According to Jay Young, on the Nevada Law Blog, in Nevada, the elements for a claim of quiet title are:
Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;
Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;
Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;
Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;
Copy of the Summons must be posted on the property within 30 days after the summons is issued, and an affidavit of posting must be filed with the court. NRS 40.100-2;
Disclaimer must be filed. NRS 40.020;
Affidavit to unknown heirs must be filed. NRS 14.040(3);
Court must hold a hearing on the evidence in order to issue judgment. Quiet title may not be obtained through default judgment. NRS 40.110; and
Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(o).
The elements – most critically #8, the mandatory evidentiary hearing, for awarding quiet title were not met in case A-15-720032-C
Neither Jimijack nor Nationstar brought any claims for quiet tile against Nona Tobin in either of her capacities. Nationstar voluntarily dismissed all its quiet title claims before the trial, on 2/20/19 and 5/31/19, without adjudication. Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the disputed Hansen deed of trust based on its multiple false and conflicting recorded and filed claims. Nationstar, acted without legal authority when it ignored the restrictions of the PUD Rider Remedies F.to turn the lender payment of delinquent fees into a de facto foreclosure without complying with the foreclosure requirements of NRS 107.080.
Neither Jimijack nor Nationstar had any verified, unrefuted evidence to support their title claims. Jimijack did not ever enter any evidence into the record to refute Nona Tobin’s NRS 111.340 rebuttal of its 6/9/14 recorded deed that was inadmissible as evidence pursuant to NRS 111.345. Jimijack dumped its defective deed covertly before the trial. Joel A. Stokes never had a valid title claim because Jimijack had no interest to transfer. Nationstar and Jimijack met ex parte with Judge Kishner and got Nona Tobin’s verified evidence and verified complaints stricken from the record unheard based on misrepresentations to the court and presentation of false evidence.
Neither Jimijack nor Nationstar served any summons on Nona Tobin in either of her capacities. Nationstar never served any summons on F. Bondurant LLC but simply added it as a third part without filing any claims against it.
Nationstar recorded two lis pendens that were fraudulent insofar as they were based on false claims to title in the manner prohibited by NRS 205.377. Jimijack never recorded any lis pendens, but without legal authority falsely claimed that one of Nationstar’s lis pendens belonged to trustees Joel and Sandra Stokes and released it before the trial.
No summons was posted on the property.
Nona Tobin did not ever file a disclaimer. However, disclaimers of interest were filed in 2017 by F. Bondurant LLC, Yuen K. Lee, Thomas Lucas, Opportunity Homes LLC, and Steven Hansen. Subsequently in the 2021 interpleader, Republic Services, LLC filed a disclaimer of interest.
No affidavit to unknown heirs was filed by Nationstar or by Jimijack.
The recorded copy was not certified. A small technicality, unless you consider that the Ombudsman’s notice of sale records that proved the 8/15/14 sale was conducted without ANY published notice, were rejected as evidence based on the exact same technicality. The State of Nevada’s official HOA notice of sale compliance records, authenticated on 4/15/19, nearly two months before the trial were re-entered into the court record on 4/24/19, 4/29/19 and 5/23/19, but were erroneously ignored by the court.
And another technicality when the interpretation of HOA governing documents is at issue
Judge Kishner lacked jurisdiction to grant Jimijack its requested relief because no parties except Nona Tobin in both her capacities was compliant with NRS 38.310 (1) and therefore, NRS 38.310(2) required Judge Kishner to dismiss the action pending their completion of mediation.
NRS 38.310Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions.
1. No civil action based upon a claim relating to:
(a) The interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association; or
(b) The procedures used for increasing, decreasing or imposing additional assessments upon residential property,
Ê may be commenced in any court in this State unless the action has been submitted to mediation or, if the parties agree, has been referred to a program pursuant to the provisions of NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive, and, if the civil action concerns real estate within a planned community subject to the provisions of chapter 116 of NRS or real estate within a condominium hotel subject to the provisions of chapter 116B of NRS, all administrative procedures specified in any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to the property or in any bylaws, rules and regulations of an association have been exhausted.
