Category: Attorney fees

What allegations of attorney misconduct were made against Sun City Anthem Attorneys

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar against David Ochoa and Adam Clarkson that was accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice of a complaint filed with the State Bar.

The complaint had not been investigated by the State Bar as shown below. I had to get a court order with written findings before they would investigate these allegations.

Their actions prevented my quiet title case from being resolved fairly in 2017-2019.

They covered up the fraud of the HOA’s former agents by lying to the court and framing me.

  1. David Ochoa, Lipson Neilson P. C., under direction from Adam Clarkson, The Clarkson Law Group, were the lawyers for Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc., party in the first action who presented the falsified Red Rock foreclosure files to the court and misrepresented them as if they were the HOA’s concealed official records SCA’s attorneys filed a meritless motion for summary judgment to quiet a title in which the HOA held no interest and supported it with the falsified Red Rock records. SCA’s attorneys defamed Tobin and unlawfully removed her from her elected position on the HOA Board for being a party to the quiet title litigation of a house she inherited and have pursued a relentless campaign of harassment and retaliation against her over the past five years both for being a litigant herein and for being a whistleblower about other unrelated HOA matters.
  2. SCA attorneys usurped the statutory authority of the HOA Board to enforce, and to impose fines and sanctions for alleged violations of, the HOA’s governing documents according to the terms of the Act (NRS 116). SCA attorneys obstructed Tobin’s access to Alternate Dispute Resolution (CC&Rs XVI, NRS 38.310) and then used abusive, potentially criminal (NRS 199.480(2)(c), NRS 199.210, NRS 193.130(d), NRS 199.145) litigation tactics to obstruct her ability to fully and fairly litigate her civil claims.
  3. SCA attorneys acted in bad faith and did not serve the interests of the HOA or the common good of the HOA membership at large. The attorneys acted for their own self-interest (Clarkson) or in the interest of other parties (Clarkson and Ochoa), e.g., Sandy Seddon, Red Rock or the HOA’s insurance carrier
  4. Defendant Ochoa made false statements to the court on at least these dates 3/28/17 RTRAN, 4/27/17 RTRAN, 5/23/17 RTRAN, 5/25/17 RTRAN, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 RTRAN,  9/10/19 video, 9/10/19 minutes, submitted a false document to the court on these dates: 3/22/17, 3/27/17, 3/31/17, 4/18/17, 9/20/17. 4/20/18,  2/5/19, 3/6/19, 4/18/19, 5/2/19, 5/24/19, 5/31/19, 8/8/19, 8/9/19, 8/22/19, 11/22/19, 3/30/20, 7/1/20, or improperly withheld material information from the court on at least these dates: 5/31/18, 2/11/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/19, and caused serious injury to Tobin as an individual, and caused a significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.
  5. Ochoa knew that this phrase that he wrote into the 4/18/19 order was false,

“The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.

  • All documentary evidence, including declarations under penalty of perjury and sworn affidavits, put before the court on, inter alia, these dates: 9/23/16, 1/31/17, 3/3/17, 2/9/18, 5/31/18, 7/13/18, 12/5/18, 2/7/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/9, 2/27/19, 2/28/19. 2/28/19, 4/10/19, 4/12/19, 4/17/19, 4/24/19, 4/29/19, 5/23/19, 8/20/19, 8/26/19 – support the Tobin/Hansen Trust claims. However, the court relied solely on misrepresentations and false evidence by Ochoa and other opposing counsels, to adopt the erroneous orders entered on 4/18/19, 5/31/19 and 6/24/19.
  • Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Ochoa himself produced or the true evidence that he himself concealed and withheld, Ochoa and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 4/27/17 RTRAN, 5/23/17 RTRAN, 5/25/17 RTRAN, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 RTRAN,  9/10/19 video, 9/10/19 minutes, 3/22/17, 3/27/17, 3/31/17, 4/18/17, 9/20/17. 4/20/18,  2/5/19, 5/31/18, 2/11/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/19,
  • The order, authored by Ochoa, entered on 5/31/19, contains the false statements, completely unsupported by any verified evidence, (See EXHIBIT C of 3/6/22 Bar complaint.) that:

“The substantial exhibits that have been submitted in this case demonstrate that Nona Tobin as Trustee of the Trust was aware of the foreclosure and did nothing to stop the foreclosure. The May 2, 2019 (sic) Order, without addressing superpriority, establishes the HOA had a valid lien and properly noticed the foreclosure sale.”

