Category: Correcting the record
July 7, 2022 hearing
On 7/7/22, Judge Peterson heard Nona Tobin’s 2nd motion to distribute the interpleaded proceeds to her as the sole claimant with interest and penalties, -1½ years after she failed to hear Tobin’s 1st motion and a year after she granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s Tobin to dismiss Tobin’s unheard, unopposed claims of Conversion, Racketeering, and Fraud with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata.
Judge Peterson also heard Tobin’s motion to correct three prior orders to accurately identify the names of the parties and to attach Tobin’s opposition to factual inaccuracies in the orders.
The judge also accepted and granted the rogue motion of non-party Red Rock LLC’s for attorney fees, and granted the improper renewed motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against Tobin.
Judge Peterson granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees, denied Tobin’s unopposed motions.
Judge Peterson told Tobin that nothing Tobin said (in her unopposed proposed order has any merit by misconstruing the 6/30/22 appellate court ruling of the prior action in this dispute where the dismissal with prejudice of Tobin’s 2nd civil claim for these proceeds was affirmed on the grounds of res judicata and privity, bound this court to preclude all Tobin’s claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering). The court decided Tobin has no claims except for the interpleaded funds, had no right to interest or penalties, and that Steven Scow did nothing wrong by withholding her money for 8+years and because he held it in trust so it was harmless error.
SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures conducted by Red Rock Financial Services
2012 Board meeting agendas & minutes
Link to 2012 minutes 001-145
2012 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
9/27/12 Minutes
At today’s executive session, our Board considered six requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for a payment plan, and one request for variance of age requirement.
9/27/12 minutes page 10 of 13 Attachment 1 President’s report
10/25/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for credit, one request for a payment plan, and one request for write off of bad debt outside of the nine month super-priority.”
10/25/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
11/15/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines”
11/15/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
2013 Board meeting agendas & minutes
Link to 2013 minutes 001-133
2013 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
2/28/13 Meeting
2/28/13 Executive Session agenda
“Write off bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the 1/24/13 executive session meeting in the amount of $3,431.39 and for one account reviewed at the February 28, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $13,395.48, for a total of $16,826.87 that is outside the nine (9) month super priority lien.”
2/28/13 minutes item 17B write offs President’s Report pg. 8 of 9
3/28/13 Meeting
3/28/13 Executive Session Agenda
“At our executive session today, our Board considered one request for a waiver of fines and one request for a payment agreement. ”
3/28/13 SCA BOD minutes, President’s Report pg. 8 of 8
4/25/13 Meeting
4/25/13 Executive Session Agenda
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered one request for waivers of fees or fines and one request for a payment agreement.”
4/25/13 SCA BOD minutes, President’s Report page 9 of 10
5/23/13 Meeting
5/23/13 Executive Session Agenda
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered one request for waiver of the minimum age requirement and one request for a waiver of late fees.”
5/23/13 SCA BOD minutes President’s Report Page 8 of 8
6/27/13 Meeting
6/27/13 Executive Session Agenda
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines by Committee and take action on appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
6/27/13 Executive Session Agenda #6
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines”
6/27/13 SCA BOD Minutes, President’s Report page 9 of 14
7/18/13 SCA BOD minutes There was no executive session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
8/1/13 Executive Session agenda # 4 & 5
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
8/1/13 Meeting
8/1/13 Executive Session agenda
“There were no bad debt or write-offs considered at the Executive Session held earlier today. The Board considered three appeals for wavers of fines, and one appeal was returned to the committee.”
8/1/13 BOD Minutes President’s Report Page 6 of 9
8/22/13 Meeting
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
8/22/13 Executive Session agenda #4 & %
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“At today’s executive session, our board considered three requests for waivers and/or a reduction and/or payment plans and one appeal.”
8/22/13 SCA BOD meeting minutes President’s Report Pg 6 of 8
9/26/13 Meeting
9/26/13 Executive Session agenda
“The Board will discuss the collectability from particular owners and the potential write off of same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
9/26/13 Executive Session agenda #6
“At today’s executive session, your Board considered six appeals including waiver of late fees, fines or requests for payment plans.”
9/26/13 SCA BOD Meeting minutes, President’s Report: Page 8 of 20
10/24/13 Meeting
10/24/13 Executive Session Agenda
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
10/24/13 Executive Session Agenda #4-6
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors
6. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“At today’s our Board considered two requests for payment plans of delinquent assessments or waivers of fees and/or fines. We approved foreclosure proceedings on five properties and took no action on bad debt.“
10/24/13 SCA BOD Minutes, President’s report page 11 of 25
Link to “Deceptive disclosures: SCA Board 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 128“
12/5/13 Executive Session Agenda
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
12/5/13 Executive Session Agenda #6-8
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
(minutes of open session, page 8 of 9)
“17. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
“The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts.
ACTION ITEM
1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien.
