess to the unit s owner.

NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)

B. No legal authority exists to charge fees to distribute the proceeds.

There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.

 There was no legal authority for Red Rock, and/or its attorney Steven Scow, to retain the proceeds for over six years after the sale at all, let alone to charge for so doing.

There was no legal authority for Red Rock, and/or its attorney Steven Scow, to refuse to distribute the proceeds as requested by Nona Tobin personally to Red Rock in 2014, personally to Sun City Anthem in 2016, and by civil complaints in 2017 and 2019.

Red Rock should pay the proceeds to Nona Tobin with interest calculated at Nevada’s legal interest rate

  • Pursuant to Senate Bill 45, the Nevada legislature and the Court Administrator established the legal interest rate to be applied in cases where there is no specific interest rate defined by contract, statute or judgment. See Nevada legal rate of interest table
  • Using this table’s semi-annual rate changes and monthly compounding results in a total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.
  • If the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount would be $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale.

CONCLUSION

Red Rock Financial Services sold 2763 White Sage for $63,100 three months after Nona Tobin had sold it on auction.com for $367,500. Red Rock kept $60,398.96 without any legal authority for over six years while actively obstructing Nona Tobin’s ability to claim it.

Red Rock’s egregious conduct in this case is part of a pattern and practice of corrupt business practices that has damaged many, many homeowners and Homeowners Associations in Nevada and other states in the nation.

 Red Rock’s deceit was aided and abetted by multiple parties, two of which are named in Tobin’s 3/8/21 cross-claim and six who are named in her not-yet-served 3/22/21 third-party complaint.

Counter-claimant, cross-claimant and third-party plaintiff Nona Tobin will file separate motions to address the causes of action in the unanswered 3/8/21 counter- and cross- claims and in the as yet unserved 3/22/21 third-party complaint.

Nona Tobin will later move the court for an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be provided and why sanctions should not be imposed.

Defendant Nona Tobin respectfully requests in this instant motion that this Court address solely the issue of the distribution of proceeds by issuing an order for Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services to pay Nona Tobin $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale Red Rock alleges it received.

Such an order will completely resolve Plaintiff Red Rock’s interpleader complaint as there are no adverse claims and no “multiple liabilities” Red Rock could possibly face.

We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case

I am requesting your help to get some investigative assistance, and meaningful access to Nevada’s formal complaint procedures, to address this problem of HOA debt collectors and banks ripping us all off.

Tobin’s 2/14/19 email to investigative reporters & state legislators requesting help

Specifically, the two issues I am raising I also raised in a letter to the R-J “HOAs, foreclosures, and property rights” published on 9/18/16.

1. HOA debt collectors use abusive debt collection practices to foreclose for trivial delinquent assessments, and then unlawfully retain the proceeds of the sales.

2. Banks lie to the court in HOA foreclosure litigation for quiet title so they can foreclose on deeds of trust/mortgages that they don’t actually own.

Can you assist in ensuring that these possibly criminal complaints are addressed by the proper enforcement authorities?

The NV Real Estate Division and CICC Ombudsman should ensure that HOA foreclosures are compliant with state law, but they have failed. Enforcement officials have been cowed, co-opted, or corrupted into being completely ineffective at any enforcement of NRS116, NRS116A, or NAC116, or NAC 116A.

Link to outline of the corruption “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”

This systemic problem can’t be effectively incorporated in my individual civil action, but must be addressed statewide.

This email describes a pattern of unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment that (I have been told) cannot be addressed in the quiet title litigation I have over my late fiance’s house (also described herein) because my case is not a class action.

This fraud is larger than last big HOA corruption case where more than 40 were indicted and four died suspiciously.

This problem involves so much more money than the last HOA corruption scam by Benzar and Nancy Quon manipulating HOA board elections and channeling construction defect cases to themselves that it should not be ignored by authorities.

I need to know how to get the appropriate enforcement agency staff to talk to me personally and to prioritize reviewing the investigative research already done.

The scale of this fraud is astounding, but it is so big because it is one way banks are trying to dodge accountability for creating worthless securities that exist in the aftermath of the 2008 collapse of the mortgage securities market.

A lingering consequence of the market crash

Taxpayers bailed out the banks after the crash. The TARP program made banks virtually whole despite their misdeeds. None of the investment banker perpetrators went to jail for bringing down the world economy.

A new twist

The specific situation here is a new twist on the mortgage servicing fraud, robo-signing problem that led to Nevada’s 2011 anti-foreclosure fraud law AB 284 and the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. Here, the un-indicted co-conspiritors that destroyed the entire housing market a decade ago are trying to cut their losses by getting title to HOA-foreclosed houses even though they don’t actually own the mortgages.

A bank pretends a debt is owed to it. Actually, the debtor’s IOU is to a different bank, perhaps now defunct, and there is no paper trail to the bank making the false claims.

It is very common for houses foreclosed by HOAs – in Nevada and nationwide – to have mortgages/deeds of trust that were securitized out of existence – broken up into synthetic derivatives, collateral debt swaps and tranched instruments, so esoteric and exotic that the ownership of the note is nearly impossible to accurately ascertain.

Any unscrupulous bank can step into the void and anoint itself the owner of a debt that belongs to someone else or belongs no one. And step in, they do!

Banks’ attorneys’ legal sleight of hand – razzle, dazzle ’em!

The banks, and their extremely high paid and competent, albeit ethically-challenged attorneys, have figured out one way to foreclose when they had no legal right to do so and have no legal way of proving who owns the mortgage. Getting quiet title after an HOA foreclosure is one way they pull this magic trick off.

Banks treat owner protections as optional, not mandatory

They (meaning either the banks or the banks’ attorneys on their own initiative, hard to say given all the smoke and mirrors) record false affidavits against the title (banned by AB284 in 2011) claiming that the owner of the home owes it a debt. Further, the bank’s Constitutional protections are abridged if the bank loses the owner’s home as security for a debt owed to someone, but the owner’s property rights and protections against seizure without due process can be abridged with impunity.

Silence means compliance – or acquiescence

Then, probably no one challenges the banks’ claim (the owner that lost the house for a trivial debt is usually either dead or devastated by debt).

The bank then is free to sue the purchaser at the HOA for quiet title. The bank blithely lies to the court, claiming falsely that it holds the debtor’s IOU, i.e., the original note where the debtor promised to pay back the mortgage to the originating lender.

Rabbit out of the hat

The court will probably buy the bank’s story because the documents produced seem very official and incomprehensible.

Brilliant, unscrupulous bank! The fraud is not obvious to the naked eye. A forensic examination is needed to discern it. Further, nobody is around to contradict the bank that’s pretending to be owed a debt.The bank can then foreclose on the property with impunity without ever having to prove that the debt was ever really owed to it.

Meanwhile…nobody knows what escheat means

The HOA debt collectors are rewarded by nobody noticing that they unlawfully keep nearly all of many HOA sale proceeds for years.

No worries.

The bank can’t make a claim for the proceeds if the HOA sale extinguishes the security instrument.

And, it’s really easy for the debt collector block owners who attempt to make a claim for a portion of the proceeds — as has been amply demonstrated iboth n my case and in the Spanish Trail case in the forwarded email below.

The scam works for HOA foreclosures between 2011-2015 before the 2015 law changes.

Who wins when an HOA forecloses on a minuscule debt    – speculators, debt collectors, and fraudulent banks and attorneys

Speculators-in-the-know have bought almost all of Nevada’s HOA foreclosures. These clever guys have gotten huge windfalls by buying HOA liens for pennies on the dollar virtually without competition from bona fide, arms-length purchasers. The vulture investor rents the properties they got free and clear for years while the wrongful foreclosure is litigated.

Why doesn’t the HOA get the profits? Or the HOA membership at large?

Note: the HOA debt collectors unlawfully get approval for these sales from the HOA Boards in secret meetings so the HOA homeowners can’t buy houses in their own HOA by paying a few bucks to cover delinquent dues. These great deals are reserved for speculators. All SCA foreclosures have gone to parties who own multiple HOA foreclosures from two to over 600 house. For example, two Sun City Anthem properties sold in 2014 for under $8,000, and 11 of 12 SCA foreclosures that year sold for under $100,000. I estimate this averages at less than one-third market value.

Due process for the owner takes a back seat to the HOA debt collectors drive to high-profit foreclosure.

Real estate speculators bought HOA liens for delinquent assessments in the thousands after the market crash when the baks wouldn’t protect the properties from deterioration causing whole neighborhoods to be blighted. These cognoscenti bought often, sometimes in bulk, either directly from the HOA debt collector or at some poorly noticed “public” foreclosure sale. See Irma Mendez affidavit regarding Joel Just, former-President of red rock.