  • Pages 48 to 55 of the draft complaint against Ochoa and Clarkson delineate the false evidence they entered into the court record primarily via records obtained from Steven Scow.
  • Exhibit A: Ochoa Obstructed Settlement
  • Exhibit C: Misrepresented and Suppressed Evidence
  • Exhibit D: Concealed Evidence
  • Exhibit E: Disclosed false & falsified evidence
  • Exhibit E-1 Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure file in SCA 176 – 643
  • Exhibit E-2 Examples of false evidence
  • Exhibit E-3 Red Rock Foreclosure file is false, falsified and disclosed as SCA 176-643
  • Exhibit F: Filed non-meritorious claims
  • Exhibit G: Concealed there were no Valid Board Actions
  • Exhibit G-1 Limits on closed HOA Board meetings
  • EXHIBIT G-2: SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws
  • EXHIBIT G-3: SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014
  • EXHIBIT G-4 SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures conducted by Red Rock Financial Services in SCA 2012-2014 agendas and minutes excerpted for items related to foreclosure or debt
  • Exhibit G-5 is 5/23/19 Exhibit 5 “No valid board authorization for the sale” was misrepresented by David Ochoa and ignored by the court
  • Exhibit H – More disputed facts in the order (NEO 4/18/19) that granted the HOA MSJ and Nationstar joinder

Clarkson unlawfully removed me from my elected seat on the SCA Board in 2017 and has obstructed my running every year since

Judge Peterson forgot I was the victim and thinks Scow did nothing wrong keeping the excess proceeds from the HOA sale for 8+years

What the law requires

What interpleader standard is

“Legal Standard “In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who might have a claim to the money, deposits the money with the district court, and lets the claimants litigate who is entitled to the money.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992)

“Accordingly, many courts have held that those who have acted in bad faith to create a controversy over the stake may not claim the protection of interpleader. See, e.g., Kent v. N. Cal. Reg’l Office of Am. Friends Serv. Comm., 497 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1974) (“Interpleader, which is an equitable remedy, is not available to one who has voluntarily accepted funds knowing they are subject to competing claims.”) (citations omitted); Farmers Irrigating Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Kane, 845 F.2d 229, 232 (10th Cir.1988) (“It is the general rule that a party seeking interpleader must be free from blame in causing the controversy, and where he stands as a wrongdoer with respect to the subject matter of the suit or any of the claimants, he cannot have relief by interpleader.”) (collecting cases); see also44B Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 7 (“The equitable doctrine of ‘clean hands’ applies to interpleader actions.”

Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows interpleader of disputed funds where a Plaintiff is subject to double or multiple liability. Perfekt Mktg., LLC v. Luxury Vacation Deals, LLC, 2015 WL 10012987, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2015). The purpose of the interpleader is for the stakeholder to “protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants to a single fund.” Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012).

What interpleader asks the court to do

An interpleader action typically involves two stages. Id. In the first stage, the district court decides whether the requirements for a rule or statutory interpleader action have been met by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claimants to that fund. Id. If the Court finds that the interpleader action has been properly brought, it then makes a determination of the respective rights of the claimants. Id.”)

What the facts here are

Red Rock instructed Steven Scow to interplead $57,282.32 on 8/28/14 which was declared “excess funds” after Red Rock took its fees and the HOA had been paid in full. Red Rock did not have standing in 2021 to file an interpleader action.

Steven Scow concealed his and other’s wrongdoing

Steven Scow concealed his possession of the money and its location. He hid the fact that all named defendants had released their liens before the conclusion of the first action. Scow obscured his obstruction of my claim for the proceeds in the first action by refusing to provide them during mediation. He also hindered my second civil claim for the proceeds by filing a motion to dismiss it with prejudice, citing res judicata and the failure to include the HOA as a necessary party.

Scow further obscured his interference with my quiet title claims in the first two actions by providing inaccurate, incomplete, false, and falsified Red Rock foreclosure records. This prevented the sale from being entirely voided and allowed Nationstar and its co-conspirators to commit fraud on the court by having the sale declared valid regarding the sub-priority.

The attorneys perpetrated fraud on the court, covering up that Red Rock rejected assessments that cured the default three times, the sale would have been fairly voided in its entirety in the 1st action, and we would not be still litigating four years later without a judge ever looking at the evidence.

I was the sole claimant after June 3, 2019

3/12/15 Wells Fargo released the lien of the 2nd deed of trust

3/28/17 Gordon B. Hansen Trust closed and assigned its title interest to sole beneficiary Nona Tobin as an individual

6/3/19 Nationstar released the lien of the 1st deed of trust

What Judge Peterson believes despite the law and the facts supported by the evidence

She believes there is some unwritten law that says Red Rock doesn’t have to distribute the proceeds after the sale if someone might try to unwind the sale years later.

Judge Peterson buys into Red Rock’s argument so much she argues for them.

Judge Peterson’s argument matches Nationstar’s 4/26/21 argument also when she allowed multiple disinterested entities to oppose the funds being distributed to the sole claimant.

I didn’t file any quiet title claims against Nationstar in the 1st action and Nationstar didn’t file any against me.