[R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
12/5/13 SCA BOD minutes, page 8 of 11
President’s report -actions in closed session
“At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result. plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
12/5/13 BOD minutes, page 9 of 11
Page 2 Resolution [R05-120213] that SCA 315 alleged was approval of the sale
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
12/5/13 Minutes Pg 2] Resolution [R05-120513]
2014 Board meeting agendas & minutes
Link to 2014 minutes 001-187
2014 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
SCA board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by 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…”
SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
1/23/14 Meeting
1/23/14 SCA BOD Executive Session Agenda
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May BeTaken)
7. UPDATE ON PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE8.
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
1/23/14 SCA BOD Executive Session Agenda
“”In our executive session held this morning, our Board heard appeals from residents regarding assessment payments and other issues of enforcement and acted to write off bad debts in the amount of $18,349.17”
1/23/14 SCA BOD Meeting Minutes President’s Report Page 9 of 13
1/23/14 SCA BOD Executive Session Agenda
[R25-012314] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Dan Folgeron, the Board unanimously approved the write-off of bad debt for accounts reviewed at the January 23, 2014 meeting in the amount of $18,349.17.“
1/23/14 SCA BOD Meeting Minutes , Pages 7-8, item 18
2/27/14 Meeting
2/27/14 Executive Session Agenda
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5.STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF PRE-COLLECTION ACCOUNTS (Action May be Taken)
7.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.8.REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9.REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
2/27/14 Executive Session Agenda
2/27/14 President’s Report
Item 17 Bad debt write off, Pg 6 of 15
3/27/14 Meeting
3/27/14 Executive Session Agenda
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. (Action May be Taken)
5. STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken) 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
3/27/14 Executive Session Agenda
3/27/14 Item 18 Bad debt write off
Page 7 of 36 3/27/14 SCA BOD minutes
4/24/14 Meeting
4/24/14 Executive Session Agenda
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. RED ROCK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
4/24/14 Executive Session Agenda PAGE 1 -2 OF 2
4/24/14 minutes of open session item 16 approved the action the Board took in executive session under agenda item 8.
4/24/14 SCA BOD minutes President’s Report on page 9 of 10 did not include any report of the action the Board took, or the information the Board received, under items 5, 6, or 7.
5/22/14 Meeting
5/22/14 Executive Session Agenda
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
5.STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS (Action May Be Taken)
6. RED RECK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
8. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session
5/22/14 Executive Session Agenda Page 1 & 2 of 6 Agenda – Board of Directors Executive Session May 22, 2014
5/22/14 on page 7 of 14 of open Board meeting minutes, item 17, documents Board action agendized as #9 of the closed session agenda, “Review of Bad Debt” (Page 2 of 6)
5/22/14 President Report on page 9 of 14 is the same as 4/24/14 Page 9 of 10. There are no minutes related to Board action or discussion on items 4 (appeals & hearing), 5 (reconciliation of all SCA accounts), 6 (RRFS foreclosure report), 7 (review of potential foreclosures) or 8 (review of properties previously actioned for foreclosure)
6/26/14 Meeting
6/26/14 Executive Session Agenda
6/26/14 Executive Session Agenda
Director comment
“Jim Long provided an update on Association-related foreclosures.”
Page 1 item 8 6/26/14 SCA BOD minutes
6/26/14 minutes pg 5. #16 write off bad debt
7/24/14 Meeting
7/24/14 Executive Session Agenda
SCA 7/24/14board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by 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…”
SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
Request for judicial notice: unadjudicated claims and administrative complaints
Administrative Complaints have been rejected for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending adjudication of A-21-828840-C by Judge Jessica K. Peterson
Link to 1/28/21 NCJD complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline vs. Judge Joanna Kishner
Link to 3/14/19 AG complaint vs. Nationstar & Jimijack Irevocable Trust
Link to 11/10/20 2nd AG complaint vs Nationstar; Akerman; Wright Finley Zak; Bank of America
Link to 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Lending Division vs. Nationstar; Akerman; Wright Finley Zak; Bank of America
Link to 2/14/21 complaint to the State Bar of Nevada vs. Joseph Hong
Link to 2/16/21 complaint to the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood
Prior district court civil actions did not adjudicate filed claims based on evidence
Link to Register of Actions A-16-730078-C Nationstar vs. Opportunity Homes LLC
Link to Case Summary A-15-720032-C Jimijack Irrevocable Trust vs. Bank of America and Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc.
Link to case summary A-19-799890-C Nona Tobin vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual, Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
The minutes of all hearings in the case summaries show that there were no evidentiary hearings and that neither Plaintiff, nationstar nor Jimijack, met their burden of proof.
Link to “Nationstar’s evidence was not examined“
Link to 3/8/21 Request for Judicial Notice of the Clark County official property records for APN 191-13-811-052 that shows the fraudulent claims that were recorded by Nationstar, Red Rock Financial Services, Joel A. Stokes, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, Bank of America, Quicken Loans, Brian & Debora Chiesi.
Nationstar’s pleadings were unadjudicated
Nationstar voluntarily dismissed all its claims for quiet title and equitable relief without ever presenting a case or meeting its burden of proof that it owned any interest in the disputed Hansen deed of trust.
Nationstar’s only filed claims
Link to Nationstar’s 1/11/16 A-16-730078-C complaint Nationstar vs. Opportunity Homes
Link to Nationstar’s 6/2/16 AACC answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claim vs. Jimijack
Nationstar’s stipulations to dismiss disposed of ALL its claims
Link to 2/20/19 Nationstar’s stipulation to voluntarily dismiss all its filed claims except against Jimijack.
Link to 5/31/19 Nationstar’s stipulation to voluntarily dismiss all its filed claims against Jimijack.
Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated pleadings
Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Sun City Anthem
Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Jimijack unadjudicated claims
Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC
Link to Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Thomas Lucas dba Opportunity Homes LLC
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 8/7/19 quiet title & equitable relief, unjust enrichment & abuse of process complaint
Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated district court motions
Link to 3/3/17 Nona Tobin’s unheard motion to void the sale for statutory non-compliance
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack Irrevocable Trust
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment vs. all parties
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/24/19 motion to vacate 4/18/19 order pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) and motion for summary judgment
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 6/17/19 motion to intervene as an individual
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54(b) and NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(F)
Link to Nona Tobin’s unheard 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310(2)
Orders that disposed Nona Tobin’s claims did not consider any evidence
Link to 8/11/17 order granting Opportunity Homes’s motion for summary judgment vs Nona Tobin and the Hansen Trust that was filed after order denying Opportunity Homes’s motion for summary judgment vs. Nationstar was entered on 6/22/17.
Link to 5/31/19 order denying motion to reconsider 4/18/19 order
Link to 9/4/19 order that denied Nona Tobin the right to appeal as an individual
Link to the 10/8/20 order that sanctioned Nona Tobin $3,455 to Joel A. Stokes’s attorney pursuant to EDCR 7.60 (1) and/or (3) for filing the A-19-799890-C complaint on 8/7/19, one week before the five-year statute of limitations, after being denied access to the A-15-720032-C 6/5/19 trial.
Link to the 11/17/20 order that sanctioned Nona Tobin $8,849 pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) on the grounds that her filing the A-19-799890-C complaint on 8/7/19, one week before the five-year statute of limitations, was unwarranted and for the sole purpose of harassing Quicken Loans & Brian & Debora Chiesi who recorded claims adverse to Tobin on 12/27/19 while Tobin had two recorded lis pendens.
Lik to 12/3/20 order that dismissed all Nona Tobin’s claims unheard pursuant to NRCP 12(b) (5), on the grounds of non-mutual claims preclusion, and NRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to join the HOA as a necessary party regarding the distribution of the excess proceeds.
Nona Tobin’s pending appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court
79295 Gordon B. Hansen Trust vs. Jimijack, Nationstar, Sun City Anthem, Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC
82094 Nona Tobin vs. Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual
82234 Nona Tobin vs. Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
82294 Nona Tobin vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual, Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
Part 3: In case you don’t think this is enough evidence
This is the third, and final, part of my 6/6/18 email to the NRED Chief Investigator and Ombudsman to clarify NRED’s process for ensuring that
1. the rights of homeowners in HOAs are protected,
2. Nevada statutes are uniformly enforced, and
3. Board members or agents suffer consequences if they fail to act as fiduciaries.
Justice delayed is justice denied
Justice delayed is justice denied
The length of time NRED has taken to address the complaints I submitted last September without response has unfairly diminished their credibility or, in some cases, rendered them moot.
This is unacceptable, particularly since these issues (election interference, concealing association documents, retaliation, harassment, unlawful removal from the Board for essentially political purposes are all issues of great import to protect homeowners in all Nevada HOAs.
Denial without prejudice? Hardly.
Denial “without prejudice” in one election interference case was nonsensical. A 10/20/17 complaint that Bob Burch was wrongly left off the removal election ballot because two pages with a combined total of 22 signatures mysteriously disappeared so allegedly, he was two signatures short of being placed on the ballot. On 12/11/17 the complainant (not me) was notified by Christina Pitch that the case was closed stating:
Say, what?
Claiming that the Ombudsman’s attendance at the vote count of the ballots (ballots that did not include Bob Burch) was sufficient justification to deny the complaint that Bob Burch’s name was wrongly excluded from the ballot (due to 22 missing signatures) is a complete non sequitur.
NRED might as well have denied the complaint because Kilauea volcano erupted.
Further, Bob Burch was treated as a non-conflicted Board member at the November 1 recall vote count despite the complaint about his not being included on the ballot was still open until NRED’s December 11 rejection.
To say that this was not prejudicial to the claimant (meaning that he could file the complaint again after the point was moot) adds insult to injury.
Inappropriate use of association attorney
NRED appears to condone SCA GM and Board giving an inappropriate level of deference to association attorney Clarkson.
Those same 11/1/17 recall vote count owner meeting minutes show the tip of the iceberg of the completely inappropriate role Adam Clarkson took in the recall election process.
Not only was there no Board approval:
- to amend the adopted SCA Election and Voting manual,
- to dump the volunteer Election Committee and
- no Board approval to hire a CPA and
- no Board approval to pay the CPA firm and the Clarkson firm over $100,000 in unbudgeted funds to take over (and bungle) the recall election,
No law gives an HOA attorney decision-making authority
There is substantial additional evidence that Clarkson unlawfully acts as a decision-maker, or as the GM’s attorney, rather than solely as a legal advisor to the full Board.
What more does NRED need?
In what form can I submit this evidence where I can be assured that it will be weighed by an independent trier of fact?
Freedom of information is non-existent at SCA
GM’s concealing association records and using the attorney to threaten owners for even asking appears to be condoned by NRED.
NRED gave two different responses to the draconian records request form revised by the Clarkson law group 2/28/18 to suit the GM regardless of the law or best interests of the homeowners.
NRED response 1 was pro-homeowner.
The first was an email response to a homeowner in March correctly stated the owner protections in the law,
“The “mandatory acknowledgement” form…is contrary to NRS 116, as such a document is not required by law.”
NRED response 2, as reported by Bob Burch, was pro-management.
The second NRED response was only reported verbally.
I haven’t seen any written response from the Ombudsman to the SCA Board, but the Board President has reported that NRED approved the unlawful “acknowledgements” on the document request form that restrict the homeowner from sharing legally accessed material with third parties.