Link to one 2012 speculator’s description of how he did it.

Link to UNLV Lied Institute for Real Estate 2017 study , commissioned by Nevada Association of Realtors, documenting 611 HOA foreclosures and the super-priority lien, that shows a cost to the Nevada real estate market exceeding over $1 billion between 2011-2015.

Failure to distribute the proceeds of MANY HOA foreclosures is big bucks for a few financially-conflicted/ ethically challenged HOA debt collectors.

HOA debt collectors win by putting virtually ALL the proceeds of the sales in their attorney trust funds (except the actual delinquent assessments plus interest and late fees (chump change) that go to the HOA.

In my case, RRFS kept $57,282 in “excess” proceeds and paid the HOA $2,701.04 as payment in full. What a deal! Seems like a disproportionate sanction to me, but probably it’s in the bottom quartile of all the David Copperfield RRFS has conjured up to rip off HOA homeowners further after stealing their houses.

See forwarded email of RRFS holding $1.1 million on one HOA sale. I think the HOA got less than 1% of that windfall.

In this Spanish Trails case RRFS has been holding a whopping $1.1 million+ since 2014. One question is “Will the 90- year-old former owner get a fair shake in court to claim those proceeds or will the debt collectors and the banks (and maybe the judge) postpone until the bank wins by default?

What the law says the forecloser has to do with the sale proceeds

NRS 116.31164(3)(c) (2013) requires that the funds be distributed in a certain order – to pay reasonable foreclosure costs, pay the HOA delinquent assessments, then pay off liens, last, pay the owner. The owner only gets something if the sale extinguished the mortgage.

The debt collector’s attorney is not supposed to retain indefinitely the “excess” proceeds. The attorney is supposed to file a complaint in district court called interpleader and SHALL distribute the funds in the manner defined by NRS, but they just pretended to do it.

What happens in real life is the debt collectors just keep the money because they haven’t gotten caught.

It’s almost a state-sanctioned form of embezzlement.

This windfall is potentially in the tens of millions, and there is a pretty small crew of individuals that do this – HOA debt collectors with NRS 649 licenses and attorneys who don’t need a license and so are even less regulated.

If there is no litigation, no one makes a claim for the proceeds.

There is no accounting of the sale proceeds by the HOA. In fact, the HOA has no record even that a property was foreclosed using the HOA’s power of sale or how much the house was sold for or any accounting. The attorneys and debt collectors tell the HOA -WRONGLY – that it is not the HOA’s money so they effectively block any independent accounting of the proceeds.

I haven’t found any interpleader filed for the court to distribute the proceeds of any of the Sun City Anthem foreclosures conducted in SCA’s name by any of SCA debt collectors, but it’s hard to be sure since they withhold, conceal or misrepresent any records they do have.

If there is litigation, like in this Spanish Trail case, it goes on for years,

and 99% of the time the homeowner who lost the house is not in the case. The court fight is usually just between the bank and the buyer at the sale. The attorneys try to keep the HOA out of it except for the HOA homeowners to pay the litigation costs.

A stunning example of why attorney trust funds can’t be trusted

Chapter 7 as an easy way to fraudulently abscond with all the proceeds from many HOA sales held indefinitely in attorney trust funds

The proceeds of these sales can just disappear in a morass of sham LLCs that Nevada is so good at producing while so poor at regulating.

SCA hired Alessi & Koenig, LLC after RRFS was fired.

David Alessi was not licensed to practice law in Nevada but passed himself off as an licensed attorney anyway so A&K didn’t have an NRS 649 debt collection license.

That was the least of their problems

A&K dissolved the LLC, hid its assets, filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and morphed into HOA Lawyers Group. Alessi only admitted in the bankruptcy proceedings as retaining $2.9 million after having conducted at least 800 HOA “public” auctions out of their offices between 2011-2015, 500 of which per David Alessi’s deposition, had named A&K as a party to wrongful foreclosure litigation. They had one racketeering, bid rigging judgment (Melinda Ellis) against them that they skipped on.

Generally, NV HOA Boards are ill-advised by financially conflicted agents who tell the BODs to do the wrong thing. SCA just pays more for it.

Link to the notice about this scam I sent on 1/25/17 that the SCA Board ignored. My reward came when the current SCA attorney/debt collector ordered me to recuse myself from all SCA collection matters after I was elected to the Board and prohibited me from accessing any SCA records without his approval.

The banks are far from blameless. Do not give them a free pass.

The banks are usually cheating as well because they are saying that they own the mortgage when they actually don’t own it any more than I do.

Since it is unlawful for an HOA to foreclose after a bank had issued a notice of default (NRS 116.31162(6), the prime pickings for HOA foreclosures were frequently ones that the bank did not foreclose on for 2-3 years of non-payment. These houses were ripe of HOA foreclosure primarily when the banks couldn’t prove they owned the mortgage after Nevada passed AB 284, its anti-foreclosure fraud law in 2011. So the banks in these HOA foreclosure litigations unfairly get a second bite of the apple

Catch-22 so the owner always loses and the bank wins

In my case, the homeowner died.

The HOA sold the house to a Realtor in the listing office after the bank blocked four legitimate sales of the property.

The bank now claims the HOA sale was valid to get rid of my (the estate’s) property rights, but that the HOA sale was not valid to extinguish the deed of trust the bank is lying about owning.

Obviously, the highest priority to fraudulent banks is to get mortgages on their books that had been securitized out of existence. The proceeds of the HOA sale are second priority.

Two bites of the apple

So the banks in these HOA foreclosure litigations have a chance to get quiet title just by beating the speculator in court so they can foreclose without meeting the stringent stands of AB 284. Obviously it is much more worth it to those kinds of fraudulent banks to get mortgages on their books that had been securitized out of existence than to worry about the proceeds of the HOA sale.

Bottom line: who gets screwed? Easy — The HOAs and the homeowners lose 100% of the time.

The HOAs get nothing from a sale but the few assessment dollars they certainly could have gotten easier if they had taken title by deed in lieu or had offered the property up to their own HOA owners.

How can it be good business judgment to pay collection costs that are orders of magnitude larger than the minuscule debts collected?

Instead of the HOA (or some of its owners) getting the windfall of a house with no mortgage, the homeowners get a big, fat legal bill to pay for the fight between the HOA sale purchaser and the bank for wrongful foreclosure. In SCA’s dozen 2014 foreclosures owners have paid, several hundred thousand bucks in attorney fees, settlements, insurance deductibles, and other costs have accrued to collect because SCA has totally abdicated to the debt collectors and .

How the scam is working even now to screw me out of Bruce’s house

The homeowner, in this case, me, got screwed by losing the house at a surprise sale for a trivial delinquency, 8th amendment anyone?

What idiot would lose a $400,000 house for a $2,000 debt?

I, for one, would easily have corrected a $2,000 delinquency had I thought, in a million years , that the bank – the same bank, mind you, that claimed $389,000 was owed to it — wouldn’t stop the HOA from selling the house for $63,100 when a $358,800 offer from a bona fide purchaser was on the table.

Oh well…current status of my one little stolen house case

There will be a hearing on March 26 on motions for summary judgment. The trial is set for May 28, 2019.

Here is a link to a counter-motion I drafted yesterday that I am sure my attorney will choose not to file after because my draft is focused on the bank’s duplicity and not exclusively on the (considerable) statutory deficiencies of the HOA sale per se.

However, it shows how the banks’ attorneys are trying to use the HOA foreclosure quiet title proceeding to unfairly gain title to a property when its claim to be owed around $400,000 is provably false.

Abusive collection practices tip the scales against owners, especially dead owners

In this case, the debt collector should have stopped the HOA sale when the bank tendered nine months of assessments, the super-priority, but instead, it carried on in secret meetings (of which there are no agendas and no minutes) to get the SCA Board to approve an unnecessary sale without telling me. The debt collectors unlawfully refused the banks’ tender of the super-priority amount twice, and each one should have stopped the HOA sale, but the debt collector never told the Board what it did.

Why don’t more owners sue after losing their expensive house for a trivial debt?

It’s simply a low percentage game.

It has cost me over $30,000 in attorney fees already and trial isn’t until May in this four-year long case. My attorney has been very generous with reducing fees and looking at my work, but most attorneys won’t represent a homeowner because the chance of recovery is so small and the banks’ resources so formidable.