I wanted the sale to be void to return to our respective positions. Nationstar filed for summary judgment against the Hansen trust, but not against me as an individual, met ex arte with the judge, got me removed as an individual party and got all my evidence suppressed, lied to the court to say that it was BANA’s successor in interest, then rescinded that claim a week after the end of discover, filed motion after motion to prevent me from being able to return to my pro se status to be able to represent myself or to be the real party in interest after the Hansen Trust was closed, made a fraudulent side deal with Jimijack, filed motions to have me declared a vexatious litigant, opposed the excess proceeds to be distributed to me as the sole claimant, and on and on and on.

Why? Because Nationstar had no standing to foreclose

Because if the sale were voided in its entirety, than Nationstar would have to prove based on evidence that it actually had NRS 104.3301 standing to foreclose, and we both knew it couldn’t.

Thus, by eliminating my involvement, Nationstar obtained $355,000 for releasing the lien on the 1st deed of trust, which they falsely claimed to own from non-party Joel A. Stokes, on June 3, 2019, just two days prior to the show trial in the 1st action – a trial that neither Joel Stokes nor Nationstar were required to attend, and from which I was barred – all documentary evidence and witnesses were excluded.

For the result of a meritless interpleader action to be the preclusion of all the victim’s claims and the imposition of a vexatious litigant restrictive order for forced defense against entities who have no standing is unfair and disproportionate.

Judge Peterson’s bias gifted the case to my opponents

Steven Scow filed the interpleader action knowing it was meritless

Link to previous blogs (ScaStrong.com/tag/interpleader) on how this interpleader action was filed in bad faith because the law required ALL proceeds be distributed AFTER THE SALE, no one but me had standing to make a claim after June 3, 2019 and Scow got my 6/3/20 civil claim for the proceeds dismissed with prejudice before he sued me and four other defendants without standing on February 16, 2021 to interplead the excess proceeds he should have distributed in 2014.

Interpleader requires single fund, neutral stakeholder, and adverse claimants

This case: wrongfully withheld funds, misidentified, implicated holder joined by disinterested opponents to attack single claimant with standing

Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, Case No.: 2:11-cv-00186-GMN-GWF, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2011) (“Procedurally, an interpleader action encompasses two stages: First the district court decides whether the requirements for rule or statutory interpleader action have been met by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claims to the fund. In the second stage the court makes a determination of the respective rights of the claimants. Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2010). (citing Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1999)). 28 U.S.C. § 1335 allows a stakeholder, “to file an interpleader action to protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants to a single fund.” Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1999). ”)

Nevada case law supports sanctions for filing a meritless interpleader action knowing there is only one claimant and the other have no standing

Filing a meritless interpleader action could be sanctionable if the filer attorney has knowingly unlawfully held one person’s money and the other defendants have no standing to make a claim. Sanctions may be appropriate if the filer acted in bad faith, recklessly, or vexatiously, or if the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

Michelman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Interpleader is proper when a stakeholder has at least a good faith belief that there are conflicting colorable claims.”)

“See Tise, 234 F.3d at 426-27; Wells Fargo Bank v. PACCAR Fin. Corp., No. 1:08-CV-00904 AWI SMS, 2009 WL 211386, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 28, 2009). Further, “[b]ecause the interpleader plaintiff is supposed to be disinterested in the ultimate disposition of the fund, attorneys’ fee awards are properly limited to those fees that are incurred in filing the action and pursuing the plan’s release from liability, not in litigating the merits of the adverse claimants’ positions.””

Several of the cases cited here suggest that filing a meritless interpleader action could be sanctionable. For example, in Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., the Ninth Circuit discussed the principle that interpleader is not available to a party who has knowingly accepted funds subject to competing claims. This suggests that if an attorney files an interpleader action knowing that one of the defendants has no standing to make a claim, the attorney could be subject to sanctions. Additionally, in Mayorga v. Ronaldo, the court discussed its authority to sanction an attorney for bad faith conduct, including under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which authorizes an award of fees and costs against an attorney whose reckless conduct causes a litigant to incur them. This authority could be used to argue that filing a meritless interpleader action could be sanctionable if the filer acted in bad faith, recklessly, or vexatiously. Several other cases, such as Crawford v. Smith’s Food & Drug Store, Inc. and Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Seiu Local 24/7, discuss the circumstances under which attorneys’ fees may be awarded as a sanction for bad faith conduct. These cases suggest that sanctions may be appropriate if the interpleader action is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

