RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due

EXCESSIVE, UNAUTHORIZED & UNEARNED “COLLECTION COSTS” = ABUSIVE & PREDATORY COLLECTION PRACTICES

12/31/11Balance due Dec 31, 2011 was zero. See annotated Resident Transaction Report Page 1335.
1/1/12$275 Jan 2012 Qtr Assessment (1/1/12-3/31/12)
1/31/12$25 Late Fee Assessed. See 1/31/12 RMI Quarterly statement. Upon information and belief, the 1/31/12 statement assessments due and late fees due was the last such statement distributed to owners.
2/14/12Tobin’s Check 112, dated 2/14/12, paid $275 for quarter ending 3/31/12 plus $25 late fee
4/1/12$275 Assessments due for 4/1/12-6/30/12
4/24/12Tobin’s Check 127, dated 4/24/12, paid for quarter ending 6/30/12, so no late fee became due on 4/30/12.
6/30/12Page 1335 Resident transaction report shows assessments were current to 6/30/12.
7/1/12Foreclosure deed recitals falsely claim that no payments were made after 7/1/12. See 8/22/14 annotated foreclosure deed.
See 3/12/13 rescinded NODES
7/1/12$275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12
7/31/12$25 Late fee assessed for 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter 
8/17/12Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid $275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12 and $25 Late fee assessed on 7/31/12, for 2763 White Sage Drive.
See annotated Resident Transaction Report Page 1335.
8/17/12Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid $275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12 and $25 Late fee assessed on 7/31/12, for 2664 Olivia Heights.
See Resident Transaction Report Page 12859 
9/13/12SCA’s managing agent RMI referred the account to its subsidiary RRFS to initiate collections per RRFS log in SCA 415, RRFS’s log of “homeowner progress”
9/17/12On unsent 9/17/12 RRFS notice of intent to lien, RRFS claimed $617.94 was due when only $275 assessments and a $25 late fee were authorized for 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter.
See SCA 642 and SCA 643.
9/17/12RRFS reported to the Board that the account was a potential write off of $321.51 SCA removed the RRFS collection reports from the SCA website after Tobin downloaded them in 2018.
See RRFS potential write off as of 9/30/12 for 2763 White Sage, RRFS account #808634
9/20/12SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the sender’s copy of certified letters, item number 71603901984964087011.

Both sender’s copies are stamped as received by RRFS on 10/8/12. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any proofs of service for SCA 628 and SCA 635.

Tobin has no record or recollection of ever receiving it. SCA alleged in its MSJ that Tobin had sent it to RRFS with a 10/3/12 letter she sent to SCA transmitting check 143 and Hansen’s death certificate. No evidence supports this claim.