Spanish Trail case – no distribution of $1.1M yet for 90-year-old who lost his house in 2014, but who cares? He’ll be dead soon anyway.

Here’s the minutes of the February 5 hearing in the Spanish Trail case that was continued to March 5. Link to the March 1 minutes of the hearing that inexplicably occurred on March 1 and not March 5.

How this tome started: Forwarded email about Spanish Trail case shows how easy it is to steal when nobody is looking.

The email I am forwarding was my attempt to articulate the nuances of this scam to my attorney which he probably didn’t read. I don’t think he charges me for reading my long descriptions of the systemic deficits and scams because he is already not billing me for all the time it takes just to deal with trying to get quiet title to Bruce’s house,

Bank attorney boilerplate strategy doesn’t mean their fees are less

For the benefit of any potential investigator, the email below demonstrates the exact same legal sleight of hand used in the Spanish Trail case will be used to try to crush me later this month.

  1. Volunteer SCA Board violated their own CC&RS and sanctioned this owner by authorizing foreclosure in secret on the advice of counsel.
  2. HOA managers/debt collectors/attorneys usurp the HOA power to foreclose for their own unjust enrichment.
  3. Once the foreclosure is over, the attorney tells the HOA Board it’s not the association’s problem; it’s between the buyer and the bank.

All proceeds of HOA sales must be accounted for by SCA, but the SCA Board has been told that once the account goes to the debt collector it’s not their problem.

Attorneys Koch & Scow have held the sale proceeds for four years in both this Spanish Trail case and 2763 without filing for interpleader

….probably collecting the interest, not filing interpleader, and keeping what nobody notices. This is much more money, RRFS kept $1,168,865 is excess proceeds after the 11/10/14 sale.

It looks just like the RRFS trust fund check to the court for $57,282 excess proceeds check from excess proceeds after the 8/15/14 sale that Koch & Scow never filed for interpleader. When I attempted to make a claim for those funds in September 2014, I was rebuffed.

the 2/5/19 Spanish trail hearing is about proceeds from 11/10/14 sale

The owner, not in the case, gets the proceeds if the sale extinguished the loan

Here are the minutes of a 2/5/19 hearing where attorney Akin (not on efile list) was waiting for outcome so his 90-year-old client (former owner?) could see about the excess proceeds. Continued to 3/5/19. Will Akerman attorney even go to interpleader or will she let the old owner have it?

Ackerman got Spanish trail sale to be valid, but sale did not extinguish loan

Order granting MSJ to the bank 12/5/18

But the court finds that the HOA could only foreclose on the sub-priority portion of the lien This is what Ackerman is trying to do in the 2763 case, only representing a different bank.

Ackerman may be a front for bank fraud like attorneys for the mob

Ackerman got quiet title for Thornberg, the bank who I suspect is fraudulent and claims to have gotten the beneficial ownership from MERS. This is like 2763 DOT. I say this because in 10/1/11, Nevada legislature passed AB 284 which made it a felony for to banks to use robo-signers to execute notarized false assignments of mortgages.

In this case, the owner defaulted in 2011 on the DOT and the HOA filed a NODES in late-2011, why didn’t the bank foreclose for over three years until the HOA sold it in late-2014?

Bank MSJ: Foreclosure only sub-priority piece is valid

The Ackerman MSJ is what they will be arguing about 2763. Bank made super-priority tender. It was refused. Sale did not extinguish the loan because HOA only foreclosed on sub-priority portion. Argues that it doesn’t matter if Saticoy is a bona fide purchaser. Shadow Wood applies as sale was commercially unreasonable and unfair.

Banks were the proximate cause of the delinquency by blocking sales and refusing title by deed in lieu

The fact that both banks tendered the super-priority amount is supported by the RRFS/SCA disclosures, and it is a strong reason well briefed by Ackerman for protecting the DOT, so we have to show that because BANA and Nationstar were provably engaged in mortgage fraud, they were complicit in preventing the estate from paying the assessments by BANA’s refusing to close two escrows out of which the HUD-1s show the assessments would have been paid, and by Nationstar’s refusing to close two escrows from bona fide CASH purchasers at market value and not responding to the

$375,000 offer i signed on 8/1/14.

HOA OPPC to bank MSJ

John Leach was SCA’s attorney until 2017 when Clarkson took over. His OPPC shows the same attitude SCA has showed to me.

The HOA doesn’t belong in the case. RRFS did everything right

The fight is rightly just between the bank and purchaser in possession The owner is just a loser, not the HOA’s problem

The SCA Board violated its duty to the homeowners by abdicating to self-serving agents

Here’s where our case has to differentiate itself. We have to hold the HOA Board accountable for letting the debt collector/manager/attorney use the HOA power to foreclose to screw the HOA and ALL the owners. Doing collections and foreclosures in secret keeps the chance of compliance low, keeps neighbors from helping a neighbor in trouble, or an out of state executor that doesn’t get proper notice from knowing what to do. Not publishing that a house is going to be foreclosed to the owners prevents any owner from bidding.

The Board can’t wash its hands. It’s wrong for them to blindly listen only to RRFS without having to listen to the owner. FSR/RRFS set the owner up to get the property into foreclosure for way more ways to make money than just charging usurious fees.

Undisputed facts about how SCA Board did as they were told (by debt collector) but it was wrong

The volunteer Directors have been tricked by self-serving agents into doing what the agents say they HAVE TO DO.

In this case, the Board was handling collections and foreclosures such that it made money for the agents, but were actually against the law or SCA governing docs: Here is a link to emails where the former Board President told me how the Board handled foreclosures in 2014 – all in closed BOD meetings under RRFS control.

  1. Give complete control over collections to the manager/debt collector of accounting with no checks and balances or any need to ever hear from the owner affected.
  2. Keep everything strictly confidential and
  3. trust that the manager and debt collector are doing it right
  4. Allow the manager to report after an account was sent to collections and never check what fees were charged or what the circumstances might be, like the owner died and it was in escrow
  5. assume that since the debt collector said they gave a notice and no owner ever filed an appeal, that everything is fine
  6. Make all decisions in executive session without specifying the name of the party or the proposed sanction
  7. Do not publish the quarterly delinquency report required by the bylaws even though that’s how delinquent taxes are publicly reported
  8. Adopt a fee schedule but do not give it to the homeowner who is subjected to them and don’t audit anything that RRFS charges to see if it’s right
  9. Listen only to the debt collector and never tell the owner when decisions are being made to sanction them
  10. Do not put specifically on the agenda or give the owner any requested minutes from BOD meetings in executive session where actions about the owner were decided:
    1. when the debt collector said that the owner requested a waiver of $459 and the owner was not permitted to be present why the debt collector said that the BOD could only waive assessments, late fees and interest, but could not waive the collection fees
    2. when a pay plan was offered, considered or rejected
    3. when it decided to post the property for sale, or
    4. when the BOD was asked to postpone or cancel the sale, or
    5. was told what the date of the sale was to be, or
    6. was told that the foreclosure occurred ·    the BOD discussed the owner’s delinquency and possible sanctions,
    7. when the BOD was told of the possible alternatives to aggressive collections, such as a deed in lieu, wait to collect out of escrow without charging or unnecessary collection charges, small claims, accept the bank’s tender of the super-priority and restart the clock on what the owner owes,
    8. Adopt a policy and procedure that defines how the governing documents will be enforced providing specific due process steps, but carve out an exception for predatory collections and foreclosure, the harshest of all penalties, and do that in secret, don’t tell the owner that you did it, make any appeal without litigation impossible and then treat the owner like a criminal if she tries to get the stolen house back.

Legal theory for the Board’s authority and why it can’t be delegated or agents be unsupervised.

  1. The Association exists to protect the owners’ common good.
  2. The Association is not the Board; it is the membership at large.
  3. The Board has the sole power to act.
  4. Agents can advise, not direct.
  5. Board’s fiduciary duty is act solely and exclusively for the association’s, i.e., all owners’ benefit. The Board owes no duty to its agents.
  6. The agents have no rights, only duties, to the Association, i.e., agents have fiduciary duty to protect the due process rights of the owners.

Our case is unique in arguing violations of due process guaranteed by NRS 116.31031 and NRS 116.31085, SCA CC&Rs 7.4.

This is not the way the agents act and it’s not the way they have trained the Board to act, but it’s the way the law and the governing documents say it is.