Equitable doctrine of ‘clean hands’ applies to interpleader actions

Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2012) (““It is generally recognized that interpleader ‘developed in equity and is governed by equitable principles.’ ” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona,223 F.3d 1030, 1033–34 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Lummis v. White,629 F.2d 397, 399 (5th Cir.1980), rev’d on other grounds by Cory v. White,457 U.S. 85, 102 S.Ct. 2325, 72 L.Ed.2d 694 (1982); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Marsh,119 F.3d 415, 418 (6th Cir.1997) (“[I]nterpleader is fundamentally equitable in nature.”)). Accordingly, many courts have held that those who have acted in bad faith to create a controversy over the stake may not claim the protection of interpleader. See, e.g., Kent v. N. Cal. Reg’l Office of Am. Friends Serv. Comm.,497 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1974) (“Interpleader, which is an equitable remedy, is not available to one who has voluntarily accepted funds knowing they are subject to competing claims.”) (citations omitted); Farmers Irrigating Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Kane,845 F.2d 229, 232 (10th Cir.1988) (“It is the general rule that a party seeking interpleader must be free from blame in causing the controversy, and where he stands as a wrongdoer with respect to the subject matter of the suit or any of the claimants, he cannot have relief by interpleader.”) (collecting cases); see also44B Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 7 (“The equitable doctrine of ‘clean hands’ applies to interpleader actions. The party seeking interpleader must do equity, not have caused the conflicting claims, and be free from blame in causing the controversy.”) (footnotes omitted).”)

Scow used interpleader to cover up his wrongdoing

On 2/16/21 Scow, concealed that he personally had unlawfully withheld the excess proceeds that Red Rock had instructed him to remit to the court on 8/28/14.

This is conversion, not interpleader

Scow caused summons to be served in the name of his client, Plaintiff FirstService Residential Nevada LLC (EIN 88-0358132) dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (“Red Rock”)(whose partners he refused to disclose in discovery in the 1st action) when he knew Red Rock had no standing to file an interpleader complaint as it didn’t have the money and it didn’t face adverse competing interests. Scow served five defendants knowing that four of the five defendants had no standing to claim the interpleaded funds.

I know of no legal way for Scow to take a check made out to the court and transfer it under his own personal proprietary control, particularly since Red rock ceased to be a fiduciary agent for Sun City Anthem in 2015. Under the bylaws of that HOA, Red Rock had to surrender all of the funds that it had on account collected under the statutory authority of SCA to the SCA Board in April 2015.

Nevertheless, Judge Peterson insisted that this was an ordinary interpleader action and I was not allowed to have any other claims against Steven Scow.

Scow unlawfully withheld $3,500 from the $57,282.32 that Red Rock had designated as “excess funds” knowing that the statute specifically does not authorize any attorney fees to be deducted from the amount designated as “excess” to file an interpleader complaint.

Judge Peterson, by granting a non-party’s motion, dismissed my 3/8/21 AACC, all counter- and cross-claims and affirmative defenses, including unclean hands, with prejudice, without requiring Red Rock to respond

On 3/8/21 I, Nona Tobin, as an individual, filed the only timely answer, affirmative defenses, and compulsory counterclaims, including a claim for the proceeds. My 19 affirmative defenses listed unclean hands at number 11.

  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
  9. Priority
  10. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  11. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  12. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  13. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  14. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  15. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11.pdf
  16. Failure to mitigate damages
  17. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  18. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  19. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  20. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation

Judge Peterson did not dismiss Nationstar and Wells Fargo when they failed to make any compulsory counter-claims and did not answer my cross-claims

On 4/12/21, I filed a motion for an order to distribute the proceeds with interest to me as the sole claimant but Judge Peterson disregarded the law and let disinterested entities oppose me

On 4/26/21/ Judge Peterson let non-claimants Nationstar and Wells Fargo oppose the funds going to the sole claimant as long as I had other claims

Judge Peterson let Red Rock join the disinterested banks’ opposition even though Red Rock was supposed to be neutral

Red Rock’s/Scow’s true motives, and the banks’ collusion, for not distributing the proceeds after the sale, should now be apparent, but in case it’s not I’ll do a separate blog on that.

Scow knows that the banks are not going to make a claim for the proceeds and that if he can keep the owner from making a claim, then he can keep them, and the money trail will be virtually impossible to follow.

Being forced to pay attorney fees to Scow given his bad faith conduct is just plain wrong. He should be audited to account for the excess proceeds that were not distributed after the red Rock sales.

Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 2:19-cv-00168-JAD-DJA, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 14, 2023) (“The American Rule recognizes that each party in litigation must bear its own attorney’s fees in the absence of a rule, statute, or contract authorizing an award of fees.”)

“Courts usually award attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff in interpleader actions absent a showing of bad faith. Schirmer Stevedoring Co. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 188, 194-95 (9th Cir. 1962).” Here, however, bad faith abounds, and attorney fees are definitely not appropriate.

What happens when attorneys take over and control HOA Boards?

This TikToK video shows what happens when outsized attorney fees make it impossible for a homeowner and his HOA to resolve a problem that neither of them started.