All evidence supports that RMI sent SCA 628 and SCA 635 to RRFS at which time RRFS stamped them received. The effect of this was to unfairly impose unauthorized and unnecessary collection fees on the estate of a deceased homeowner without the executor’s knowledge.
9/20/12SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the same notice of hearing on 10/8/12 for temporary suspension of Gordon Hansen’s privileges for the alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments. SCA may have sent this notice. However, Tobin did not receive it. There never was a hearing on 10/10/12. Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid assessments through 9/30/12 are rendered it moot.
9/30/12$275 Assessments due for 7/1/12 – 9/30/12 quarter plus $25 late fee assessed on 7/31/12 were paid by $300 check 143
9/30/12In SCA 618, RRFS Allocation detail shows that check 143 was applied to pay the assessments and late fees due and payable through 9/30/12.
9/30/12Check 143 paid the account in full for the quarter 7/1/12-9/30/12. See SCA 618 which shows 
9/30/129/30/12 RRFS reported to the SCA Board that as of 9/30/12, account 808634 was a potential write off of $351.21.
See RRFS potential write off as of 9/30/12 for 2763 White Sage, RRFS account #808634
10/1/12$275 Assessments due for quarter 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/3/12Per SCA 631, Tobin gave notice to SCA that the owner had died. Enclosed were
1) 1/14/12 death certificate and
2) “Check for $300 HOA dues”
Tobin’s notice was sent to the HOA. She indicated the late payment of the deceased owner’s assessments was an error, that the property was in escrow,
that the prospective purchasers were moving in shortly,
that further payments would be made out of escrow, and
that the HOA should work with Doug/Proudfit Realty or new owners to collect future assessments. SCA’s claims that Tobin acted in bad faith, had “unclean hands” and that she was “barred by equitable principles from recovering” for not knowing or remembering that check 143 was not delivered on 8/17/12 when it was written.
Tobin had no recollection of writing the 10/3/12 letter and only became aware of it on 12/26/18 when PDFs of documents disclosed by SCA on 5/31/18 as a picture of a CD, were given to her by attorney Joe Coppedge.
10/3/12Page 1335 Resident Transaction Report does not have an entry to acknowledge that check 143 for $300 was submitted to pay the assessments for the quarter from 7/1/12 – 9/30/12 as was reported in SCA 618.. 
10/8/12RRFS stamped on a paper with a picture of check 143 as received by RRFS on 10/8/12.
There is no date stamp on check 143 to indicate when SCA received it or when RRFS received it.
It is more probable, given the many alterations/ misrepresentations of other documents RRFS/SCA disclosed, that Tobin’s recollection that she submitted check 143 with check 142 on 8/17/12 was correct. and RRFS altered the date on the transmittal letter from 8/17/12 to 10/3/12 to conceal that FSR forwarding the account to collections on 9/13/12 was an error.
10/8/12SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the same SCA compliance letter, dated 9/20/12,  to Gordon Hansen, at 2664 Olivia Heights. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any proofs of service for SCA 628 and SCA 635. Tobin has no record or recollection of ever receiving it. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any letter to 2763 White Sage which would have been required it this was supposed to be the first step of the due process required before imposing a penalty on the homeowner for delinquent assessments.
10/10/12The 10/10/12 hearing noticed allegedly by the 9/20/12 letter in SCA 628 and SCA 635 did not occur. No notice of sanction followed it equivalent to the 8/13/14 Notice of Fines Tobin received after a hearing was held to give notice of a $25 fine for dead plants.
10/18/12RRFS ledger did not apply check 143 to pay the 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter. On 10/18/12 RRFS ledger entered that check 143 left a balance $369.15 instead of the $275 that was actually due and payable for the quarter of 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/18/12SCA 618 PAY ALLOCATION shows check 143 was both allocated as payment of the quarter 7/1/12-9/30/12 or was a partial payment that left a balance as of 10/18/12 comprised of all RRFS-added charges.
10/18/12RRFS ledger SCA 623-625 called check 143 a partial payment
10/31/12$25 late fee for 10/1/12-12/31/12 delinquent installment was assessed. As of 10/31/12, amount due and owing was $300.
10/31/12Balance due on 10/31/12 as listed in SCA resident transaction report instead of the $275 assessments and $25 late fee actually authorized and due and payable as of 10/31/12.
10/31/12On 11/5/12 RRFS ledgeer sent to 2763 White Sage and forwarded by Proudfit Realty to Ticor Title claimed $495.36 was due when $300 would have paid through 12/31/12 the $300 assessment and late fee authorized for the quarter 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/31/12RRFS reported to the Board that account 808634, 2763 White Sage Dr. was a potential write off of $382.26 as of 10/31/12
11/1/12SCA Board published a schedule of fees that conformed to the NRS 116.310313(2) limits set by the CIC Commission except for the sentence “Fees and costs may change without notice. Schedule of fees may not be all inclusive.”
11/5/12SCA 620 11/5/12 “Correspondence Response Sent to Homeowner” “(RRFS) is in receipt of the correspondence that the homeowner has passed away. Our records have been updated…” RRFS claimed $495.36 was due as of 10/31/12 instead of the $300 actually due.
11/9/12Per 11/9/12 into SCA resident transaction report after a $300 collection payment was credited from check 143, there was a $351.21 balance reported on Page 1335 because two unauthorized monthly late fees had been added. $300 was due, $275 for assessments for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter plus the $25 late fee due on 10/31/12.)
11/9/12Page 1335 Resident Transaction Report has an entry, dated 11/9/13, that shows the HOA received a collection payment of $300 on 11/6/12.
11/9/12SCA 617 “Payment Allocation 11/9/12” information as of 10/18/12. Check 143 for $300 was received as a “partial payment”. “Association Allocation detai”l: $300 check was allocated to $275 assessments due 7/1/12.and 7/31/12 to $25 late fee assessed.. 
12/5/12On 12/14/12, RRFS recorded a lien the falsely stated $925.76 was due and payable. RRFS recited on the lien that the HOA had verified that $925.76 was due and payable as of 12/5/12. As of 12/5/12, $275 for assessments for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter were delinquent and a $25 late fee was authorized t be imposed on 10/31/12. All other charges were unnecessary as the account should have not been sent to collections when the only delinquent assessments were for a quarter that had not even ended. Once check 143 was paid, the account should have been removed from collections. Once the HOA received notice that future assessments would be paid out of escrow, adding $625.76 in collection fees over what was due and payable was predatory and unfair.
12/20/12On 12/2012, Ticor Title requested payoff figures from RRFS to be paid out of Sparkman 8/10/12 escrow
1/1/13Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/13
1/1/13According to the HOA Resident Transaction Report, on 1/1/13, there was an outstanding balance of $677.31. This is a variance of $102.31 over what was due and payable on 1/1/13, i.e, $275 assessments for 10/1/12-12/31/12 + $25 late fee plus $275 for 1/1/13-3/31/13 quarter. Note that $575 was due. RMI, as SCA’s managing agent, recorded in SCA’s oficial accounting records that $677.31 was due. RMI d/b/a RRFS, SCA’s debt collector, demanded $1,355.60 from the deceased owner’s estate. RMI d/b/a RRFS, SCA’s debt collector, demanded $1,451.75 from the prospective purchasers’ escrow.
1/1/13On 1/1/13, $275 assessments came due for quarter 1/1/13-3/31/13. There was a $300 ourstanding balance for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter that resulted in a $575 balance due and payable. 
1/3/13RRFS sent a notice, dated 1/3/13, the GBH Hansen estate that a lien had been recorded on 12/14/12 for $976.25, but that on 1/3/13 $1355.60  was then due. The $925.76 l12/14/12 lien overstated the amount due by $625.76. The claim that $1355.60 was due on 1//3/13 overstated the amount actually due and owing by $780.60.
1/3/131/3/13 SCA 587 LIEN SENT TO OWNER
1/3/131/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT TO OWNER”
1/9/131/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND RECEIVED1/16/13 SCA 578 P/O DEMAND SENT
1/16/13On 1/16/13, RRFS responded to Ticor Title’s request for updated payoff figures with a pay off demand to the Sparkman escrow of $1451.75. This demand overstated the amount actually due and payable on 1/16/13 by $876.75.
1/31/13$25 late fee due for the 1/1/13-3/31/13 quarter. 
1/31/13RRFS reported to the Board that account 808634, 2763 White Sage Dr. was a potential write-off of $677.31 as of 1/31/13.
3/7/13$702.31 amount required to pay assessments, late fees, and interest to bring balance to zero through 3/31/13 per SCA resident transaction report Page 1335 
3/7/13$2,475.35 was due and payable as of 3/7/13 per RRFS on 3/12/13 NODES
3/12/13RRFS claimed on the rescinded 3/12/13 (NODES) Notice of Default and election to Sell that, as of 3/7/13, $2,475.35 was due, not the $702.31 reported on the  SCA resident transaction report Page 1335
3/27/13Effective 3/27/13, RRFS rescinded the 3/12/13 notice of default.
4/1/13$275 Assessments due for quarter 4/1/13-6/30/13
4/3/13SCA 553 RRFS on 4/3/13 recorded the rescission of the 3/12/13 NODES. No notice of the rescission was mailed to the owner or to the property.
4/4/13As of 4/4/13, $2752.66 Due and payable per RRFS on the recorded 4/8/13 NODES vs. $825 assessments ($275 x 3 quarters from 10/1/12-6/30/13) and $50 for late fees ($25 for the 4/1/13-6/30/13 quarter was not due until the for the 4/1/13-6/30/13 quarterly installment was 30 days past due on 4/30/13.
4/16/13SCA 525 4/16/13 “Payoff Demand Received”.
See SCA 415-416 for RRFS work log entries related to RRFS refusal of Miles Bauer tender.
4/17/13SCA 527 4/17/13  Request reviewed
4/30/13$25 late fee was assessed for 4/1/13-6/30/13 delinquent installment
4/30/13SCA 254 RRFS acct detail 4/4/13 – 12/31/13 shows RRFS charged the Hansen account $150 to respond to Miles Bauer request for pay off figures
4/30/13SCA 517 -519 4/30/13 “Payoff Demand Sent” RRFS letter to Miles Bauer stated that as of 4/30/13, $$2,904.26 was due.
5/7/13Tobin faxed a letter to put BANA on notice of her intent to stop paying to protect the security interest of a lender to whom she did not owe any debt.
See Tobin 5/7/13 letter to BANA and attachments disclosed as NSM 274-328.
5/8/13SCA 513 Miles Bauer check for $825, the exact amount of assessments then delinquent.
See SCA 513-530 for RRFS disclosures re rejection of the first super-priority tender. (SCA 302 was the second.)
5/16/135/16/13 SCA 512 is a request for payoff figures from Proudfit Realty “We are expecting a short-sale approval letter to be issued in the name of the new buyers. Escrow is expected to close no later than June 28, 2013.”
See SCA 504-512.
5/29/13RRFS responded on 5/29/13 that $3,055.47 was due and payable instead of the $825 assessments and $75 late fees that were due and owing to bring the account paid in full to 6/30/13.
5/29/13SCA 254 RRFS acct detail 4/4/13 – 12/31/13 shows that on 5/29/13 RRFS charged $150 for pay off demand in relation to Proudfit Realty request for pay off figures in Mazzeo’s escrow opened on 5/10/13 for a $395,000 purchase offer
6/30/13If Miles Baur tender of $875 had been accepted and correctly applied, assessments would have been paid through 6/30/13. There were unpaid late fees for the three quarters then delinquent ($25 x 3= $75 due for the quarters from 10/1/12-6/30/13).