  1. The BOD has authority to maintain the common areas and other services funded by assessments.
  2. The Board has the authority to determine the amount of the assessments needed to cover the maintenance and protection of the common areas.
  3. The HOA is a mutual benefit, non-profit entity which exists solely for the purpose of maintaining the property values and quality of life in the community.
  4. The directors, attorneys and managing agents are all fiduciaries by law and they must act in good faith in a manner which is solely and exclusively in the best interest of the association and use good business judgment.
  5. The Board has the sole responsibility for adopting an annual budget to fund maintaining the common areas and programs and activities to support the community life.
  6. SCA bylaws 3.18a,b,e,f,g,i /3.20 prohibit the Board from delegating and abdicating control over any of SCA’s money: budgeting, levying and collecting assessments, setting up the bank accounts where the money collected goes, controlling the signatories, setting up the use rules and restrictions and enforcing them
  7. The Board is the sole authority on the enforcement of the governing documents.
  8. While managing agents and attorneys can advise and implement, the Board alone is the decider.
  9. NRS 116 and NRS 116A (for managing agents) has provisions which specifically define the authority and limits constraining the Board before it can sanction owners for alleged violations
  10. See the Table of Authorities.

Table of Violations

TABLE OF VIOLATIONS

STATUTEPROVIDESVIOLATION RESULTING IN VOID HOA SALE
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 www.auction.com sale (SCA 302) rejection of BANA tender was when only nine months were delinquent as of 4/30/13 NSM $1100 offer rejected as if it was an owner request for waiver
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 “FACTS: BEFORE THE SALE

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

Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar, & Wells Fargo

Link to downloadable PDF

Comes now, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin, an individual, in proper person, to hereby move for summary judgment vs. counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, and cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo and moves that relief be granted to Nona Tobin as requested, including punitive damages and sanctions, pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 2/16/21 Red Rock served complaint with one cause of action: interpleader to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage.
  2. On 3/8/21 counter-claimant/ cross-claimant  Nona Tobin filed NONA TOBIN’S (Herein “AACC’) ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIM VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A., AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, AND/OR NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE DBA MR. COOPER PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
  3. As there has been no timely responsive pleading from Red Rock, Nationstar, or Wells Fargo denying Tobin’s allegations, the court has the discretion to deem their silence as admission.

 (“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”)

 Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963)

(“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”)

Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)

(“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)

Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)

However, out of an abundance of caution, Tobin moves herein for summary judgment and sanctions to obtain relief instead of filing a notice of intent to take default.

Due to the seriousness of  the allegations and the high level of declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages sought, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests a hearing to allow defendants an opportunity to reply and to show cause why the relief, sanctions and punitive damages requested should not be imposed.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Counter-claimant/cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests the court judicially notice the Requests for Judicial Notice Tobin filed into this case on 3/15/21 (APN 191-13-811052 Clark County complete property record), 4/4/21 (unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims), 4/7/21 (relevant laws, regulations and HOA governing document provisions) and 4/9/21 (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record).

NRS 47.130(2) (b) permits courts to judicially notice facts “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, so that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute.”

Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”

Pursuant to NRS 47.160 “A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be noticed.”

Nona Tobin’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed into this case on 3/15/21, 4/4/21, 4/7/21 and 4/9/21, are proper for judicial notice because they were 1) recorded against the property and are part of the Clark County Recorder’s Office records, or 2) were filed at some point into the court records of prior proceedings, or 3) fit the definition of NRS 47.140 (matters of law), and 4) are timely pursuant to NRS 47.150.  Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

  1. The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud. Red Rock, Nationstar and Sun City Anthem withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
  2. Defendants, acting alone or in conspiracy with others, covered up the fraud and successfully suppressed Tobin’s evidence so the courts acted on false evidence to rule against her and deny her access to the appellate courts.
  3. On 6/24/19 she lost title by being denied access to the trial and all documentary evidence excluded. See A-15-720032-C case summary without stricken documents vs. annotated summary and annotated 5/4/19 case info file.
  4. On 9/10/19 the Supreme Court denied her individual right to appeal.
  5. On 11/22/19 Tobin’s 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54b and NRCP 59a(1)ABCDF and 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310 were stricken unheard along with all her pro se filings and motions stricken by 4/23/19 ex parte bench order
  6. On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
  7. On 7/1/20 Sun City Anthem, Nationstar and Jimijack filed a joint respondents’ brief that was based on the false evidence from the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) and (SCA 176-643 ignoring SCA 168-175) in response to the Gordon B. Hansen 12/19/19 opening brief.
  8. On 12/3/20 her A-19-799890-C complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata/non-mutual claims preclusion and three of her lis pendens (recorded on 8/7/14, 8/14/19, and 8/14/19) were expunged as if they had never been recorded.
  9. Dismissal of her A-19-799890-C complaint occurred after two order imposing sanctions on her for filing a quiet title complaint as an individual, , had been entered on 10/8/20 and 11/17/20 ($3,455 to Joseph Hong pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) &/or (3) and $12,849 to Brittany Wood per NRS 18.010(2))
  10. On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.
  1. Tobin’s AACC ANSWER basically denied that Red Rock had any proper purpose for filing a claim for interpleader after holding the funds, without legal authority, all the while obstructing Tobin’s multiple efforts for over the six years to stake a claim.
  2. Related to Tobin’s opinion of Red Rock’s motives, Tobin published on her blog SCAstrong.com: “Interpleader complaint was filed with an ulterior motive” and “Cause of Action: Abuse of Process” and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Tobin’s AACC had nineteen affirmative defenses:
  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.330, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  8. Priority
  9. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  10. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  11. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  12. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  13. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  14. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11(b)
  15. Failure to mitigate damages
  16. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  17. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  18. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  19. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation

ANSWER

COUNTER-CLAIMS

Tobin’s AACC had five causes of action in the counter-claim vs. RRFS: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering. See also published “Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services”.

First Cause of Action: Interpleader

The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale.

There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.

Using the Nevada legal rate of interest table, total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”

Alternatively, if the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount due to Tobin presently is $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the total undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.

Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.

No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.

Second COA: Conversion

See the published “Cause of Action: Conversion” and “Cause of Action: Misappropriation of money” and “Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy

Third COA: Fraud

See the published “Cause of Action: Fraud” and “What’s being human got to do with it?

See the published “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014

See the published “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock

See the published “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent

See the published “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148

See the published “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws

See the published Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )

See the published “Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated

Fourth Cause of Action: Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil

See Exhibit 22 Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

Fifth COA: Racketeering

See the published “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering

Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.

Sun City Anthem disclosed the same unverified, uncorroborated Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643) and misrepresented it to the court as the HOA’s official records of the collection and foreclosure process.

Sun City Anthem concealed all the HOA’s records of what actually occurred, including but not limited to all the SCA Board agendas and minutes, un-doctored Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage, and all the HOA’s compliance and enforcement records for the foreclosures conducted by Red Rock under the HOA statutory authority.

See 4/9/21 Request for Judicial Notice  (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record) which contains:

EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM

Both Sun City Anthem and Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 Red Rock debt collection contract which has an unenforced indemnification clause that is favorable to the HOA.

In addition to refusing to provide HOA records of probative value to Tobin’s case, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson required Nona Tobin, as an elected, sitting member of the HOA Board to recuse herself from all SCA collection matters, past or present, instead of relying on NRS 116.31084 (Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.) See 6/5/17 recusal acknowledgement.

Because Tobin was a party to this quiet title litigation, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson deemed her elected Board seat vacant “by operation of law” and removed her from her elected Board seat without an NRS 116.31036 removal election.

See 8/24/17 Clarkson letter that accused Nona Tobin of profiting from her elected seat on the Board by being party to this quiet title litigation.

See 8/16/17 Complaint to the Nevada State Bar vs. Clarkson and 9/12/17 rejection letter.

See the 9/7/17 Complaint to NRED Ombudsman and 8/9/18 rejection letter.

See the published “Why can’t I be a candidate for the Board?” and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think” and “Fire the debt collector” and “Elder Abuse: Part II – SCA Agents” and “On the advice of counsel is no defense”.

SCA attorney/debt collector has ruled without legal authority (NRS  that Nona Tobin is ineligible to run for election or return to her elected Board seat as long as the quiet title litigation is in the appellate courts, even if Sun City Anthem is not a party. See Clarkson “notice(s) of ineligibility” dated 2/9/18, 2/12/19, 2/06/20, and 2/12/21. See also 11/9/20 Tobin email to the HOA Board to fill vacant Board seat with 2017-2020 timeline and links. See the published “No 2021 Board election

SCA attorneys Adam Clarkson and David Ochoa published quarterly litigation reports that falsely claimed that Nona Tobin had been removed from her elected Board seat “for cause”.