Whats happening in Sun City Anthem?

I got elected to Sun City Anthem Board on 5/1/17, the same day that Adam Clarkson was hired to be both the HOA’s attorney and its debt collector. From my very first meeting, Clarkson took actions against me, beginning with ordering me to recuse myself from all collection matters, past or present, then repreated cease & desist orders, demanding that I stop identifying myself as an elected member of the Board with any authority to speak an opinion, regardless of my professional expertise, if it differed from his “advice of counsel” of from the majority of the board. His most strident attacks were designed to threanen me into silence whenever I made any comment that was negative about the manager’s performance.

SCA’s “HOME” Page Says it all

Why I set up SCAstrong.com

Before I got booted off the Board on August 24, 2017, my concept of this website was to improve owner relations and to develop a strategic vision and plan like www.HendersonStrong.org. However, that PollyAnna has left the building. Now, a sadder, but wiser, gal is talking and my new purpose is:

  • To show how owners are paying for the expensive ride the GM & attorney have taken us on by duping the Board into following instead of leading.
  • To restore my reputation to its former glory.
  • To get the Board members & bloggers out of power that are hurting us, dividing us, and are treating some of us a lot better than others.
  • To develop new leaders who have their heads on straight & who haven’t had the fire in the belly kicked out of them yet.

Hot Button Issues examined in blog posts

  • The cost of the failed 2017 removal election of four Directors which was made 10 times higher than it would have been by the GM and attorney usurping the role of the SCA Election Committee against the wishes of the petitioners
  • Huge expenditure of unbudgeted association funds for legal fees – tripe the budget since Adam Clarkson started
  • 2017 Vote of no Confidence Petition against the General Manager
  • Unlawful actions by the SCA Board and management
  • Concealing and falsifying the official SCA records
  • Excessive management compensation
  • Eviction of the Foundation Assisting Seniors

What you’ll learn from blog posts on SCAstrong.com

  • What I’m doing about being illegally kicked off the Sun City Anthem Board just 116 days after 2,001 homeowners voted me onto the Board and two weeks after 825 owners called for a removal election to get rid of four of the other Directors.
  • Why those 825 homeowners signed petitions to remove four Board members: Rex Weddle, Aletta Waterhouse, Tom Nissen & Bob Burch.
  • Why 2,501 homeowners need to VOTE in the removal election scheduled for October 2nd – 20th, 2017.
  • Why all SCA homeowners need to take action to stop being taken for a very expensive ride by:
    • A Board that makes decisions over 50% of the time in secret
    • A General Manager who is paid more than $100,000 over market, 
    • An unnecessary Community Association Manager who does not protect homeowners (so, why do we need two managers?), and 
    • An attorney who has billed three times the budgeted amount – to stop me from being a whistle-blower, to evict the Foundation Assisting Seniors, and to overly protect management.

Why should you care?

  • If the Board is not fair to one, the system is not fair to all.
  • Six members of the board abused their power by making the decision to kick me off in secret without a hearing and without a membership vote.
  • Those same six Directors  evicted the Foundation Assisting Seniors in the same sneaky and unfair way.
  • What you need to care about is how to stop these people from trampling on all of our rights.
Nona Tobin, 9/25/17 SCAStrong.com Home Page

September 2017 SCAStrong.com archives show the entrenchment of power

September 2017 blogs linked here show that the same things are happening now. Clarkson and Seddon are still being unjustly enriched by manipulating the composition of the Sun City Anthem Board.

Call to Action – Stop SB 417

Please contact your State legislator and beg them not to pass SB 417. It just legalizes the corruption SCA has been fighting for years.

Legislators’ contact info

Request for Judicial Notice: Laws & Regulations Exhibit 7 Victim access to remedies

NRS 207.470       actions for damages resulting from racketeering.

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

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

      3.  Any civil action or proceeding under this section must be instituted in the district court of the State in the county in which the prospective defendant resides or has committed any act which subjects him or her to criminal or civil liability under this section or NRS 205.322, 207.400 or 207.460.

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

NRS 207.480  Order of court upon determination of civil liability.  

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

NRS 207.480

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

NRS 38.310             Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions.

NRS 38.320             Submission of claim for mediation or referral to program of dispute resolution; contents of claim; fees; service of claim; written answer.

NRS 38.330             Procedure for mediation or arbitration of claim; payment of costs and fees upon failure to obtain a more favorable award or judgment in court.

Sun City Anthem CC&Rs XVI: DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND LIMITATION ON LITIGATION

NRS 116.4117  Effect of violations on rights of action; civil action for damages for failure or refusal to comply with provisions of chapter or governing documents; members of executive board not personally liable to victims of crimes; circumstances under which punitive damages may be awarded; attorney’s fees.