It was unfair for Miles Bauer to tender the $825 for the nine months then delinquent after its principal, servicing bank BANA, refused to let the escrow (8/10/12-4/8/13) close on Sparkman’s FMV arms-length offer.

Ticor Title had been instructed to pay the $1,451.75 RRFS had demanded on 1/16/13 on COE.
It was also unfair that BANA’s agent Miles Bauer tendered the $825 super-priority directly to RRFS without notifying Ticor Title, Proudfit or Tobin. 

RRFS did not notify the SCA Board, or more importantly, request Board approval, of its rejection of the tender of 100% of the assessments then delinquent.
Per RTR pages 1334-1336 the amount due and owing as of 6/30/13 was $1,083.14.
7/1/13Per RTR pages 1334-1336 the amount due and owing as of 7/1/13 was $1,308.14
7/1/13$275 Assessments due for 7/1/13-9/30/13
7/1/13$825 delinquent through 6/30/13 +$275 assessments due for 7/1/13-9/30/13 quarter equated to $1100, one year of assessments due because of RRFS’s unilateral rejection of the Miles Bauer tender and because of BANA’s unilateral rejection of the Mazzeo’s 5/10/13 $395,000 offer.
7/10/13Tobin removed the property from the market, turned off the electricity, and initiated a deed in lieu process with BANA.
See Tobin’s 2013 deed in lieu hand written notes.
7/31/13$25 late fee due bringing to $1100 the assessments that were delinquent plus$100 in late fees that were authorized=$1,200.
8/15/13SCA 401 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “deceased”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 287 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board on 6/9/14 was denied. 
See SCA 401-403 Return to Senders
8/15/13SCA 403 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “Return to sender Not deliverable as addressed. Unable to forward.”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 287 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board on 6/9/14 was denied. 
10/1/13Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 12/31/13
10/1/13Balance per RRFS account detail in SCA 254
10/1/13Assessments due for 10 /1/13-12/31/13
10/16/1310/16/13 SCA 450 Followed Up POP
10/16/13SCA 468 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” to 10/16/13 does not show any BOD approval
10/31/13$25 late fee due
1/1/14Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/14
1/1/14Balance per RRFS account detail in SCA 254
1/1/14Assessments due for 1/1/14-3/31/14
1/31/14$25 late fee due
2/11/14Effective 2/11/14, RRFS claimed that $5,081.45 was due and payable on the Notice of Sale published on 2/12/14 (cancelled on 5/15/14 and not replaced).

Note that RRFS did not ever update the 2/11/14 $5,081.45 figure a a second published NOS.
RRFS concealed its 3/28/14 payoff demand to Chicago Title in which RRFS stated that as of 3/28/14 $4,962.24 was due as of 3/28/14. The discrepancy ($5,081.45 on 2/11/14 vs. $4,962.24 on 3/28/14 is explained on page 6 of the 3/28/14 demand.

RRFS and SCA obfuscated that on 3/28/14 the SCA BOD instructed RRFS to reduce $400 in late fees and $18.81 in interest of the $5,083.45 RRFS claimed was due on 2/11/14.) Note that SCA 275-SCA 315 includes significant alterations of the RRFS accounts and records to obfuscate this action by the SCA BOD and to misrepresent the 5/28/14 NSM offer (one year of assessments ($1100) to close the MZK 5/8/14 auction.com sale) as a fee waiver request from the owner. Further, SCA 254, RRFS’s 8/15/14 Account Detail fails to accurately account for the 3/28/14 fee and interest waiver authorized by the SCA BOD. 
2/11/14$4,240.10
2/12/14Published 2/12/14 Notice of Sale (NOS) alleged that $5,081.45 was due as of 2/11/14. 
2/28/14$4,962.64 RRFS response to payoff demand requested by Chicago Title  
3/18/143/18/14 payoff demand received

Note that the 3/6/14 Chicago Title Preliminary Title Report was concealed in discovery.
3/18/14SCA 312 -313 shows that Chicago Title requested pay-off figures from RRFS.
3/18/14SCA 310 contains two emails dated 3/18/14 which clearly indicate RRFS received a request for payoff figure on 3/18/14, but the SCA BOD was scheduled to review Leidy’s requests at the 3/27/14 meeting. Note RRFS and SCA both failed to disclose the 3/28/14 RRFS response to Chicago Title in which the ledger shows that the SCA BOD approved a $400 fee waiver. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail from 2/11/14-8/15/14
3/28/14On 3/28/14 RRFS demanded $3,055.47 was due in response to Chicago Title’s 3/18/14 request for pay off figures found in SCA 312 -313. RRFS, NSM, and SCA concealed RRFS’s 3/28/14 demand. On 10/14/14, Leidy provided it to Tobin. Leidy informed Tobin on 10/14/14 that it was the only ledger he had ever received.
3/28/14RRFS concealed payoff demand of $3,055.47 in response to Chicago Title (concealed in discovery)
3/28/14$4,687.64 was shown as due and payable on
3/28/14See Page 6 of the 3/28/14 RRFS ledger concealed from discovery by RRFS, SCA, BHHS, and NSM.

3/28/14 Page 6 shows a $400 fee reduction was approved by the SCA board pursuant to Leidy’s 3/7/14 only fee reduction request found buried in SCA .
6/9/14 Page 6 of RRFS 6/9/14 ledger scrubs the $400 Board approved reduction and reports that RRFS billed no collection costs from 2/11/14 to 5/30/14 (See SCA 301).
A further accounting discrepancy in found in SCA 250
4/1/14Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 6/30/14
4/1/14$275 Assessments due for 4/1/14-6/30/14
4/24/14
4/30/14$25 late fee due for delinquent  4/1/14-6/30/14 installment
4/30/14SCA 254 RRFS acct detail 4/4/13 – 12/31/13 shows on 4/30/13 RRFS claimed $2,876.95 was due as of 4/30/13 in response to Miles Bauer’s request for pay off figures. SCA 254. On
5/6/14SCA 307
5/15/14No BOD approval of postponed 5/15/14 sale date
5/15/14SCA 307 is an unsigned approval form to conduct the sale on 5/15/14.
No signed BOD approval was disclosed in SCA 176-643 or exists in the 4/26/14 minutes of Board approval to conduct the sale on 5/15/14.