See also the published “Election committee was inhospitable, angry even. Nevertheless I persisted

SCA disclosed, and RRFS provided in response to Tobin’s subpoena, misleading and falsified documents to deceive the court into concluding that the sale had been fair and properly noticed and the proceeds properly handled, including but not limited to SCA 276, SCA 277, SCA 278, SCA 286, SCA 635, SCA 642 , SCA 643. SCA 277, SCA 628, RRFS 071-083 (SCA 250-262), RRFS 047-048 (SCA 223-224), RRFS 119 (SCA 302), RRFS 128 (SCA 315), RRFS 238-244, RRFS 218-219 (SCA 415-416), RRFS 298-299, RRFS 312-326 (SCA 513-530), RRFS 398-399; RRFS 402 (SCA 618), RRFS 409-423, RRFS 424-425, RRFS 123, RRFS 124,

CROSS-CLAIMS

Tobin’s AACC had three causes of action vs. cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.

See “Nona Tobin’s cross-claim vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo” See “Nationstar Mortgage’s Fraud” and “Black letter law: anti-foreclosure fraud

See “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering

Cross-defendant Nationstar’s fraudulent misrepresentations and presentation of false evidence to two district courts obstructed a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims in prior proceedings and before the Nevada Supreme Court.

Cross-defendant Nationstar’s ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19  damaged Nona Tobin and caused her pro se filings to be stricken unheard.

See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.

Cross-defendant Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that it ever was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. See Complaint against Melanie Morgan

PRAYER

Nona Tobin’s AACC Prayer for relief is quoted here with links added to laws, regulations, documentary evidence or argument to support claims for relief and punitive damages.

See the published “Nona Tobin’s, Red Rock’s & Nationstar’s prayers for relief

This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct.

(Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).

COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:

  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title; See “Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury” and Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds; See “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure to distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3): (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence,  defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
  10. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  11. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  12. that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345; (See 1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary fraud)
  15. 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 NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4);
  16. 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).
  17.  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;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. 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 205.395NRS 205.377NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480; See “All Declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin” and “Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud” and “Why Nationstar’s attorneys must be sanctioned and pay damages” and “Complaint against Melanie Morgan” and “1st complaint to the Nevada AG” and “2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
  22. 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)

Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC had 22 Exhibits

  1. APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all opposing parties
  2. the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
  3. The alleged default was cured three times,
  4. SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
  5. Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to cover it up
  6. SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process 
  7. Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed DOT
  8. Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
  9. Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
  10. the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
  12. attorney interference in the administration of justice
  13. lack of professional ethics and good faith
  14. Presented false evidence to cover up crime
  15. Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
  16. Republic Services lien releases
  17. Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. RELEVANT HOA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROVISIONS
  20. Administrative Complaints related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  21. Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  22. Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT

Motion for summary judgment.

MSJ must be granted because counter and cross defendants didn’t file a responsive pleading.

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24106 S.Ct. 254891 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion,” and can do so in either of two ways: by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. A ‘genuine issue’ of material fact arises if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248106 S.Ct. 250591 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Conversely, where the evidence could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue exists for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587106 S.Ct. 134889 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28988 S.Ct. 157520 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).

The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006). The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987). The nonmoving party must instead set forth “significant probative evidence” in support of its position. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting First Nat’l, 391 U.S. at 29088 S.Ct. 1575).Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630–31. Accordingly, if “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment will be denied. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250–51106 S.Ct. 2505.

Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)

4/7/21 Request for Judicial Notice of the relevant laws, regulations & HOA governing documents

Tobin’s 4/7/21 RFJN has 10 exhibits

ARGUMENT

Defendants’ presentation of false evidence to the courts damaged Nona Tobin and caused her to lose

The falsification of accounts, the charging  of excessive, unauthorized fines, wrongly called “collection fees, the misappropriation of funds, and the related conspiracy are part of a pattern and practice of corrupt organizations.

Nona Tobin is entitled to damages that occurred to her as a direct result of racketeering and fraud on the part of counter-defendant Red Rock and cross-defendant Nationstar:

(“Like their federal counterparts, Nevada’s anti-racketeering statutes provide for a civil cause of action for injuries resulting from racketeering activities under which a plaintiff may recover treble damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs.”)

Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 0 (Nev. 1988)

(“Pursuant to NRS 207.470 and NRS 207.400, a civil RICO cause of action may be based upon proof that the defendant engaged in at least two crimes related to racketeering that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents….

Demarigny v. McCormick (In re Receivership of Sw. Exch., Inc.), 381 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2012) 

NRS 207.390 (emphasis added). ”)

  • NRS 207.360 (30) defines “offering false evidence” as a crime related to racketeering.
  • A partial list of the Counter-Defendants’, Cross-defendants’ and third-party defendants’ Predicate Acts show a pattern of corrupt business practices under the definition of NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation;
  • Violations of  NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation are defined as racketeering under NRS 207.360 (35)

Nationstar LLC and/or Nationstar LLC dba Mr. Cooper recorded false claims

on 12/1/141/22/158/17/151/13/166/7/16,  3/8/19 rescind and 3/8/19 assign, and 6/3/19.

Red Rock Financial Services recorded false claims

on 12/14/123/12/134/3/134/8/13, and executed the foreclosure deed Thomas Lucas recorded on 8/22/14.

Joseph Hong’s clients recorded false claims

on 6/9/156/9/1512/1/155/1/195/23/195/28/197/24/1912/3/1912/27/19, and 12/27/19 and aided and abetted false claims to be recorded on 6/3/196/4/197/10/197/17/19,  12/27/192/6/202/6/20,  and 12/4/20.

Attorneys aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud

of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into these quiet title civil actions statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence Edgar Smith (NV bar #5506)on 1/11/164/12/16, DECL4/12/165/10/166/2/166/3/166/10/163/27/17 DECL , 3/27/1711/9/172/9/18, (Dana Johnson Nitz NV Bar #0050, Michael Kelly NV Bar #10101).

Akerman LLP (Melanie Morgan NV Bar #8215, Karen Whelan NV Bar #10466, Donna Wittig NV Bar #11015). 5/15/182/7/19, Thera Cooper NV Bar #13468, 2/12/192/12/19,  2/20/192/21/192/21/192/27/192/28/192/28/193/7/193/12/193/12/193/18/193/21/193/26/19 RTRAN, 4/12/194/15/19 (SAO signed 4/10/19), 4/19/19,  4/23/194/23/19 RTRAN4/25/19 RTRAN5/3/195/21/19 RTRAN5/29/19 RTRAN5/31/196/24/196/24/196/25/197/1/197/22/19.

Joseph Hong (NV Bar #5995) filed written false statements

filed frivolous unsupported harassing pleadings, knowingly made false verbal statements, made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts, concealed/failed to disclose material facts, conspired with others, received proceeds, on these dates, 6/9/15 DEED6/16/15, 6/8/16, 8/12/1510/16/158/30/169/29/16 RTRAN12/5/1612/20/16 RTRAN3/13/173/13/173/13/1712/5/18,  3/25/193/26/19 RTRAN, 4/15/194/22/194/23/19 minutes,  4/23/19 RTRAN4/23/19 RTRAN annotated, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/1/19 DEED, 5/3/19, 5/21/19, 5/23/19 Agreement, 5/24/19, 5/29/19 video, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 video, 6/5/19, 6/5/19 video, 6/5/19 RTRAN, 6/5/19 video, 6/6/19 RTRAN6/24/196/28/198/7/198/13/199/3/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 video, 6/25/20, 7/1/20,  8/3/20 annotated,, 8/11/20 video, 8/11/20 RTRAN, 10/8/2010/8/20 annotated10/16/20 OST10/16/20 NEO, 10/29/20 RTRAN, 10/29/20 video, 11/3/20 video, 11/3/20 RTRAN.

Suppression of Nona Tobin’s evidence and misrepresentation of her standing by defendants prevented a fair adjudication of her claims.

Excerpt from Bar complaint vs. Brittany Wood

1.              Over the last five years of litigation I was forced into…I have been attempting regain title to a house that was wrongly foreclosed and secretly sold in 2014 by Red Rock Financial Services.

This complaint, and the multiple other new and pending complaints to the discipline panel, I have and will be filing, stem from my personal horrifying litigation experience.

I, Nona Tobin,  am filing this complaint to the Nevada State Bar Ethics & Discipline Panel as the President of the newly-formed Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc. I make all statements herein based on my personal knowledge under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada. I am filing this complaint without representation, but I am seeking counsel to represent me, and Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., on complaints to the Nevada State Bar, the Nevada Attorney General, the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division, the American Bar Association Ethics & Discipline Panel, the Nevada Real Estate Division Commission for Common-Interest Communities.