      1.  Subject to the requirements set forth in subsection 2, if a declarant, community manager or any other person subject to this chapter fails to comply with any of its provisions or any provision of the declaration or bylaws, any person or class of persons suffering actual damages from the failure to comply may bring a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief.

      2.  Subject to the requirements set forth in NRS 38.310 and except as otherwise provided in NRS 116.3111, a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief for a failure or refusal to comply with any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of an association may be brought:

      4.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, punitive damages may be awarded for a willful and material failure to comply with any provision of this chapter if the failure is established by clear and convincing evidence.

      6.  The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

      7.  The civil remedy provided by this section is in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other available remedy or penalty.

NRS 116.4117

Request for Judicial Notice: Laws & 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

NRCP 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(b) Representations to the Court.

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

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

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

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

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

NRCP 11(b)
(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred for presenting or opposing the motion.

(3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a

penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

NRCP 11(c)

 NRS 18.010  Award of attorney’s fees.

      2.  In addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute, the court may make an allowance of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party:

(b) Without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party. The court shall liberally construe the provisions of this paragraph in favor of awarding attorney’s fees in all appropriate situations. It is the intent of the Legislature that the court award attorney’s fees pursuant to this paragraph and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to the public

NRS 18.010(2)(b)

NRS 42.005  Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. Except as otherwise provided in this section or by specific statute, an award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant to this section may not exceed:      

(a) Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more;

3.  If punitive damages are claimed pursuant to this section, the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed. The trier of fact shall make a finding of the amount to be assessed according to the provisions of this section. The findings required by this section, if made by a jury, must be made by special verdict along with any other required findings. The jury must not be instructed, or otherwise advised, of the limitations on the amount of an award of punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1.

NRS 42.005 (1) (3)

NRS 41.1395  Action for damages for injury or loss suffered by older or vulnerable person from abuse, neglect or exploitation; double damages; attorney’s fees and costs.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, if an older person or a vulnerable person suffers a personal injury or death that is caused by abuse or neglect or suffers a loss of money or property caused by exploitation, the person who caused the injury, death or loss is liable to the older person or vulnerable person for two times the actual damages incurred by the older person or vulnerable person.

2.  If it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that a person who is liable for damages pursuant to this section acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice, the court shall order the person to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the person who initiated the lawsuit.

4.  For the purposes of this section:

      (b) “Exploitation” means any act taken by a person who has the trust and confidence of an older person or a vulnerable person or any use of the power of attorney or guardianship of an older person or a vulnerable person to:

             (1) Obtain control, through deception, intimidation or undue influence, over the money, assets or property of the older person or vulnerable person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property; or

             (2) Convert money, assets or property of the older person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property.

      (d) “Older person” means a person who is 60 years of age or older.

NRS 41.1395
 “Legal Issues Related to Elder Abuse: A Desk Guide for Law Enforcement” American Bar Association

Sandy Seddon used our HOA attorney to help her in her divorce

Clarkson Law Group became Sun City Anthem’s Legal Counsel & debt collector on 5/1/17, the same day I was elected to the SCA Board of Directors. John Ayler, on the far right, of the Clarkson Law Group, inappropriately represented Sandy Seddon’s interests, on SCA owners’ dime, at this 8/30/17 hearing before the Discovery Commissioner related to motion to compel production of Sandy’s personnel records and toxicology report re alcohol abuse.

At this hearing the SCA attorney said the petition against her was nothing under the law:

“and further explained the petition of no confidence is not something that exists under the law or under the Association’s governing documents. It is of no consequence. There’s nothing with associations hasn’t recognize these homeowners have no authority over removing her from her position of employment

John Ayler, attempting to rationalize why it would be contrary to the association’s interest to let the divorce court know the truth

This hearing was six days after:

Adam Clarkson & Sandy Seddon took over the recall election

Adam Clarkson unlawfully removed me from my elected Board seat

Adam Clarkson advised the Board to conceal my complaints against his law firm and Sandy Seddon

Our HOA attorney’s attempts to conceal Sandy Seddon’s records from discovery in her divorce occurred 18 days after:

SCA management received petitions against four directors calling for NRS 116.31136 elections to remove them from the Board

SCA management received a petition calling for a vote of no confidence against Sandy Seddon

SCA management withheld notice of the receipt of the petitions from the Board – or at least from me

General manager Sandy Seddon did not answer – only one of the Board members who was facing a recall petition answered

General Manager Sandy Seddon did not answer again knowing that she would be protected by the attorney and the four directors who also had petitions against them

John Ayler wrote a 2nd cease & desist letter ordering me not to criticize Sandy Seddon evidencing his complete misunderstanding of the facts and the law related to confidentiality and privilege

Our HOA attorney-debt collector represented Sandy Seddon in her divorce eight days after:

Clarkson denied me access to documents requested as a member of the Board attacking me, defaming me, and misquoting the law

Our HOA attorney-debt collector represented Sandy Seddon in her divorce one day after:

Sandy Seddon published Clarkson’s defamatory, legally-inaccurate explanation justifying my removal from the board – that I was profiting from being on the Board

Darcy Spears nails it about abusive HOA foreclosures

Click on photo for 4-minute Darcy Spears video. Slide right of bell for sound.