On 5/15/14, the Ombudsman received notice that the 5/15/14 sale was cancelled as the owner was retained.
5/15/14SCA 308 is another email alleging final approval of the 5/15/14 sale from which the date has been scrubbed and there is no signature
5/28/14SCA 302 NSM 5/28/14 super-priority offer
6/2/14Ombudsman employee, Ann Moore, logged that the Ombudsman had received notice that the 5/15/14 sale date had been cancelled, the 2/12/14 notice of sale process and the “trustee sale: were cancelled and the “owner retained”. See authenticated Ombudsman Notice of Sale Compliance Record (OMB-NOS)
7/1/14Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report Page 1336 to bring account current to 9/30/14 was $2,692.68.
See Resident Transaction report, Pages 1334-1336
7/1/14Assessments due for 7/1/14-6/30/14
7/2/14SCA 277 Undated email RRFS to Leidy “Please see response regarding the settlement request for $1000.00” (Note there was no settlement request for $1000. Leidy did not receive this. Not clear what was supposedly attached as it does not relate to the 6/5/14 email Leidy sent to RRFS to forward the NSM 5/28/14 offer that is on the bottom of the page SCA 277
7/2/14unsent RRFS ledger falsely alleged to have been sent to 2664 OH and 2763 WS
7/31/14$25 late fee due.
7/31/14Per RTR pages 1334-1336 the amount due and owing on 7/31/14 $2,692/68.
8/13/14Notice of Fines was sent after a hearing was held prior to the imposition of a $25 fine for a dead tree at 2763 White Sage
8/15/14RRFS sold 2763 White Sage without notice to any party with a known interest.
8/15/14SCA 255 2/11/14 – 8/15/14 RRFS account detail does not have an entry of 3/28/14 SCA BOD $400 fee waiver and does not include any charges for the 3/28/14 pay off demand to Chicago Title and does not report SCA 302, NSM’s 5/28/14 super-priority tender. It also shows RRFS was charging late fees monthly when payments were in quarterly installments and $25 per installment was authorized.
8/27/14Collection payment entered to pay Gordon Hansen’s account in full on Page 1336
9/25/14Page 1337 Resident Transaction Report shows an entry on 9/25/14 that Jimijack Irr Tr paid $225.00 new owner setup fee. Jimijack’s Resident ID was 0480-02. SCA’s ownership record shows Jimijack was the second owner of the property.
9/25/14Page 1337 Resident Transaction Report 9/25/14-3/31/16 and SCA owner record 4/1/16-5/9/16 shows Jimijack was the only owner after Hansen. SCA refused to provide the SCA ownership records requested from 8/15/14 date of the sale to 2/28/19 end of discovery.
4/1/162763 White Sage payments for all owners 1/1/06-5/9/16
10/14/14Tobin to Leidy email demanding answers
10/14/14 Leidy response
10/14/14Leidy emailed to Tobin the 3/28/14 ledger that RRFS concealed in discovery that shows how RRFS falsified the ledgers.

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

SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014

A 2017 study conducted by the UNLV Lied School of Real Estate, commissioned by the Nevada Association of Realtors, studied 611 HOA foreclosures between 2011-2015. 

SCA’s 2014 Foreclosures WERE NOT IDENTIFIED in the UNLV Study

Somehow the professionals conducting the study missed ALL of SCA’s 13 foreclosures between 2011 and 2015.

Ten HOAs had 1/6 of the 611 foreclosures UNLV studied.

Why didn’t UNLV know about SCA’s 13 sales Red Rock conducted?

SCA had 13 foreclosures in 2014, but SCA is not in the UNLV HOA foreclosure study’s list of HOAs that had more than five foreclosures from 2011-2015.

Notice a pattern?

ALL SCA foreclosure buyers were knowledgeable speculators.

Some would call them “vulture investors”.

This pattern – selling for a dime on a dollar to a few wise guys – would never have happened if bidding had not been suppressed by a few unsavory practices:

  1. Convince the HOA Board that they must keep everything about foreclosure secret,
  2. have no agendas or minutes of HOA Board actions to foreclose
  3. give no notice to the owner whose house is being sold
  4. Allow the manager to be the debt collector and control EVERYTHING about the money that’s collected for the benefit of the HOA members
  5. Allow the debt collector full, unilateral, unsupervised proprietary control all the records and processes, so the HOA has no independent records;
  6. give away signatory control over bank accounts of HOA money collected,  
  7. allow the debt collector to use the HOA attorneys against a homeowner who complains
  8. allow the debt collector to lie about notices that were given.

At Sun City Anthem, not a single homeowner knew when or where RRFS was selling these houses.

NOTICE A PATTERN? FOLLOW THE MONEY

In the case of 2763 White Sage, RRFS intentionally WITHHELD notice to ALL parties with a known interest – and then lied about it in order to cover up how this scam works to enrich the chosen few..

Look at who bought the houses. Look at how much they paid, and look at what Sun City Anthem Board and owners were told. It’s quite a lucrative scam for a lucky few.

One way the debt collector runs the con

See Irma Mendez’ 11/12/18 sworn affidavit regarding Joel Just, former RRFS President, and his selling foreclosures direct without the inconvenience of a public auction.

FSR and FSR dba RRFS told the HOA Board falsely that everything about HOA sales had to be kept secret.

How the vulture investors unjustly profited

TRP Fund IV LLC bought four SCA properties at unnoticed sales @ an average price of $52,125, 80% below fair market value. I, and many other Sun City Anthem homeowners, were prevented from attending these sales and bidding because RRFS explicitly withheld notice.

Two sham LLCs, using the property address as the corporate name, bought houses for $6,500 & $7,600.

All 13 houses COMBINED were sold for $734,900 to a few people “in the know”, and not a single one to an SCA owner.

SCA properties RRFS secretly sold in 2014

1/2/14 RRFS sold  2532 Grandville Ave for $25,500 to TRP Fund IV LLC .

SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS. TRP FUND IV v. HSBC Bank A-16-735894-C
There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property.

1/2/14 RRFS sold 2227 Shadow Canyon to TRP Fund IV LLC for $40,000.

Nationstar Mortg., LLC vs. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 2227 Shadow Canyon 133 Nev. Advance Opinion 91, 405 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2017).

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. SCA was not identified AT ALL in the litigation as the HOA under whose statutory authority this sale occurred.

Neither SCA nor RRFS were named parties to the litigation.

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There is no court record that Red Rock interpleaded the proceeds. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceeds after the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

2/18/14 RRFS sold 2721 Evening Sky for $40,000 to TRP Fund IV LLC

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceeds after the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

2/18/14 RRFS sold 2115 Sandstone Cliffs for $54,000 to TRP Fund IV LLC

TRP Fund IV LLC v. Bank of Mellon et al, A-15-724233-C
SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS. There is no court record that RRFS interpleaded the proceeds.

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

2/18/14 RRFS sold 2842 Forest Grove for $89,000 to TRP Fund IV LLC

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

3/7/14 RRFS sold 2260 Island City for $30,000 to SFR Investment Pool

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

3/7/14 RRFS sold 1382 Couperin Dr for $100,100 to LN Management LLC series 1382 Couperin

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

3/14/14 RRFS sold 2167 Maple Heights for $6,500 to 2167 Maple Heights Trust

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property.
Bank of NY Mellon v. SCA 2:17-cv-02161-APG-PAL, ADR 17-91. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

3/28/14 RRFS sold 2584 Pine Prairie for $7,600 to LN Mgt Series LLC 2584 Pine Prairie.


LN Mgt LLC series 2584 Pine Prairie v. Deutsche Bank A-14-707237-C. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.


There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

4/29/14 RRFS sold 2175 Clearwater Lake Dr. for $45,100 to Saticoy Bay LLC 

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. there are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale.

Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).

6/10/14 RRFS scheduled the sale of 2986 Olivia Heights Ave,

The sale was cancelled by a Citi Mortgage temporary restraining order. Citimortgage Inc v. SCA  A-14-702071 NV Supreme court case # 71942.
On 12/7/17, the SCA Board authorized paying $55,000 to Citi to settle the case. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 RRFS contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.

The Board President’s report of the settlement does not match the court records.

8/15/14 RRFS sold 2763 White Sage Dr. for $63,100 to Thomas Lucas took title as Opportunity Home, LLC.

The sale was conducted without notice. The buyer was a realtor in the BHHS listing office that was under contract with Nona Tobin. Jimijack vs BANA & SCA (A-15-720032-C); Nationstar vs Opportunity Homes (A-16-730078-C), Nona Tobin vs Joel Stokes et al A-19-799890-C, Supreme Court appeals #79295, 82094, 832234 and 82294. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013). Instead, more than six years later, after refusing to distribute the proceeds to Nona Tobin, RRFS sued five defendants for interpleader, knowing that no one had a recorded claim except Nona Tobin.

9/11/14 RRFS sold 2921 Hayden Creek Terrace for $100,000 to Jayem Family LP

FNMA v SCA 2:17-cv-1800-JAD-GWF. SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).


11/12/14 RRFS sold 2416 Idaho Falls for $174,000 to Global Village LLC.

My Global Village LLC v BAC Home Servicing A-15-711883-C . SCA did not enforce the 4/27/12 contract indemnification clause that would have shifted this expense to RRFS.

There is no SCA record that the SCA Board approved the sale of this property. There are no SCA records to ascertain what happened to the proceeds of the sale. Upon information and belief, RRFS did not distribute the proceed of the sale as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3)(2013).



 

SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws

The sale of 2763 White Sage Drive is voidable.

Sale was not authorized by a SCA Board action taken in compliance with the provisions of NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085

  1. NRS 116.3102 define the powers of unit-owners’ association.
  • NRS 116.3102(m) limits the association’s authority to sanction an owner for an alleged violation of the governing documents by requiring the association to provide notice and due process as delineated in NRS 116.31031 to the owner who may be sanctioned.

(m) May impose reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents of the association only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.

NRS 116.3102(m)

With certain exceptions defined in NRS 116.31085Board actions must occur at duly called Board meetings, compliant with the provisions of NRS 116.31083i.e.,

  • that are open to all unit owners,
  • that provide meaningful notice of the actions the Board intends to take at that meeting,
  • that provide minutes of all Board decisions made and actions taken.

SCA Board voted in closed meetings to impose sanctions without notice

SCA board did not take any valid votes to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage in any open meeting with agendas and minutes that complied with the requirements in NRS 116.31083  (2013)  and NRS 116.31085 (2013).

Therefore, the decision and the sale are voidable.

No compliant agendas announced an intent to foreclose

  • SCA did not publish notice of its intent to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive on any agenda for any meeting of the Board in the manner prescribed by NRS 116.31083(5) and NRS 116.3108(4).
  • According to NRS 116.31083(5), meetings of an association’s executive board must comply with the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 116.3108. 
  • NRS 116.3108(4) defines requirements of notice and agendas:

(a)        A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, …

(b)       A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.

(c) A period devoted to comments by units’ owners regarding any matter affecting the common-interest community or the association and discussion of those comments. Except in emergencies, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to paragraph (b).

NRS 116.3108(4)

No minutes of any SCA Board meeting, compliant with NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085, document a Board action to authorize the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage Drive was ever taken, and therefore the decision is voidable.

  • NRS (2013) 116.31083 (8) (10) require the Board to maintain “the minutes of each meeting of the executive board until the common-interest community is terminated.”  that include the following specific information:

8. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 9 (Section 9 allows the Board to “establish reasonable limitations on materials, remarks or other information to be included in the minutes of its meetings.”) and NRS 116.31085, the minutes of each meeting of the executive board must include:

(a) The date, time and place of the meeting;

(b) Those members of the executive board who were present and those members who were absent at the meeting;

c) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided at the meeting;

(d) A record of each member s vote on any matter decided by vote at the meeting; and

e) The substance of remarks made by any unit s owner who addresses the executive board at the meeting if the unit s owner requests that the minutes reflect his or her remarks or, if the unit s owner has prepared written remarks, a copy of his or her prepared remarks if the unit s owner submits a copy for inclusion.

IMPERMISSIBLE TO SANCTION AN OWNER IN A CLOSED MEETING without a hearing

  • The decision to foreclose on 2763 White Sage was made in a closed session which was not permissible under the terms of NRS 16.31085 (3) (4) and is therefore voidable.
  • NRS 116.31085(3) defines the only permissible topics of discussion and actions the Board is authorized to take in an executive session closed to owners

NRS 116.31085 (3)

 3.  An executive board may meet in executive session only to:

      (a) Consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation if the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the privilege set forth in NRS 49.035 to 49.115, inclusive.

      (b) Discuss the character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a community manager or an employee of the association.

      (c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, discuss a violation of the governing documents, including, without limitation, the failure to pay an assessment.

      (d) Discuss the alleged failure of a unit’s owner to adhere to a schedule required pursuant to NRS 116.310305 if the alleged failure may subject the unit’s owner to a construction penalty.

NRS 116.31085 (3)
  1. Whereas NRS 116.31085(3)(c) only authorizes the Board to “discuss” alleged violations of the governing documents in executive session, NRS 116.31085(4) only permits Board action to sanction an owner for an alleged violation in closed session when it holds a hearing at which the owner can present a defense to dissuade the Board from imposing a sanction for an alleged violation.

NRS 116.31085(4)

      4.  An executive board shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted by the executive board. If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the person:

      (a) Is entitled to attend all portions of the hearing related to the alleged violation, including, without limitation, the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnesses;

      (b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards adopted by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel; and

      (c) Is not entitled to attend the deliberations of the executive board.

NRS 116.31085(4)

NO MINUTES = IT NEVER HAPPENED

  1. NRS 116.31085(6) requires the Board to report its actions taken in closed session in the regular Board minutes.

6. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any matter discussed by the executive board when it meets in executive session must be generally noted in the minutes of the meeting of the executive board.

NRS 116.31085(6)
  1. There are no minutes of any SCA Board meeting that document a Board action to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive.
  2. NRS 116.31085 (6) also defines a sanctioned owner’s right to receive minutes of any closed meeting at which the Board took action to sanction an owner for an alleged violation pursuant to a hearing.

The executive board shall maintain minutes of any decision made pursuant to subsection 4 concerning an alleged violation and, upon request, provide a copy of the decision to the person who was subject to being sanctioned at the hearing or to the person’s designated representative.