Could this really be true?
According to the Board, NRED has approved the SCA threatening homeowners that, if the information (released per NRS 116.31175) is disclosed to third parties, the owners may be subject to fines and penalties up to foreclosure.
These Clarkson-crafted “acknowledgements” are allegedly (according to Clarkson) binding even if the owner does not sign or agree. According to SCA, NRED says this is okay, just so long as the owner is not required to sign the acknowledgement.
Does NRED have a double standard?
Note that the document request form’s revision was not approved by an official Board action despite the requirement of SCA bylaws 6.4(a)(b) p. 24.)
The Board abdicated its duty to make records accessible to owners contrary to NRS 116.31175, and the GM never signed a management agreement acknowledgement per NRS 116A.620(1)(a)and (m) that the HOA records do not belong to the manager.
Yet, NRED apparently issued a verbal ruling giving the SCA Board and management carte blanche to carry on.
Could this really be true?
And one last thing
Lack of transparency allows SCA homeowners to be put at risk due to
- management errors,
- bad decisions,
- inappropriate use of the attorney at triple the adopted budget, and
- resistance to implementing sufficient checks and balances.
My insistence in attempting to address these problems led to the harassment and retaliation that was the true impetus of my removal from the Board.
Note that NRED has not responded to my 7/21/17 Form 781 complaint other than to refer it to the investigations division. The problems of withholding and concealing records have been exacerbated over the past year, and I have submitted additional documentation to the complaints in September, November and January evidencing this unacceptable pattern.
What is NRED going to do to address these issues?
Part 2: Secret meetings in general
This is the second part of my 6/6/18 email to the NRED Chief Investigator and Ombudsman to clarify NRED’s process for ensuring that
1. the rights of homeowners in HOAs are protected,
2. Nevada statutes are uniformly enforced, and
3. Board members or HOA agents suffer consequences when they fail to act as fiduciaries.
Issa Anale’a didn’t make us wait as long as NRED
Why has NRED needed more than nine months?
Tomorrow, I’ll see what NRED Chief Investigator’s perspective is on the 6/6/18 email I am sharing below in Part 2 “Secret meetings”, in the previous blog, “Why so quiet?“, and in the final part 3, “In case you don’t think this is enough evidence”
Part 2: Secret meetings in general
The second complaint was that the Board deliberates in secret meetings. This complaint being dismissed perfunctorily is also problematic. It appears as if NRED condones a pervasive pattern at SCA of decisions being made by the Board, the attorney, the GM or individual directors without proper action by the Board in open session.
It also appears that there are no consequences if SCA Board is not compliant with NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, or SCA governing documents.
NRED previously instructed SCA on this point
Previous NRED officials have issued letters of instruction (attached to previous email) to require statutory conformance (with owner protection laws) which SCA now ignores.
I, as well as other SCA residents, have alleged that, currently, many Board decisions are made improperly, i.e.,
- in group emails,
- in “workshops”,
- in improperly noticed meetings,
- private Board training (no notice, agenda or minutes) sessions which are
- deemed “attorney-client” privilege while
- simultaneously are deemed to NOT be executive sessions, but of which recording is prohibited:
- meetings or email chains involving only a few Board members or which pointedly exclude dissenting directors
What does it mean when the NRED investigation of these complaints just stops without a finding?
Obviously, the SCA Board was notified that SCA has won by default, but apparently the owner who complained was not.
As Bob Burch said,
Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed.
This is essentially what has occurred in 100% of the cases filed in the past year.
Is that NRED’s intent?
- Does NRED really intend to say that this Board conduct, that has generated many owner complaints, is permissible despite the Board’s failure to meet the requirements of NRS 116.31183 or NRS 116.31085?
- Or are you not convinced that the complainants accurately reported impermissible acts?
- Does NRED’s investigative protocol permit your investigator to rely on information provided by the HOA, but prohibit further investigation by seeking additional information, or at least a response, from the complainant?
Whose call is it anyway?
NRED needs to be aware that at SCA, Board decisions are routinely made by the GM or attorney in policy areas in which the Board is prohibited from delegating by SCA bylaws 3.20 and 3.18 pursuant to NRS 116.3106(1)(d).
These wrong parties (the GM, the attorney, a subset of the Board) falsely claim the Board made decisions that the Board didn’t make correctly, or worse, didn’t make at all, e.g.,
- hiring debt collectors without an RFP (competitive process),
- increasing group exercise user fees,
- failing to comply with the Election & Voting Manual in the 2017 recall election,
- hiring a CPA without a contract or an RFP to do the volunteer Election Committee’s job,
- paying that CPA and attorneys, at a $100,000+ un-budgeted combined cost, to usurp the recall election process,
- over-expending the legal fees budget by $200,000+ in 2017,
- taking punitive actions, without legal authority, against me as a Board member and unit owner, i.e., threatening letters and kicking me off the Board in retaliation for my complaints and records requests,
- authorizing the use of owners’ money to pay for the association attorney
- to appear in the GM’s divorce and
- to withhold SCA records in discovery that had been previously released to OSCAR, the anti-recall group.
When the NRED investigation into these actions just stops, or maybe never even starts, what does it mean?
- Is abdication and usurping of Board authority okay in NRED’s view?
- Does NRED need more documentation and more specific examples to establish that this practice is occurring?
What else does NRED need to stop this?