VIDEO 1:20-minute VIDEO How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen?

4:52-minute VIDEO “How lenders cheat owners out of their houses

Over the last five years, no judge has looked at any evidence.

Over the last five years, every opposing counsel lied to the court presented false evidence, concealed and misrepresented material facts, and obstructed a fair adjudication of my claims on their merits. 

Actual damages to me personally

The consequences of this successful fraud were perpetrated primarily by attorneys:

  1. the title to a $500,000 house was taken from me by a fraudulently conducted-unnoticed foreclosure sale,
  2. Nationstar stole from me the $389,000 outstanding Western Thrift & Loan debt of deceased borrower Gordon Hansen that I did not owe and was not owed to Nationstar.
  3. Joel and Sandra Stokes kept $100,000+ in rental profits that belong to me,
  4. Red Rock attorneys Koch & Scow retained $60,000 that they refused to distribute to me in 2014 and has now accrued plus six years of interest and costs to pursue my claim against massive obstruction
  5. I have been forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars on litigation costs and thousands of hours of personal time to attempt to recover what was stolen from me.
The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud.
Defendants withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.

The PUD Rider Remedies (F)

  • Nationstar disclosed the disputed Hansen deed of trust as NSM 145-161. NSM 159-161 is the PUD Rider which includes the Remedies section (F) on NSM 160.
  • Nationstar has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the adjudication of my claim that the PUD Rider gives lenders only the option to add any delinquent HOA fees they pay on behalf of the borrower to the outstanding balance with interest and does not allow the lender’s payment to become a de facto foreclosure without complying with the foreclosure requirements of NRS Chapter 107.  
  • Neither Bank of America nor Nationstar ever recorded a notice of default on the Hansen deed of trust and instead chose to duplicitously tender the super-priority portion of the HOA’s lien while obstructing the HOA assessments from being paid out of the escrow of fair market, arms-length sales.
  • See 5/20/19 Doug Proudfit Declaration.
  1. This is a rejection of a second super-priority tender that would have voided the sale, but Nationstar concealed it and falsely claimed, without evidence, that the sale was valid to extinguish Tobin’s rights but not to extinguish Nationstar’s baseless claims.
  2. Because both Red Rock and Nationstar concealed Red Rock’s covert rejection of Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s offer, Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder, based on false evidence and misrepresentation of the facts and the law, succeeded.
  3. See also Nationstar’s 3/21/19 MSJ vs. Jimijack where the misrepresentations are repeated despite the fact that on 3/8/19 Nationstar rescinded its recorded claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
  4. RRFS did not inform the SCA Board of the NSN 5/28/14 offer of $1100, one year of assessments, to close escrow on the 5/8/14 $367,500 sale to high bidder MZK. This is a rejection of a second super-priority tender that would have voided the sale that Nationstar also concealed
  5. Because both Red Rock and Nationstar concealed Red Rock’s covert rejection of Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s offer, Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder, based on false evidence and misrepresentation of the facts and the law, succeeded.

CONCLUSION

Red Rock Financial Services secretly sold 2763 White Sage for $63,100 three months after Nona Tobin had sold it on auction.com for $367,500. Red Rock kept $60,398.96 without any legal authority for over six years while actively obstructing Nona Tobin’s ability to claim it.

Defendants egregious conduct in this case is indicative of a pattern and practice of corrupt business practices of debt collectors, attorneys, and banks that have damaged many, many homeowners and Homeowners Associations in Nevada and other states in the nation. See “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case

 Red Rock’s deceit was aided and abetted by multiple parties, including cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo, as well as multiple attorneys who are named in her not-yet-served 3/22/21 third-party complaint against attorneys who failed in their duties under the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.

See 4/7/21 RFJN laws and regulations exhibit 6

SANCTIONS & DAMAGES


Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct
 (as amended through 10/19/19)

Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct excerpts related to the instant action

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended 1992)

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions – excerpts

Defendant Nona Tobin respectfully moves the court to grant her motion for summary judgment against Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo,

Tobin prays for the relief punitive damages and sanctions requested and for any and all further relief as the court deems appropriate.

Nona Tobin’s, Red Rock’s & Nationstar’s prayers for relief

Red Rock’s prayer for relief

Nationstar’s prayer for relief

Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 prayer for relief vs. Red Rock & Nationstar

This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).

COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:

  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures ) and “Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title; See “Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury” and Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds; See “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure to distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3): (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence,  defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
  10. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  11. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  12. that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345; (See 1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary fraud)
  15. 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 NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4);
  16. 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).
  17.  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;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480; See “All Declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin” and “Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud” and “Why Nationstar’s attorneys must be sanctioned and pay damages” and “Complaint against Melanie Morgan” and “1st complaint to the Nevada AG” and “2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
  22. 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)

Nona Tobin’s 3/22/21 prayer for relief in her unserved third-party complaint against the attorneys

Counter-claimant & cross-claimant Nona Tobin’s prayer for relief vs. Red Rock & the banks

On 3/8/21, Nona Tobin filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claims vs. Red Rock, and cross-claims against Nationstar and Wells Fargo.

Link to NONA TOBIN’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIM VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A., AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, AND/OR NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE DBA MR. COOPER PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005

It is long and complex, and so it is published here in segments.

Counter-claimant and cross-claimant Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 Prayer for sanctions, damages & declaratory relief vs. Red Rock

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. 

This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).

COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:

  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures ) and “Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title; See “Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury” and Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds; See “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure to distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3): (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence,  defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
  10. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  11. 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; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  12. that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345; (See 1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary fraud)
  15. 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 NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4);
  16. 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).
  17.  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;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480; See “All Declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin” and “Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud” and “Why Nationstar’s attorneys must be sanctioned and pay damages” and “Complaint against Melanie Morgan” and “1st complaint to the Nevada AG” and “2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
  22. 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)

Link to Cross-claim vs. the banks

Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services

On 3/8/21, Nona Tobin filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claims vs. Red Rock, and cross-claims against nationstar and wells Fargo.

Link to NONA TOBIN’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIM VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A., AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, AND/OR NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE DBA MR. COOPER PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005

It is long and complex, and so it is published here in segments.

This blog is the counter-claim vs. Red Rock which has five causes of action: 1) distribution of the proceeds to Tobin plus interest & penalties (Interpleader); 2) unjust enrichment/conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter ego -piercing the corporate veil; 5) Racketeering.

Counterclaim vs. Red Rock Financial Services

PARTIES

See Exhibit 22 for 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA parties pg 2-3, 5th cause of action unjust enrichment (pgs 18-19), statement of facts (pgs 5-9)