  1. SCA refused to provide minutes as required by NRS 116.31085(6) to document a decision to foreclose was made pursuant to a hearing make the action voidable.
  2. See 2/26/19 SCA response to Tobin’s RFDs (request for documents) .
  3. See 2/26/19 SCA response to Tobin’s ROGs (interrogatories)
  4. The fact that SCA Board did not provide notice of its intent to authorize the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage, nor offer the owner an opportunity for an open hearing, nor hold a hearing that provided the owner with the mandated due process is evidenced by CAM Lori Martin’s June 1, 2016 email refusing Tobin’s request for minutes of any meeting at which the BOD took action to foreclose:

“Your request for the “minutes where actions leading to foreclosure for delinquent assessment(s) was approved for 2763 White Sage” cannot be fulfilled since those minutes are Executive Session minutes and not privy to the anyone except the Board. The only time Executive Session minutes are released to a homeowner is if a hearing was held and then, only that portion of the meeting minutes is provided.”

CAM Lori Martin’s June 1, 2016 email refusing Tobin’s request for minutes

No notice or hearing was provided

SCA Board did not provide mandated notice and hearing prior to imposing a sanction for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments

NRS 116.31031 requires any HOA Board to provide due process to an owner prior to the imposition of any penalty for an alleged violation of the governing documents.

4.  The executive board may not impose a fine pursuant to subsection 1 unless:

      (a) Not less than 30 days before the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed had been provided with written notice of the applicable provisions of the governing documents that form the basis of the alleged violation; and

      (b) Within a reasonable time after the discovery of the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed has been provided with:

             (1) Written notice:

                   (I) Specifying in detail the alleged violation, the proposed action to cure the alleged violation, the amount of the fine, and the date, time and location for a hearing on the alleged violation; and

                   (II) Providing a clear and detailed photograph of the alleged violation, if the alleged violation relates to the physical condition of the unit or the grounds of the unit or an act or a failure to act of which it is possible to obtain a photograph; and

             (2) A reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation or to contest the alleged violation at the hearing.

–For the purposes of this subsection, a unit’s owner shall not be deemed to have received written notice unless written notice is mailed to the address of the unit and, if different, to a mailing address specified by the unit’s owner.

      5.  The executive board must schedule the date, time and location for the hearing on the alleged violation so that the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed is provided with a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to be present at the hearing.

      6.  The executive board must hold a hearing before it may impose the fine, unless the fine is paid before the hearing or unless the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed:

      (a) Executes a written waiver of the right to the hearing; or

      (b) Fails to appear at the hearing after being provided with proper notice of the hearing.

      7.  If a fine is imposed pursuant to subsection 1 and the violation is not cured within 14 days, or within any longer period that may be established by the executive board, the violation shall be deemed a continuing violation. Thereafter, the executive board may impose an additional fine for the violation for each 7-day period or portion thereof that the violation is not cured. Any additional fine may be imposed without providing the opportunity to cure the violation and without the notice and an opportunity to be heard required by paragraph (b) of subsection 4.

      8.  If the governing documents so provide, the executive board may appoint a committee, with not less than three members, to conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines pursuant to this section. While acting on behalf of the executive board for those limited purposes, the committee and its members are entitled to all privileges and immunities and are subject to all duties and requirements of the executive board and its members.

5/12/17 SCA attorney opinion

Adam Clarkson stated unironically, and apparently, with a complete lack of self-awareness, that SCA Board compliance with specific meeting laws is required for its corporate actions to be valid.

In his first legal opinion as SCA’s Legal counsel and debt collector, Clarkson stated, inter alia,

SCA Board did not comply with NRS 116 meeting laws when it made decisions regarding collection fines, debt forgiveness or foreclosures.

Further references

SCA CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance and Enforcement

SCA bylaws 3.26 Enforcement Procedures

11/15/12          NRED Advisory 12-05-116 Executive Session Agendas

SCA bylaws 3.15 provides that all HOA Board meetings must be open to members with specified exceptions. This provision parallels NRS 116.31083.

SCA bylaws 3.15A Executive Session defines the limited topics that can be discussed in closed meetings and define the due process required prior to the Board imposing a sanction against an owner for alleged violations of the governing documents.  This provision parallels NRS 116.31085.

Cause of Action: Abuse of Process

The Elements of Abuse of Process apply to all defendants in all related cases

Interpleader complaint was an abuse of process because Defendant Steven Scow named parties who don’t have a claim and because it was filed to obstruct the administration of justice in other cases that were improperly filed, the wrong parties were intentionally named and the correct ones intentionally omitted.

The attorneys in all the related cases have engaged in a massive fraud on the court, involving presenting false evidence,

1. Filing of a lawsuit made with ulterior purpose other than to resolve dispute

Link to “Interpleader Complaint was filed with an ulterior motive

This interpleader complaint was filed for the corrupt purpose of continuing to obstruct a fair, evidence-based adjudication of Nona Tobin’s claims.

Links to NV Supreme Court cases 82294, 82234, and 82094

The defendants, jointly in concerted action and/or conspiracy, and each one separately,are utilizing this untimely, unwarranted, and harassing interpleader complaint in the corrupt attempt to moot the appeals of their non-meritorious claims in cases A-15-720032-C and A-19-799890-C.

Defendants improperly utilized this and the multiple related civil actions intended to the quiet title following a disputed 2014 HOA foreclosure. Their corrupt purpose was to get the court to bless their clients’ theft of Nona Tobin’s property, and the attorneys of those engaged in racketeering, conspired to cover it up.

Civil actions have been used to steal from Nona Tobin

  1. Attorneys have presented false evidence, withheld evidence, falsified documents to cover up FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial’s predatory debt collection that led to the secret foreclosure sale.
  2. Attorneys have presented false evidence, withheld evidence, falsified documents, to cover up Steven Scow’s, and other conspirators’ misappropriation of the proceeds o of many secretly-conducted sales.
  3. Joseph Hong and Melanie Morgan conspired to engineer an ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner in order to derail Nona Tobin’s case.
  4. Nationstar recording false claims to the title of the subject property to abuse the quiet title litigation process to get a court-sanctioned theft of Nona Tobin’s property.
  5. Joseph Hong conspired with others to conceal that Jimijack’s void deed had no legal capacity to hold or transfer title.
  6. Brittany Wood conspired with others not having an admissible deed and then fraudulently conveying it to one of the trustees as an individual.
  7. Joseph Hong’s and Melanie Morgan’s negotiating a fraudulent deal to steal Nona Tobin’s property that was represented to the court as a Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims, but was actually a contract between non-parties to the litigation.
  8. Brittany Wood misrepresenting the court record, the facts and the law, in order to evade detection that her clients’ had knowingly received Tobin’s fraudulently conveyed property.

2. Wilfull act in the use of legal process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding

Steven Scow named five defendants in the interpleader complaint when he knew that four of those defendants had already recorded releases of their claims.

Link to Nona Tobin’s 3/15/21 Request for Judicial Notice of the Clark county Recorder’s Office records for APN 191-13-811-052.

Steven Scow’s allegations in the complaint were false and were for the corrupt purpose of evading detection that he misappropriated the proceeds of this 8/15/14 foreclosure sale and a dozen other Sun City Anthem foreclosures that were secretly, and without legal authority, conducted by Red Rock Financial Services in 2014.