Lucky buyer got a half million dollar house for $30,000…
but he’s getting an even bigger windfall

  • He won’t make a mortgage payment – an HOA sale extinguishes the bank’s right to foreclose according to the Nevada Supreme Court
  • He may not pay property taxes. The bank will probably keep paying them property taxes while the case winds its way through the courts over the next few (or not so few) years
  • He didn’t pay Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) on the full market value because the Recorder’s office didn’t notice that he claimed the market value was  $30,000

Nice deal if you can get it

…but just exactly how did that guy, Frank Komorowski from Williamsville New York, even know about the auction.

The homeowner and her real estate agent didn’t know it was going to auction and neither did the potential buyer who had an offer on the table.

The sale was advertised in the Nevada Legal News, but that seems to be a hard way for a guy off the street to find out about how to take advantage of such a spectacular windfall.

Frank is a Super Shopper indeed

I’m not saying Frank Komorowski is a straw buyer, but he’s gotten some really great deals in 2018 besides the one in Darcy’s story:

  • Red Rock Financial sold him a condo in Gowan Cliff Shadows for $5,000 on 2/13/18 at an unknown sale location
  • National Default Servicing sold him a place in Monteverdi HOA  for $30,000
  • Hampton & Hampton gouged him out of $6,541 to buy unit 221, 5751 Hacienda Ave., $0.50 more than the unpaid debt, without even bothering with the pretense of an auction

Who was notified about the sale?

That’s a very good question, and, now my curiosity is piqued. So, to find out, I’m doing a little more public records research.

If random guy can make a killing at these mysterious HOA sales, who’s on the losing end of the deal?

Just about everybody else

  1. It’s not just the homeowner that loses.
  2. Taxpayers subsidized the sale by his shorting the county on the property transfer tax (Frank paid $153 on each $30,000 sale and  instead of the $2,200 that he would have had to pay if he had declared the fair market value.
  3. According to Nevada Realtors Association, the property value of each house in an HOA is diminished 1.7% for each foreclosure, but since there are two HOAs mentioned on the foreclosure deed, it’s not clear which homeowners.
  4. The homeowners in Summerlin West will pick up the tab for all the attorneys fees while the bank sues Frank and the homeowner sues Frank, and the debt collectors will ride off into the sunset with the $30,000 Frank paid less the nine months of assessments plus interest that the HOA gets.
  5. The real estate agent who worked hard on the short sale will be paid zero because the sale was snatched out from under him as well.
  6. The bank loses big (unless it’s a bank that’s contributing to the problem by recording false affidavits on titles (but that’s another story for another time).

That can’t be right!

Well, it’s certainly not morally right for HOAs to allow their agents to engage in abusive debt collection practices.

Doesn’t the law limit collection fees?

Yes. It’s definitely not legal to keep money that’s not yours. NRS 116.31164 says exactly how the proceeds of an HOA sale are to be distributed. The debt collectors just don’t do it.

Keeping all the money (except nine months of assessments to the HOA plus interest) is just about all they distribute because they have been getting away with it.

Moral hazard

No big surprise.

When there is so much money to be made by cutting corners and playing fast and loose with the rules, lots of people who are supposed to be fiduciaries go to the dark side.

What about at SCA?

SCA is no better. SCA has been ripped off by EVERY ONE OF ITS DEBT COLLECTORS, to a greater or lessor degree, since 2014 (that I know of, for sure).

For example, in April, 2015, SCA hired some very crooked attorneys, Alessi & Koenig, LLC, as debt collectors, after SCA dumped Red Rock Financial Services (who was really SCA managing agent FSR in disguise).

A & K filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in January, 2017, allegedly because A & K was named in over 500 lawsuits out of the 800+ HOA foreclosures they did between 2011-2015, not to mention a $640,000 judgment against them for bid rigging and racketeering in the Melinda Ellis case. (You’re right. They stiffed her.)

When the A & K bankruptcy was dismissed, and the creditors were told to pound salt, it looks like the attorney/debt collectors had kept $2.6 million out of $2.9 million they admitted receiving in HOA sales proceeds.

And there’s a multi-million dollar mansion in David Alessi’s sister’s trust’s name in Malibu (unless he’s picked a new place to hide  assets from creditors).

Retained quite a bit over the legal limit, I’d say.

Next time

More to come about the exciting ways HOA agents make the big bucks for a few lucky winner while the HOA homeowners foot the bill.