Here is a link to a www.SCAstrong.com blog, “If they had only known, part 3” that gives some examples of GM decisions that resulted in election interference, hiring bankrupt or conflicted debt collectors without due diligence or following proper procedure, a biased selection of a restaurant vendor (that is not proceeding for unknown reasons, leaving SCA with no restaurant for 2 1/2+ years and counting).
I can also provide you links to the actual documents that are are evidence of these and other specific incidences if NRED needs more documentation to make a finding and prohibit agents from taking advantage of SCA.
Coming up:
Part 3: In case you don’t think this is enough evidence
Why so quiet?
Sorry for the big break in my updates about SCA shenanigans.
I’m in California for some family events,
Nathaniel graduated
and a new granddaughter due any minute
But, while we’re waiting for the next big thing, I’ll tell you
The real cause for pause
After a fun-filled trip to Mexico, I dragged myself to the May 24 Board meeting. I was immediately stunned by the President’s report that NRED had stopped investigating two complaints that impacted me.
I wondered if NRED’s practice was to rely on management or agents rather than get the whole story. I hoped not. But, I had a sinking feeling…
Ordinarily, I would have posted something right away, but I decided to talk to NRED’s new chief investigator, Terry Wheaton, first. Multiple attempts to set up a meeting were unsuccessful so I documented my concerns in writing.
It is even longer than my usual missives, so I’ll break it up for you. It was full of hyperlinks to the actual evidentiary documents. I will break the links in this public distribution, just in case, my transparency forces the SCA Board and GM to claim it is their fiduciary duty to pay the attorney $10,000+ to threaten to sue me to kingdom come.
Part 1 of email to NRED
Fwd: Issues related to dismissed and open investigations; NRED Letters of Instruction to SCA
I have not received a response to my request for a meeting with you, and I have been instructed not to contact the Ombudsman because all my intervention affidavits (IAs) and complaints against management have been referred to the investigations division. I understand you are new to your position and may not have seen the full measure of the issues that I, and other SCA owners, are asking your office to address.
The fundamental questions raised by this myriad issues are:
- How does NRED fulfill its role in ensuring that licensed HOA agents (managers, attorneys)
- act as fiduciaries and not for personal, political, or financial purposes?
- do not take advantage of homeowners or disenfranchise voters to manipulate the composition of HOA Boards?
- How does NRED use the negative experiences of this HOA to develop policy guidance that protects all of the 3,000+ HOAs and 57% of Nevada households that are in HOAs?
I am writing you now to document my concerns and request that you evaluate these documents before there is a final determination on my form 514a, 781, and three form 530 complaints (harassment/retaliation, recall election interference, and for removing me from the Board without complying with NRS 116.31036 on false and unproven charges that I had placed matters before the Board from which I stood to make a profit.
1. NRED investigations are closed without notice or reason
In March, I raised this concern to Christina Pitch in the email I am forwarding here. You can see her response. However, the pattern of NRED closing complaints without a clear, legally defensible, equitable resolution seems to be continuing.
At the last Sun City Anthem Board meeting on 5/24/18, the new President Bob Burch made the following claims in his President’s report which were extremely disheartening because I have received no communication from NRED about these issues which intimately affect me and about which I have formally filed affidavits and declarations.
President’s report
Next, I would like to report that we have been advised by the Nevada Real Estate Division that two complaints filed against the Association have been closed. In one case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held an emergency meeting on July 18, 2017 to discuss employer liability and that the meeting did not meet the requirements for an ‘emergency’ under NRS116. In the second case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held secret meetings beginning in March or April 2017 in which appointments to committees were agreed upon and Association business was decided upon. Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed. – Bob Burch, 5/24/18
What does “no good cause to continue the investigation” mean?
Does NRED condone or just not care?
Dismissed complaint 1: July 13 “emergency” executive session
In my view, having a Board meeting without notifying me for the other six directors to approve a cease & desist order against me was an unlawful abuse of authority and certainly not an emergency.
What does NRED think?
Does NRED’s closing the complaint investigation without disciplinary action against SCA mean:
- That NRED says it’s okay for the GM to fail to give me, an elected Board member, ANY verbal or written notice that the Board I was elected to was being called into an “emergency” executive session two hours after I was standing in her office being denied access to ANY SCA records despite NRS 116.31175 and SCA bylaws 6.4(c)?
- That NRED says it’s okay for a GM, an at-will employee, to use the association attorney at SCA owner expense to threaten litigation against SCA (her employer) and me, a Board member, personally for creating “employer liability” for asking for justification for her being paid double the market rate and criticizing her performance and judgment despite NAC 116A.345(5)?
- That NRED says it’s okay for six Board members to meet without and issue orders against me, the seventh EQUAL, ELECTED Board member, to limit authority as a Board member, restrict my duties, TOTALLY restrict my access to information needed to make decisions as a Board member, and restrict my right to vote on an equal basis with the other directors despite the prohibitions in NRS 116.3103(2)(d)?
- That NRED says it actually was an emergency as defined by NRS 116.31183(12) affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community for 6/7 of the SCA Board to meet to order me, the seventh, to stop asking for a verification of the GM’s former salary and to reprimand me, without legal authority, for asking the GM to reconsider a ruling she made to prevent equal time in SCA official publications for a proponent of the recall election?
- That NRED says that six members of the Board constitutes a quorum, and they (6 of 7) can meet in executive session to make decisions for the Board as a whole or to take action against the seventh Board member even if the six directors prevent the seventh Board member, despite the limitations defined in NRS 116.31185 or NRS 116.3103(2)(d),
- from attending their secret session,
- from voting, or even
- from knowing their secret meeting is going to occur ?