  1. Cross-claimant NONA TOBIN, an Individual, (Herein “Cross-claimant” or “Tobin”) was the sole successor trustee, beneficiary and surviving member of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, (Herein “Hansen Trust”) that held recorded title to the subject property from 8/27/08 until a foreclosure deed was recorded on August 22, 2014 transferred title to the alleged purchaser at the disputed HOA sale.
  2. Tobin claims an individual interest in this property as all the GBH Trust’s claims to title were transferred to Tobin as an individual via a quit claim deed, recorded on 3/28/17.
  3. Also on 3/28/17 the Hansen Trust was closed as it was insolvent when its sole asset was transferred out of the trust. NONA TOBIN claims the proceeds of the sale unlawfully retained by Koch & Scow, with interest, penalties and sanctions.
JURISDICTION, VENUE
  • The real property which is the subject of this civil action is a residence commonly known as the 2763 White Sage Drive, Henderson, NV 89052, APN 191-13-811-052, (hereinafter “Property”).
  • This action is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and this venue is appropriate because the real property is located within the jurisdiction of this Court.
  • The Court has the authority under NRS 30.030 to declare rights, status and other legal relations of the respective parties in this NRS 40.010 quiet title dispute.
  • NRS 30.130 limits the Court’s authority to ensure that the rights of parties who are not present from being prejudiced by court actions in their absence.
  • The Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving the interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association (HOA) to parties who have submitted their claims to mediation in the manner proscribed in NRS Chapter 38.
  • NRS 38.310(2) limits the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that have been
  • The Court’s jurisdiction in this case requires an interpretation of NRS 116.31164(3) (2013) which mandated the ministerial duties Red Rock Financial Services (Herein “RRFS”) was required to perform promptly after it conducted the disputed 2014 HOA foreclosure sale.
  • This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to impose sanctions on Red Rock Financial Services for its failure to comply, and to ensure that the HOA Board complied, with with ALL the statutory mandates for conducting a valid HOA foreclosure sale, included in NRS 116.3116-NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116A.640 (8), (9), (10), NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.1113, NRS 116.31065, NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31087, NRS 116.31175, NRS 116.31183, NRS 116.31184, NRS 116.4117
  • This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to impose sanctions on Red Rock Financial Services for its failure to provide, and its failure to ensure that the Sun City Anthem (Herein “SCA”) Board provided ALL the owner protections, notice and due process mandated by the HOA governing documents, SCA Board 2013 Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA 168-175). SCA Board Resolution 1/17/11 Policy and Procedure for enforcement of the governing documents (due process before imposing sanctions for alleged violations), SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v) (owner access to quarterly delinquency reports) , SCA bylaws 3.15 (open Board meetings), SCA bylaws 3.15A (closed Board meetings permissible topics), SCA bylaws 3.18/3.20 (delegation by SCA board prohibited), SCA bylaws 3.26, SCA bylaws 6.4 (owner access to records), CC&Rs 7.4 (enforcement (due process before imposing sanctions),
  • This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to determine the standing of the defendants named by Red Rock to assert a claim for the excess proceeds from the HOA sale.
  • The court has jurisdiction to impose sanctions against parties who have recorded false claims to title as defined by NRS 205.395 and to consider the severity of the sanctions in terms of other statutes applicable to, and commensurate with, the frequency and seriousness Nationstar’s corrupt business practices, under the auspices of NRS 205.377, NRS 207.360 (9)(10)(30)(35), NRS 207.400 NRS 207.470 (1)and (4), and NRS 207.480.
  • See Exhibit 20 – Relevant statutes and regulations.
See also Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the relevant laws filed 4/7/21.
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.
  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.
  3.  The Default was cured three times, but RRFS kept pursuing the predatory path to unwarranted, unjustly profitable foreclosure. See Exhibit 3.
  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.
  5. Required notices were not provided, but RRFS falsified records to cover it up. See Exhibit 5.
  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.
  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.
  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.  
  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 material facts and law at hearings. See Exhibit 9.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  14. Attorneys have knowingly presented false evidence into the court record in discovery. See Exhibit 14.
  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.
First cause of Action: Interpleader NRCP 22

For a declaratory judgment that RRFS must distribute the retained funds to Nona Tobin with interest as there are no parties with higher priority and all the liens of named defendants have been released.

See Nona Tobin’s 4/12/21 motion for distribution of the proceeds
Second Cause of Action: (Unjust Enrichment) or (Conversion)

Plaintiff/counter-defendant RRFS has been unjustly enriched:

  • by adding unauthorized fees,
  • by applying assessment payments to fees first,
  • by suppressing bidding through selective notice to only speculators,
  • by unlawfully exerting proprietary control of funds belonging to Nona Tobin, Sun City Anthem and others,
  • by keeping two sets of books,
  • by presenting false evidence to the court,
  • by conspiring with lenders and aiding and abetting them to assert ownership of deeds of trust they do not own.
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).

All of the elements of conversion are met and established by the evidence in the exhibits.

Third Cause of Action: Fraud
  1. Defendant RRFS made multiple false representations or misrepresentations as to a past or existing fact; See Exhibits. There are examples in almost all of them.
  2. With knowledge or belief by defendant that representation is false or that defendant lacks sufficient basis of information to make the representation;
  3. Defendant intended to induce plaintiff to act in reliance on the representation;
  4. Justifiable reliance upon the representation by the plaintiff;
  5. Causation and damages to plaintiff as a result of relying on the misrepresentation; and
  6. Clear and convincing evidence exists and is pleaded with specific evidence in the exhibits filed herein.
Exhibits
  1. APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all opposing parties
  2. the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
  3. The alleged default was cured three times,
  4. SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
  5. Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to cover it up
  6. SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process 
  7. Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed DOT
  8. Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
  9. Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
  10. the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
  12. attorney interference in the administration of justice
  13. lack of professional ethics and good faith
  14. Presented false evidence to cover up crime
  15. Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
  16. Republic Services lien releases
  17. Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. RELEVANT HOA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROVISIONS
  20. Administrative Complaints related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  21. Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  22. Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

NRCP 9; NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 9.01; Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 51 (2005); J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009 (2004); Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 14 Nev. 441, 956 P.2d 1382 (1998); Blanchard v. Blanchard, 108 Nev. 908 (1992);  Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992); Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 1260, 969 P.2d 949, 957 (1998);  Sanguinetti v. Strecker, 94 Nev. 200, 206, 577 P.2d 404, 408 (1978); Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 541 P.2d 115 (1975).

Fourth Cause of Action: Alter Ego Piercing the Corporate Veil

On 1/31/17, Nona Tobin filed a cross – claim versus Sun City Anthem and identified “HOA Agents” as the true perpetrators of the wrongdoing. See Exhibit 21 for the description of why these agents were not named as parties.

See Exhibit 22 Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents for the 1/31/17 claim for the excess proceeds.

1/31/17 Nona Tobin’s cross-claim vs Sun City Anthem, pages 18-19, 5th cause of action :unjust enrichment

RRFS and SCA withheld and concealed all contracts and all identification of the parties in a manner that completely obscured the money trail.

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that, though generally “[t]he corporate cloak is not lightly thrown aside,” nevertheless there are some situations in which blind “adherence to the fiction of a separate entity [of the corporation] [would] sanction a fraud or promote injustice.” Baer v. Amos J. Walker, Inc., 85 Nev. 219, 220, 452 P.2d 916, 916 (1969). The court has therefore carved out an exception to the general rule of faithfully respecting the corporate form and corporate independence, i.e., the so-called “alter ego” exception, by which the corporate veil can be pierced.  Id.  The Supreme Court of Nevada, in the matter of McCleary Cattle Co. v. Sewell, adopted a three prong test for ignoring the separate existence of a corporation in determining “alter ego liability.” McCleary, 73 Nev. 279 at 282, 317 P.2d 957 (1957). This test has since been codified in by Nevada Statute, NRS 78.747:

Jay Young, Nevada Law Blog
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RRFS (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 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 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.

Nona Tobin’s answer to Red Rock Financial Services

On 3/8/21 Nona Tobin filed an answer and counter-claim when Red Rock sued her over the money they stole from her in 2014. This blog contains the answer and links to the exhibits.

Nona’s answer

  1. Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 2. See Exhibit 17.
  2. Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin, admits that Wells Fargo is a national banking association doing business in Clark County, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Wells Fargo as a defendant.
  3. Nona Tobin denies the allegation that Wells Fargo was properly named as a defendant by allowing the documents to speak for themselves.  See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 18.
  4. Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin, admits that Defendant Republic Services, Inc. is a Nevada corporation doing business in Clark County, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Republic Services, Inc as a defendant, and denies the allegations by allowing the documents to speak for themselves. See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 16.
  5. Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 5 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin admits Nationstar Mortgage LLC was incorporated in Delaware and during all relevant times was doing business in Clark County, NV under NV Business ID: NV20101844335, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Nationstar Mortgage LLC as a defendant.
  6. Nona Tobin denies RRFS’s allegation that Nationstar LLC has any standing to assert a claim in this interpleader action for any portion of the proceeds by allowing the documents to speak for themselves. See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 20.
  7. Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 10, quoted here below,  Nona Tobin denies the allegations contained therein as they grossly misrepresent the facts and the duties owed. See Exhibits 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law.

After paying these costs, RRFS was left with funds of $57,282.32. RRFS has no further direct interest in such funds.

These funds have been deposited into counsel’s attorney-client trust account and $3,500 has been withheld as costs, expenses, and fees to commence this action.

The remainder of such funds will be deposited with the Court until such time and place as directed by this Court.

Red Rock’s law suit against Nona Tobin & others, page 3, paragraph 10

Exhibits to Nona’s answer are linked here

  1. APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all opposing parties
  2. the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
  3. The alleged default was cured three times,
  4. SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
  5. Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to cover it up
  6. SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process 
  7. Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed DOT
  8. Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
  9. Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
  10. the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
  12. attorney interference in the administration of justice
  13. lack of professional ethics and good faith
  14. Presented false evidence to cover up crime
  15. Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
  16. Republic Services lien releases
  17. Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. RELEVANT HOA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROVISIONS
  20. Administrative Complaints related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  21. Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  22. Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

On 2/16/21, Red Rock Financial Services served a notice on Nona Tobin that Red Rock was suing her over the money Red Rock stole from her over six years ago.