Steven Scow has unlawfully retained the proceeds from multiple HOA foreclosures in an unauthorized, unaudited attorney trust account.

Link to “HOA debt collectors yield an unlawful amount of power
Link to Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.20/3.18 (annotated) prohibition of the delegation of certain Board duties and the Board’s loss of control of funds collected for the benefit of the HOA
Link to “SCA board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014
Link to “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case

3. Damages as a direct result of the abuse

Actual damages to Nona Tobin currently exceed $700,000 and counting because attorneys unilaterally rejected her 2017 offer to settle at no cost without approval of the HOA Board. Their motive was to cover up the fraudulent acts of Red Rock and other HOA agents and attorneys.

Links to NV Supreme Court cases 82294, 82234, and 82094 that the co-conspirator defendants are attempting to moot by this unwarranted and harassing interpleader complaint.

Steven Scow filed the interpleader action more than six years after he failed to distribute the $57,282.32 excess proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale

Nevada law required the proceeds to be distributed after the sale

The HOA foreclosure sale was conducted on 8/15/14, and the 2013 statutes applied.

Link to NRS 116.3116-NRS 116.31168 (2013) – the applicable 2013 NRS provisions governing HOA foreclosures

Links to SCA 223-224 and RRFS 047-048 show Steven Scow was instructed to interplead the proceeds on 8/28/14.

Mortgage servicing fraud is many big bank’s business model

In this case, however, Nationstar’s mortgage servicing fraud normal tactics weren’t available so it chose to use co-conspirator attorneys, to abuse the quiet title litigation process.
Link to 12/7/20 National settlement of all Attorneys Generals’ mortgage servicing complaint vs. Nationstar
Link to 2012 National mortgage settlement with Bank of America
Link to 2012 National mortgage settlement with Wells Fargo

1st complaint to the Nevada Attorney General & exhibits

Links to Exhibits to 3/14/19 complaint to the NV Attorney General

2011               Certified fraud examiner Amicus curiae MA Supreme Court

7/15/2004      Western Thrift Deed of Trust

7/15/2004      COPY of GBH note NSM 258-260

5/14/2008      10 SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18abefgi prohibits BOD delegation

3/11/2011      2011 anti-foreclosure fraud law AB 284 

10/1/2011      NV 2011 Legislative Digest re AB 284 changes

2/1/2012        2012 National Mortgage Settlement

4/12/2012      Recorded DOT assign to BANA

8/8/2012        6 Sparkman RPA $310K

8/10/2012      Tobin counter to require lender to pay seller costs

8/10/2012      7 BANA short sale addendum

8/11/2012      8 Tobin re lender is seller

9/17/2012      9 SCA MSJ exhibit 3 re intent to lien SCA628

9/20/2012      5 Hearing Notice Sanction 4 Delinquent Assessments

10/3/2012      4 Tobin letter 2 SCA w/ 8/17/12 chk 143 + death cert

1/27/2013      BANA confusion over DOT – misc docs

6/5/2013        HUD-1 draft showing $3055.47 due to HOA out of escrow

6/19/2013      Proudfit 2 Ticor: BANA rejected buyer

12/31/2013    Mortgage transfer disclosure requirements

7/1/2014        Leidy-Tobin emails 7/24/14 through 10/24/14

7/22/2014      11 SCA 280-280 BOD denial of fee waiver request

8/21/2014      RRFS trust account check $57,282.32 to CC District court

9/9/2014        BANA recorded 8/21/14 assignment to Wells Fargo

9/25/2014      2 Res Trans Rpt 1336-7 GBH 2 Jimijack

12/1/2014      NS recorded 10/23/14 assignment to itself as BANA’s “attorney-in-fact”

3/12/2015      WF recorded substitution trustee reconvey 2nd DOT 2 GBH

4/1/2015        Thomas Baynard CA bar discipline

6/9/2015        Recorded OpHomes 2 F.Bondurant 6/4/15 quit claim

6/9/2015        3 Quit claim to Jimijack -Yuen Lee signed as T Lucas

1/13/2016      NS Lis Pendens re A-730078-C

4/1/2016        Unrecorded WF power of attorney NSM 270-272

5/9/2016        Residential Transaction Report – 2763 White Sage

6/7/2016        NS Lis Pendens re A-720032-C

9/18/2016      Tobin letter to R-J editor  “”HOAs, foreclosures, and property rights” 

12/28/2016    Corwin notary communications

1/3/2017        Debra Batesel journal entries re 6/4/15 quit claim & RPA

3/28/2017      Recorded GBH Trust quit claim 2 Tobin

3/28/2017      Recorded Hansen Disclaimer of Interest NSM 212-217

11/5/2018      Irma Mendez affidavit re Joel Just

2/5/2019        SCA MSJ against Tobin

2/5/2019        SCAMSJ Ex5-10/8/12 receipt + false claim of 9/20 notice

2/5/2019        SCAMSJ Ex12-notices with proofs of service

2/12/2019      Joinder to the SCA motion,

2/12/2019      NS Ltd joinder 2 SCA MSJ

2/20/2019      Gmail – compare NS disclosure with my paid off note

2/20/2019      Gmail – another nail in Nationstar’s coffin

2/25/2019      NS unrecorded rescinded 10/23/14 assignment-refiled NSM 404-408

2/25/2019      NS unrecorded refile of 10/23/14 as WF attorney in fact

2/27/2019      “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”

2/27/2019      TOC 2 Tobin disclosures

2/27/2019      Tobin 1st sup + BHHS + RRFS

3/1/2019        Hearing minutes Spanish trail A-14-710161

3/1/2019        CA SOS letter re notary complaint

3/5/2019        opposition to the SCA MSJ

3/10/2019      Tobin draft DECL OPPC NS ex 1-10

3/12/2019      CA notary violations on 4/12/12 DOT 2 BANA misc docs

8/27/2008      1 Deed GBH 2 GBH Trust

3/8/2019        Recorded rescission of 10/23/14 assignment MSN 409-411

1/17/2017       Backup for notary subpoenas- not issued

                       CA notary laws

NV Attorney General’s 3/26/19 response

A Duel to the Death

A Simple Fable: Jimijack and Nationstar weaponize settlement

How a bank and a speculator think a quiet title dispute with me should be settled.

The Scheme

In April, 2019, conspirators Joseph Hong and Melanie Morgan covertly devised a scheme to “resolve all parties’ claims” for the title of 2763 White Sage!

Hong & Morgan didn’t warn Nona Tobin

Hong & Morgan’s Slick Scheme:

A duel between Jimijack and Nationstar

Back-to-back.

Pistols raised. 

Count 10 paces.

They turn.

Both shoot Nona Tobin.

Hong & Morgan declare the winner!

On 4/23/19, Joseph Hong & Melanie Morgan reported to Judge Kishner that the Jimijack & Nationstar had settled the dispute over who gets the $500,000 house Nona Tobin inherited.

Hint: It’s not Nona.

Judge Kishner blessed the deal!

“Your work is done, Your Honor.

Jimijack and Nationstar have agreed.

Joel Stokes gets the title.