- That NRED doesn’t care that the SCA Board failed to comply with multiple provisions of state law and SCA governing documents?
Or is NRED saying
these owner complaints are frivolous and aren’t serious matters worthy of at least a complete investigation?
That meeting, actually held on 7/13/17, had numerous flaws which I spelled out to NRED in form 514a on pages 4-5 and claims are supported by written evidence.
I now have a meeting scheduled for June 18.
Next time
Part 2: Secret meetings in general
Per Rex: “Shut up. We’re in charge here.”
Rex Weddle’s’s May President’s Report in SCA’s Spirit Magazine is entitled (apparently unaware of the irony) “Keeping our nest clean“. Rex again devotes his entire official communication to sharing with all owners and residents his personal and chronic whine about how owner complaints about him, the GM and the Board are ruining this community.
Boo hoo.
Bloggers called Rex and his buddies “thugs and bullies”. Private individuals accused him, the Board, the attorney and the GM of unlawful conduct and criminal corruption. Rex belittles those who complain, but without specifically denying any of the charges.
What’s a poor, hand-wringing President to do?
Rex seems oblivious to his contribution to SCA’s problems. He did not suggest any way he could use his position of authority to address owner concerns or to heal community division.
Rex thinks that bullying bloggers into silence is the best course of action.
Rex apparently lacks any self-awareness of how inappropriate it is to use the Spirit, SCA’s official publication, to express his personal opinion and his personal hostility toward certain members of the community.
The President of the Board has a column in the Spirit which is intended to share with the entire community news about what actions the Board is taking, how the owners’ money is being spent, or to provide inspirational words of leadership.
Rex, unfortunately, has chosen instead to use SCA’s official publication as a personal soap box, to chastise residents for complaining about him personally or for criticizing actions of SCA elected official or agents that individual owners or bloggers believe are detrimental to the community.
Rex’s message: “My way or the highway“
Don’t you think it is ironic that Rex Weddle, speaking officially as the SCA President, uses the Spirit, the SCA website, Board meetings, and other official SCA communication channels, to shame and demean residents for expressing their personal opinions on blogs that they privately own, just because he personally disagrees with them?
Doesn’t it seem odd that he does not recognize that his claim that blogs have a negative impact on our property values is just his personal opinion, and one that has no data to back it up?
“Because they read like a bad restaurant review, the buyers may choose to go elsewhere.” -Rex Weddle
That is like a restaurant owner blaming his bad Yelp reviews on the customers instead of trying to figure out why they are saying the food and the service sucks.
Bob Burch only hears those on his side
Don’t expect these Spirit President Reports to be any better now that Rex’s protege and probable puppet, Bob Burch, will have his name on the President’s report byline. Bob’s intolerance of dissent and his blind spot when it comes to equal treatment of resident’s are huge.
How can I say such mean things?
I am just defending myself and my rights and protecting the rights of ALL owners. I don’t see that as being mean. I do see what Rex et al are doing as being mean.
For example,
after the restaurant workshop, I forwarded a copy of a blog, “How to cook our goose” to all members of the Board. I wanted them to know I thought the restaurant vendor selection process was unfair and incompetent.
Here’s what Bob graciously emailed me back:
“You really are a very strange person. In any case, any further emails from you will be considered SPAM and will be treated as such.” -Bob Burch
And another example of responsive leadership
Here is the gratuitous observation Bob made (not to me, but about me, on the only community blog that Board members seem to think deserves their respect) in response to my blog, “Being accountable for being good neighbors“,
Ouch.
I wonder if Bob is so non-judgmental about all of his constituents, or if I am just special.
Have you no sense of decency, David Berman?
The frustrated sentiments of the Army Chief Counsel, Joseph Welch, speaking to Senator McCarthy in 1954 (15-second video above) resonate with me as they speak of a man who has simply gone too far.
I want to express these same feelings to David Berman. I want him to stop his unwarranted and unprovoked attacks against me, and against any other SCA owners, whose only sin has been having the temerity to tell him that he is wrong and that his vitriol is damaging more than to his targeted victims. It is detrimental to the health and peace of mind of the entire community.
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. … Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, Sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Apparently, David also lacks a sense of irony
“When certain folks in our community decide to turn someone they don’t like into a villain, it appears there is no limit to the tactics they will employ to denigrate their targets, even when the “documentation” they disseminate to make their points is demonstrably and provably false.” – David Berman
Projection: Clinical term for “Pot calling the kettle black”
David Berman may be utterly lacking in self-awareness. Or he may believe his own press so much that he doesn’t see anything wrong with the way he treated me over months of totally undeserved attacks he made against me as a Board member which led up to my 8/12/17 notice of intent to take formal action to try to get him to stop.
David Berman lies = false narrative. Who benefits?
The conclusion of my complaint below shows my frustration at being one more in a long line of owners who have been cruelly victimized by David Berman instead of simply being thanked for volunteering to share my expertise.
As this was written two weeks before I was kicked off the Board, I still thought I could accomplish my three stated goals in a two-year term.
Please, in the name of all that is holy, just stop
Apparently, just asking David Berman to stop maligning my character was too much to ask.
So, why didn’t I go forward with this complaint?
- My goal, as you can see in the proposed remedy section, was to get him to stop badgering me and let me be an effective homeowner advocate on the Board. I just wanted him to acknowledge what he was doing was destructive, and then, just not do it.