Why is Nona being sued? What relief could Nona give Red Rock?

Short answer. Nothing.

Red Rock sued Nona to obstruct a fair adjudication of her claims and to cover up its criminal conduct by suppressing evidence.

Nona still had to do a lot of work to deal with it.

The significance of Red Rock’s abusive, predatory debt collector’s corrupt business practices is that virtually none of its victims have the resources to fight back.

Poor people just lose by default because they don’t know what to do, and they don’t have anyone to help them.

Nona is fighting back.

These 19 affirmative defenses published here are one section of what Nona filed on 3/8/21 to get the money that Red Rock stole and to get penalties and damages.

Red Rock ignored the statute governing the distribution of the proceeds of the HOA sale in 2014 & also refused requests to distribute in 2014 & 2016 and in civil actions in 2017, 2019, & 2020.

3/8/21 Nona filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim against Red Rock

Nona’s 19 affirmative defenses say why Red Rock is not entitled to any requested relief
First Affirmative Defense: (Failure to State a Claim)

Plaintiff RRFS’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Nona Tobin upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to say what possible relief Nona Tobin could provide RRFS for its failure to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale in the manner proscribed by the statute.

Second Affirmative Defense: (Estoppel)

Each and every one of the Plaintiff’s alleged rights, claims, and obligations which it seeks to enforce against Defendant is, by Plaintiff’s conduct, agreement, or otherwise, barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

Third Affirmative Defense: (Fraud)

Plaintiff RRFS’s claims, and Nationstar’s claims, and each of them, are barred due to fraud.

Fourth AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: (Illegality)

Plaintiff’s claim is barred as a result of its prior wrongful conduct. The HOA sale at issue is void, as it involved agreements to commit illegal acts.

Fifth Affirmative Defense: (Waiver)

Each and all of Plaintiff’s rights, claims, and obligations as set forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, has, or have, by conduct, agreement or otherwise been waived.

Sixth Affirmative Defense: (Failure to join the HOA as an alleged necessary party per to NRCP (b)(6))

Plaintiff alleged in its 6/23/20 motion to dismiss into A-19-799890-C that Nona Tobin’s failure to join the HOA as a necessary party under NRCP 19 to protect its interest in the proceeds was grounds pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(6) to dismiss her unjust enrichment claim against RRFS for failure to distribute the proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale.

In its 2/15/21 complaint for interpleader, RRFS falsely stated on page 3

10. In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law.

2/16/21 Red Rock interpleader complaint, page 3, paragraph 10
Seventh AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:(General and Equitable Defenses Applicable to All Claims)
  • Plaintiff has suffered no damages and, therefore, is not entitled to relief.
  • Plaintiff has suffered no harm as a result of Defendant NONA TOBIN’s conduct.
  • Any damages suffered by Plaintiff were not the direct or proximate result of Defendant NONA TOBIN’s actions. If Plaintiff sustained any injuries, economic or otherwise, its injuries were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages and/or to take corrective action.  Accordingly, any and all recovery is barred or should be limited to the extent or degree of Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
  • Plaintiff RRFS’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and Plaintiff RRFS’s failure to do equity.
  • Plaintiff RRFS’s claims, if valid, are offset by the claims which Defendant has against Plaintiff. Defendant is not jointly or severally liable for any of the damages alleged in the claims.
  • At all times, Defendant NONA TOBIN acted in a legally permissible way.
Eighth Affirmative Defense: (Priority)

Red Rock and its attorneys know there are no recorded liens with priority over Nona Tobin’s claim as an individual with a deed recorded on 3/28/17 the sole beneficiary and successor in interest to the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08.

Ninth Affirmative Defense: (False claims to title)
  1. RRFS recorded defective and unauthorized claims against title on 12/14/12, 3/12/13, 4/3/13, 4/8/13, and caused a foreclosure deed to be recorded that contained false recitals so Defendant’s right of redemption was not lost.
  2. RRFS knows that Nationstar has recorded multiple unauthorized, false, and conflicting claims regarding the Hansen deed of trust and is judicially estopped from claiming a portion of the proceeds.
  3. Exhibit 1 is the Clark County 2003-2021 property record for the subject property, APN 191-13-811-052,  with false claims identified.
Tenth Affirmative Defense: (Violation of Covenant of Good Faith – NRS 116.1113)

Plaintiff did not conduct a fair, valid sale; did not participate in mediation in good faith; falsified records to create the deception that mandatory notices had been sent, misappropriated the HOA’s money; filed the NRCP 22 interpleader complaint and the 6/23/20 motion to dismiss into A-19-799890-C in bad faith for the improper purpose of preventing judicial scrutiny of the evidence. See Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

Eleventh Affirmative Defense: (Equitable Doctrines)

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, unclean hands, and failure to do equity by obstructing judicial scrutiny of the evidence to evade detection of the criminal conspiracy, racketeering, bid suppression, and other fraudulent conduct of the co-conspirators; provided falsified evidence in response to subpoena; withheld and misrepresented materials facts; conspired with others to commit a fraud on the court.

Twelfth Affirmative Defense: (Acceptance)

Any acceptance of any portion of the excess proceeds does not “satisfy” the amount due and owing to  Defendant NONA TOBIN as the result of the unfair and fraudulent foreclosure sale conducted by RRFS, and acceptance would not constitute a waiver of her rights under Nevada law or Sun City Anthem’s governing documents.

Thirteenth Affirmative Defense: Waiver and Estoppel

By reason of Plaintiff RRFS’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff RRFS has waived its rights and is estopped from asserting any claims against NONA TOBIN, either as an individual or as the trustee of the Hansen Trust.

By reason of Plaintiff RRFS’s acts and omissions, and conspiracy with Nationstar, RRFS is judicially estopped from claiming that Nationstar has any rights to the proceeds, as it was never was the Hansen promissory noteholder or the beneficiary or the trustee with power of sale

 By virtue of its false evidence entered into the court record in response to subpoena, Plaintiff RRFS has waived its rights and is estopped from asserting that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish NONA TOBIN’s rights, privileges and title.

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment

Plaintiff RRFS concealed that it had covertly, unilaterally rejected two super-priority tenders, either one of which RRFS knows, voided the sale in its entirety.

RRFS 047, 8/28/14 memo to Steven Scow, and RRFS 048, 8/21/14 $57,282.32 check made out to Clark County District Court, were not interpleaded in 2014, were retained in the wrong trust fund, violated RRFS’s fiduciary duty as Sun City Anthem’s agent, and were deceptive disclosures, following the same corrupt modus operandi as Koch & Scow have employed with multiple other undistributed proceeds.

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense: (Failure to Mitigate Damages)

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because of the Plaintiffs’ failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

Sixteenth Affirmative Defense: Unconstitutional

The HOA sale is void as noncompliant with the Property Clause of the United States Constitution.

Defendant NONA TOBIN cannot be deprived of her property interest in violation of the Procedural Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sec. 8, of the Nevada Constitution.

Seventeenth Affirmative Defense: (Statutory Violations)

The HOA sale is void or otherwise does not operate to extinguish the title rights of Nona Tobin, an individual, as the successor in interest to the Hansen Trust or of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/2/08, property owner at the time of the defective HOA sale as the due process and notices required pursuant to NRS 116.31031 and/or NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31164 were provided to Nona Tobin prior to or subsequent to the sale and non-compliance with applicable Nevada statutes, inter alia, NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310, NRS 116.31162 -NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.1112, NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31087, NRS 116.31175, NRS 116.31185, NRS 116.31187, NRS 116.4117

Eighteenth Affirmative Defense: (Rejections of two super-priority payments)

RRFS and Nationstar concealed that RRFS covertly rejected Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s 5/28/14 offer to pay the HOA $1100 three months over the super-priority portion of the HOA lien to close the 5/8/14 www.auction.com $367,500 sale to MZK Properties to the HOA and/or its agents and therefore discharged the super-priority portion of the HOA’s lien, so that title by foreclosure passed to the buyer subject to the deed of trust.

Nineteenth Affirmative Defense:(Violations of HOA CC&Rs Owner Protections)

The HOA sale is void as noncompliant with the CC&Rs 7.4 Clause that defines the due process required before a sanction can be imposed against a homeowner for an alleged violation of the governing documents.

Litigation was only required because SCA’s manager, RRFS, and the HOA’s insurance carrier’s attorneys obstructed Nona Tobin’s access to the HOA CC&Rs XVI Limitations on Litigation provision. SeeWhy Alternate Dispute Resolution?”