“Heads will roll if lips aren’t sealed about GM pay”

Or, anyway, that was the threat, before…

Contact13’s Darcy Spears highlighted Sun City Anthem’s excessive executive compensation on the “HOA Hall of Shame” on Channel 13 action news last Thursday.

Living in Las Vegas can cost more when your home is in an HOA, but where does all the money go? Contact 13 looks at who’s getting a big slice of the pie in one of the largest communities in Southern Nevada. Click on photo to watch 3 1/2-minute video.

Threatened with legal action? Really?

Did you catch that report at the end of the video?

Neither the GM or the Board would even answer KTNV’s call to explain how the SCA Board justified such big payouts.

“Instead, they had an attorney respond who claimed State law prohibited the HOA from discussing anything about salaries and we learned the HOA threatened legal action against some owners after Contact13 started asking questions about manager pay rates.”

Is any of that true?

It is 100% true that the GM has used OUR attorney to threaten legal action to try to keep her pay a secret.
  • against me personally,
  • against other owners,
  • against the association itself, and
  • in this case, against a TV station,

But, it is 100% legally and morally wrong to use our SCA attorney to unlawfully hide from owners how much of OUR money is going into her pocket.

Are any SCA employee salaries/ benefits confidential by nevada law?
Short answer:       No.

Per NRS 116.31175, most personnel records are confidential, but not compensation.

…4(a) The personnel records of the employees of the association (are confidential), except for those records relating to the number of hours worked and the salaries and benefits of those employees;

Why would the SCA attorney say employee compensation is confidential when the law clearly says the opposite?

In my view, he is simply representing the wrong client.

As the SCA association attorney, he is being paid by the owners to act as OUR agent, not to be the GM’s agent.

In fact, there is a law specifically prohibiting him from representing the GM because it is a conflict of interest. See NRS 116A.640(6). He is duty bound by law to act, solely and exclusively, in the best interests of the association membership as a whole.

But, is he?

I certainly don’t see it. I see the GM approving tons of unnecessary attorney fees that owners pay to protect her imaginary privacy rights.

And like Ricky Ricardo, I think Adam Clarkson has some ‘splainin’ to do.
Why did I get a threatening letter because of this story?

I was told this story was taped, after the fact, last October, but then nothing happened, and I forgot about it.

On 12/22/17, I submitted a written request for SCA to update the 2017 employee compensation table that had been given to another resident on 1/31/17. The budget was ratified in November, and I suspected the Board had given the GM another bonus in secret despite the petition for a vote of no confidence signed by 825 owners and her failure to meet the 12/31/17 target about the restaurant.

When CAM Elyssa Rammos emailed me around 1/15/18 that the 2018 salary table was ready to pick up at the front desk, I was in Mexico and asked for it electronically.

When I got no response, I asked Ruby Leong to pick it up and email it to me before the MLK 3-day weekend. They gave her the run around.

“It’s not ready.
We gave it to someone else.
We have to make changes.”

None of which was true.

The reason for the stonewalling was exactly what Darcy Spears said. Between the time Elyssa Rammos had notified me that the 2018 employee compensation chart was ready, and Ruby Leong could drive a few blocks to pick it up, Sandy Seddon had gotten a call from someone at KTNV.

Quick as a flash, Adam Clarkson manufactured an absolutely false legal interpretation out of thin air that the 2018 version of the previously-released 2017 table was now confidential because Contact13 was doing a story.

Wow. It’s magic.
Documents become invisible, and our money disappears.

SCA’s $325/hour attorney blocked the release of the 2018 update of the 2017 SCA employee compensation table that was already in the public domain. SCA homeowners had to foot the bill for Clarkson to write “legal letters”, in SCA’s name, in January to threaten legal action against me if I told KTNV what the GM’s pay was (even though they already knew) and against KTNV if they ran the story.

There was no Board action authorizing this threat of legal action – unless, of course, they took the action in a secret meeting.

And, by the way, NRS 116.31088 requires a VOTE of the membership, before SCA can file a civil action. But no big deal.

This is a provision of the law that Adam Clarkson made disappear when the SCA Board filed a civil action to evict the Foundation Assisting Seniors. I’m sure Adam Clarkson’s convoluted reading of the law will come up with some magical way that allows the GM to use him to threaten litigation, against anybody or everybody, in SCA’s name, and on SCA owners’ dime.

What did I do about this “legal letter”?

I filed an affidavit under penalty of perjury on 1/31/18 with NRED.  I requested that this complaint be incorporated with the ongoing investigation into the harassment and retaliation complaint which precipitated my unlawful removal from the Board on 8/24/17.

It is my understanding that these complaints will be heard by the CIC Commission on November 6, 2018.

More to come.

The next few blogs will discuss the magnitude of the GM’s misuse of the association attorney to act as her personal fixer.