- I also wanted to protect the rights of the owners to lawfully collect signatures or sign petitions; and I wanted him to stop his backdoor tricks as OSCAR spokesperson that was interfering with the neutrality of the Election Committee and the recall election.
- Two-weeks later, I was dumped off the Board, and gratuitously, at the same meeting, formally removed as Election Committee liaison thanks to David Berman’s reframing me into his image. You can see in the email (below) he wrote on 7/22/17 defamed me and empowered the Board to take unjustified and unlawful actions against me. Obviously, since then, I’ve had had other fish to fry since then.
- The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over complaints of harassment or defamation. These would have to become civil actions for a court to rule on. Just what I need – more attorneys fees to rectify the damages done to me for volunteering. What a fine thank you for my service.
Projection, vilification & no limits to dirty tricks
David Berman sent the defamatory email below to the Board, but this email is the basis for the Election Committee developing the false belief that I had not only released confidential information, but that meant I was a bad person who could not be trusted. David Berman makes false statements about me, maligns my character, but gets away with it. He has quite a hold on the people in power to a level that I consider to be undue influence.
This horrible, hateful email very effectively painted me as an evil person who deserves bad treatment. David Berman has manipulated those in power to encourage them to gang up on me as he has done to others, and in this email he also continues his decade-long use of Bob Frank as an object lesson.
David Berman stirred up the trouble by conjuring up a new evil persona for me out of whole cloth, and then gave the Board and the Election Committee the permission to shun me and treat me like a pariah.
Character assassination by one lacking in character is galling
This is a very big deal to me to have my character maligned in this cruel, insulting and totally abusive manner. I spent a career in public and non-profit service, including administering a civil service system and controlling personnel, discipline, medical and disability records for the workforce of the 10th largest city in the country.
I was NEVER accused of mishandling confidential information or of violating my fiduciary duty. My trustworthiness and ethics were NEVER questioned.
On the other hand, David Berman has been disciplined for violating his fiduciary duty to his client and forged a judge’s signature to cover it up. If a client had done that, the client would probably have been criminally charged and jailed, but attorneys tend to be reluctant to mete out strong discipline to one of their own.
David Berman’s law license was suspended for a year in 1991, and then he surrendered it. He cannot legally portray himself as an attorney. Yet, many people treat him with deference believing that he is one.
With a disingenuous sleight of hand, he is still able to manipulate people into believing that they should respect his word despite his history of unethical conduct.
It’s even more galling that, at the same time, he uses his considerable skills at palace intrigue to persuade a good chunk of people that they should not trust the word of a woman with a life-long, spotless record of competent and ethical community service.
David Berman got other people to stone an innocent woman while he egged them on.
And then he cries like a baby when the woman starts throwing stones back.
Bravado, just like Gary Hart
David Berman bizarrely just challenged me to produce evidence of his interference in the recall election in exactly the same manner as Gary Hart self-destructed his Presidential bid by challenging the New York Times to “put a tail on him” before he spent the weekend on his boat, Monkey Business, with a woman not his wife.
Wow, David, if you insist. I have a novella worth.
Times up.
Telling lies, ruining lives
“As I understand it, Ms. Tobin was prevented from running for the Board not because she has opinions that are critical of the Board and SCA management, but ONLY because she is involved in litigation against SCA from which she might stand to gain a financial benefit.” -David Berman
Poppycock.
My unlawful removal from the Board was completely 100% done in retaliation for my complaints of harassment and retaliation.
I presented the issues formally to the Board, the attorney, the GM, and the former CAM and to blogger David Berman as statements of intent less than two weeks before they acted in concert, without cause, without authority and without due process to strip me of my legal rights and my Board seat and to disenfranchise the 2,001 voters who had put me in office.
While I was on the Board those interminable 116 days (5/1/17-8/24/17), the GM, the former CAM, the attorney, David Berman and 5 of the 7 directors acted in concert to marginalize me from day 1. (Art Lindberg should get a pass since he was the only one who asked the right questions. The attorney lied to him too., and the pressure to conform was very, very strong.)
They made my life miserable, shunning, lying, berating me, denigrating my contributions, making false accusations, publishing false and defamatory statements, and making it impossible for me to be an effective homeowner advocate as a member of the Board.
They only came up with the convoluted ruse that I had put matters before the Board from which I could make a profit because, even relying on Adam Clarkson’s tortured reading of the law, they couldn’t say they were getting rid of me because I was an outspoken pain in the ass.
Execution was a complete non sequitur
The 8/24/17 letter which constituted my walking papers, signed by Adam Clarkson, was the totally unlawful and unethical response to my notice of intent to file a Form 530 Intervention Affidavit alleging harassment and retaliation.
Before that letter came out of the blue, there were many disputes between me and five of the other Directors, the attorney, the GM and former CAM, most of which you will recognize. I was transparent and vocal as possible as I sounded the alarm on deferred attention to owners’ concerns.
It’s pretty obvious why I had to go
And it was not because I did, or even could, profit from being on the Board.
My profit = ZERO
Did I mention I never made a dime off SCA before, during or after my Board service?
How much did the attorney make for creating the ruse that I did?
Attorneys’ profit for 2017 = $300,000+
2017 legal fees for “Director Issues” = $40,000
January 2018 legal fees = $38,000
but they won’t admit how much of that was to unlawfully block owners knowing how much the GM’s salary was bumped up in 2018
Deny. Deny. Deny.