By the way, Nona Tobin is dead.”

Joseph Hong & Melanie Morgan, ex parte on 4/23/19

Harassment or bullying an HOA homeowner is a crime

It’s against the law for anyone to bully or to create a hostile environment for anyone in a Nevada HOA.

 NRS 116.31184  Threats, harassment and other conduct prohibited; penalty.

      1.  A community manager, an agent or employee of the community manager, a member of the executive board, an officer, employee or agent of an association, a unit’s owner or a guest or tenant of a unit’s owner shall not willfully and without legal authority threaten, harass or otherwise engage in a course of conduct against any other person who is the community manager of his or her common-interest community or an agent or employee of that community manager, a member of the executive board of his or her association, an officer, employee or agent of his or her association, another unit’s owner in his or her common-interest community or a guest or tenant of a unit’s owner in his or her common-interest community which:

(a) Causes harm or serious emotional distress, or the reasonable apprehension thereof, to that person; or

(b) Creates a hostile environment for that person.

2.  A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

NRS 116.31184

Wait!

Why are Seddon and Clarkson exempted from this law in Sun City Anthem’s newly published policy?
Clarkson wrote the Sun City Anthem policy a bit too narrowly:  
The law says community manager, employees, and HOA agents are covered:     

     A community manager, an agent or employee of the community manager, a member of the executive board, an officer, employee or agent of an association, a unit’s owner or a guest or tenant of a unit’s owner shall not willfully and without legal authority threaten, harass or otherwise engage in a course of conduct against any other person

Did Clarkson misquote the law TWICE?

Opps! It looks like Clarkson accidentally forgot TWICE to make the law apply to himself or Seddon if they are accused of bullying .

Clarkson’s anti-bullying policy only applies to acts against them.

“Such a violation may subject the violator to a fine commensurate with the severity of the violation and any other appropriate remedies available to the Association”

Clarkson’s anti-harassment policy for Sun City Anthem owners

So, what?

Could it be because foreclosure could be an “appropriate remedy”?

I guess all Clarkson would have to do is deem my complaints against him and Seddon were health, safety and welfare violations that subjected me to a fine commensurate to the severity of  my horrific conduct.

Then, HOA attorney and debt collector Clarkson could impose other “appropriate remedies available to the Asociation” and foreclose on this house too when I refused to pay. 

The law says an HOA can’t foreclose on a fine unless the violation poses a threat:

The association may not foreclose a lien by sale based on a fine or penalty for a violation of the governing documents of the association unless:      (a) The violation poses an imminent threat of causing a substantial adverse effect on the health, safety or welfare of the units’ owners or residents of the common-interest community;

NRS 116.31162 (6)

Is it ethical for Clarkson to claim the anti-bullying law doesn’t apply to him or Sandy Seddon?

Short answer. No.

He should be fired immediately.

Clarkson knowingly revised the law to exclude himself and Sandy Seddon.
This is one more example of unethical self dealing.

Please consider this Nevada HOA retaliation case where attorneys claim to be exempted from being considered agents of the HOA under the retaliation statute NRS 116.31183.

“We conclude that an attorney is not an “agent” under NRS 116.31183 for claims of retaliatory action where the attorney is providing legal services for a common-interest community homeowners’ association. ” Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd., 412 P.3d 56 (Nev. 2018). Link to Dezzani PDF.

The word “agent” is not defined in NRS 116.31183 or otherwise in NRS Chapter 116. SeeNRS 116.31183 ; NRS 116.003 –.095 (definitions). Kern points to NRS 116.31164, which governs foreclosure of liens, and argues that because NRS 116.31164 uses the words “agent” and “attorney” distinctly, it demonstrates that the Legislature purposefully distinguished an attorney from an agent under NRS Chapter 116. Therefore, Kern contends that the Legislature specifically omitted attorneys from NRS 116.31183, and the term “agent” does not include attorneys.

Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd., 412 P.3d 56, 59 (Nev. 2018)

Given an attorney’s ethical obligations to be candid with a client and zealously represent his or her client, and the general presumption that an attorney providing legal services to a client is generally not subject to third-party liability for that representation, we agree with Kern and the amicus curiae State Bar of Nevada that the two relationships should not be treated the same in NRS 116.31183. Doing so, and imposing liability on an attorney for representing his or her HOA client, would impermissibly intrude on the attorney-client relationship and interfere with an HOA’s ability to retain an attorney and the attorney’s ability to ethically represent the HOA. Therefore, we conclude that the term “agent” in NRS 116.31183 does not include an attorney who is providing legal services to, and acting on behalf of, a common-interest community homeowners’ association.

Although the Dezzanis argue that the attorney-client relationship is different when an attorney and an HOA are involved because the HOA members’ fees are used to pay the HOA’s attorneys, we disagree. Kern represented the HOA, not its individual members. Thus, similar to counsel for a corporation, Kern owed fiduciary duties only to the HOA, not to the individual members of the HOA. See Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield, 231 Cal.App.3d 692282 Cal.Rptr. 627, 635 (1991) (“[C]orporate counsel’s direct duty is to the client corporation, not to the shareholders individually, even though the legal advice rendered to the corporation may affect the shareholders.”).

Dezzani v. Kern & Assocs., Ltd., 412 P.3d 56, 62 (Nev. 2018)

To whom does Clarkson owe a fiduciary duty?

Clarkson’s fiduciary duty is to the Association, not to me as an individual member of the association or to me, previously as a single elected member of the board.

Clarkson’s representation of Sandy Seddon’s interest vs. those of the HOA is a breach of his fiduciary duty to the HOA. Acting on his own initiative, or getting assignments or taking direction from Sandy Seddon, is usurping the authority of the Board.

Clarkson breached his fiduciary duty to the HOA, and that’s why I want the HOA to sue Clarkson for damages under the NRCP 23.1 shareholder derivative provision.

The Board doesn’t understand how he has breached his duty to the HOA and is not willing or able to protect the association from him. I can represent the HOA as a single member, but I just think it will be harder to prevail because Clarkson is so willing to defame me, turn me into a pariah and bury the HOA in fees to try to protect it from me. 

Respondeat superior is Clarkson’s escape hatch when he is usurping the authority of the HOA Board.

Here’s what Clarkson said in his 8/24/17 letter removing me from my elected Board seat

image.png

 Clarkson had no legal authority to remove me from the Board. The discussion in the Board executive session in the morning was to get the Board to respond to my notice of intent against Clarkson and my Form 514a complaint against Seddon and her sidekick Lori Martin.

8/24/17 Clarkson’s imaginary statement of the law that conveniently ignores the black letter of the law in NRS 116.31034, NRS 116.31036, NRS 116.31084(1)(a)(b), and NRS 116.4117,

8/16/17 Notice of Intent to file a professional ethics complaint against Clarkson

I served notice on 8/16/17 of my intent to file a professional ethics complaint against him to the State Bar of Nevada image.png

image.png

8/11/17 notice of intent to file an ethics complaint against Sandy Seddon

8/11/17 notice of intent to file Form 514a
image.png

image.png

Looks a lot like bullying & retaliation to me