Accept no responsibility for ANY problems.
Then attack your accuser.
And kill her.
Sample of the problems I publicly said needed correction
- No restaurant -Failing to comply with the CC&Rs and good business practices about the restaurant space study, letting only a couple of directors work on it, refusing to use an independent expert, too cozy with one bidder
- Owner oversight committees – Refusing to allow appropriate owner oversight in areas where going to self-managed and changing legal counsel and debt collectors caused a high level of risk – personnel, compensation, legal services, insurance, investments; getting rid of the Golf Course Liaison Committee, the Communications Committee, and decimating Property & Grounds, making the GM the Board liaison to Pinnacle and other groups
- Board agendas – Refusing to put my items on the Board’s open or executive session agenda as required by law, by Board policy equal to other directors
- Secret meetings -meeting in secret without giving me or other owners the rights guaranteed by law or confining executive sessions to the four permissible topics
- Excessive executive compensation – Refusing to conform to the law for access to data, to evaluate according to professional standards, or to fairly consider evidence to rebut the appropriateness of those salary levels; giving Tom Nissen excessive authority in this area and blocking me totally from it despite our differences in expertise or the appropriateness of substituting the judgment of ANY one director for the judgment of the Board; spending thousands on using the attorney to hide what her actual compensation is from the owners.
- No GM performance standards – Not holding the GM accountable for meeting measurable, publicly-adopted performance standards
- No management agreement – Violating SCA bylaws and failing to protect SCA by having no management agreement or even any written terms & conditions of employment. Although the GM is an AT-WILL EMPLOYEE, allowing her to usurp additional privilege to the detriment of SCA.
- Unfair complaint process – Going beyond NOT having a customer-service rating system to aggressively attacking the 800+ owners who signed petitions and refusing to answer any of their complaints on their merits
- Evicting FAS – The process for evicting the Foundation Assisting Seniors was flawed. They ordered me out of executive sessions. They did not act in the best interests of the homeowners. The GM was not held accountable for the failure. Civil action without required owner vote.
- Debt collection process – Failing to do proper due diligence on debt collectors; refusing to evaluate the expensive, inhumane cost of collection for a more ocst-effective solution
- Ill-advised recusal demand – Overreaching demand for me to recuse myself on ANY collection matter because SCA’s attorney/debt collector alleges there might be an “appearance of a conflict” for me, however remote, while ignoring the current attorney/debt collector’s obvious actual financial conflict and the fact that the last debt collector filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy without telling SCA and continued doing foreclosures by morphing into another LLC.
- Bullying -On at least three occasions in executive sessions, using bullying, shunning, intimidation, threats and other demeaning and belittling marginalization tactics to try to make me conform with nonexistent policies or legal requirements
- Failure to investigate – When problems are brought up, they are dismissed out of hand without conducting, or allowing, investigation on the merits
- Inaccurate official records -Causing, or allowing the official SCA records to be corrupted and/or error-prone ALWAYS against the interests of homeowners and usually to protect individual members of the Board or management
- Concealing SCA records from me alone, i.e., giving me incomplete executive session Board books, refusing to respond to ANY records requests
- Abdication – Allowing the GM to use the association attorney as her personal attorney in violation of NRS and SCA bylaws
- Election interference – Allowing the Board president, the GM, the CAM, David Berman, and the association attorney to interfere with the recall election process and to UNLAWFULLY COST OWNERS $90,000 BY STRIPPING THE VOLUNTEER ELECTION COMMITTEE OF THEIR CHARTER DUTIES to pay a CPA to do the EC’s job poorly.
- Undue influence allowed – As it served the interests of the Board majority and management, David Berman, spokesperson for OSCAR, was allowed to have greater access to recall election information than I received as a director; he was allowed undue level of influence over the Election Committee to cut me out in retaliation for my attempting to protect the rights of the petitioners, including falsely accusing me what he himself was guilty of; misrepresenting himself as an attorney; falsely accusing me of releasing “personal director correspondence” further defaming me by creating the false impression that I had released a legally privileged documents (absolutely not!)
- Sanctions without notice or due process -Having meetings to sanction me without notice and to enforce policies that don’t exist
- Unlawful orders issued by the attorney against me, e.g., cease & desist from representing myself as a director, or asking questions that I was not “authorized” to ask particularly regarding personnel and GM compensation
- GM’s frivolous litigation threats – Allowing the GM to threaten to sue SCA for damages and to threaten me with personal liability; refusing to indemnify me as a director; falsely claiming I had violated my fiduciary duty without any evidence, a hearing or a finding
- Misinterpretation of “employer liability” – Allowing the attorney to represent the interests of the GM over those of the homeowners. Accusing me of violating my fiduciary duty because I criticized the GM’s performance and because I requested a salary verification from her prior employer.
- Abdication to attorney acting in the GM’s or his own interest -Telling me that the attorney had the authority to declare that I, as one of the seven directors, could be excluded from the right to vote on, or even know about, matters under the Board’s decision-making authority, unless he approved it (which in most cases, he has never approved to this day).
- Abuse of privilege -Allowing the attorney to declare ANYTHING to be “attorney-client privileged” regardless of the lack of its meeting the legal definition of privilege in NRS 49 or NRS 116.31085.
- Falsification of litigation reports -Allowing the attorneys to publish false statements in the litigation reports to increase the appearance of a conflict or to defame me and refusing to correct after evidence was provided.