2. A court shall dismiss any civil action which is commenced in violation of the provisions of subsection 1.
Nona Tobin’s motion was dismissal pursuant to NRS 38.310(2) was stricken unheard
SCA 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.
SCA 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.
$275 Assessments due for 7/1/12
– 9/30/12 quarter plus $25 late fee assessed on 7/31/12 were paid by $300
Per 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.
Page 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..
RRFS 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.
SCA 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.
The 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.
RRFS 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
SCA 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.
RRFS ledger SCA 623-625 called check 143 a partial payment
$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.
Balance 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.
On 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
SCA 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.”
SCA 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.
Per 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.)
SCA 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..
On 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.
On 12/2012, Ticor Title
requested payoff figures from RRFS to be paid out of Sparkman 8/10/12 escrow
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/13
According 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.
On 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
RRFS 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.
1/3/13 SCA 587 LIEN SENT TO
1/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT
1/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND
RECEIVED1/16/13 SCA 578 P/O DEMAND SENT
On 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.
As 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.
SCA 525 4/16/13 “Payoff Demand Received”. See SCA 415-416 for RRFS work log entries related to RRFS refusal of Miles Bauer tender.
SCA 527 4/17/13 Request reviewed
$25 late fee was assessed for 4/1/13-6/30/13 delinquent installment
SCA 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.)
5/16/13 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.
If 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.
$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.
$25 late fee due bringing to $1100 the assessments that were delinquent plus$100 in late fees that were authorized=$1,200.
SCA 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
SCA 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.
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 12/31/13
Balance per RRFS account detail
in SCA 254
Assessments due for 10 /1/13-12/31/13
10/16/13 SCA 450 Followed Up POP
SCA 468 RRFS “Homeowner
Progress Report” to 10/16/13 does not show any BOD approval
$25 late fee due
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/14
Balance per RRFS account detail
in SCA 254
Assessments due for
$25 late fee due
Effective 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.
SCA 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
On 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.
3/28/14 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
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 6/30/14
$275 Assessments due for 4/1/14-6/30/14
$25 late fee due for
delinquent 4/1/14-6/30/14 installment
SCA 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.
SCA 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
unsent RRFS ledger falsely alleged to have been sent to 2664 OH and 2763 WS
Collection payment entered to pay Gordon Hansen’s account in full on Page 1336
Page 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.
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.
(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.
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 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.
According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2016, Nationstar had standing to assert a quiet title claim under NRS 40.010…
According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2016, Nationstar could not be bound by Jimijack’s default judgment against B of A because Jimijack did not name Nationstar as a defendant
According to Nationstar’s attorneys in 2019, Nona Tobin’s known interest in the property should be disregarded so Nationstar and Jimijack could settle the title dispute without joining her..and without presenting a case.
Judge Kishner excused Nationstar and the HOA from the trial although neither of whom had any filed claims against Nona Tobin or the Hansen Trust, and despite the fact that the HOA’s motion for summary judgment against only the Hansen Trust’s quiet title claim was improper and unwarranted as the HOA had no interest in the title and would not have been damaged in any way if the HOA’s attorneys had simply done nothing. The effect of the court’s granting the HOA’s motion for quiet title and Nationstar’s joinder was to give the title to give the title to Plaintiff s Nationstar and Jimack without requiring them to put on a case and preventing Nona Tobin from putting on hers.
Judge Kishner compounded her errors of never ruling on Tobin’s claim that Jmiack’s deed was inadmissible and that Nationstar was lying bout owning the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust, by meeting ex parte with Nationstar and Jimijack attorneys, letting them convince her that Nona Tobin’s pro se filings should be stricken from the record unheard, and by letting them “settle” non-existent claims (Jimijack never filed any claims against Nationstar), and by failing to check the settlement documents (to see that neither Jimijack nor Nationstar were parties to the “settlement agreement” that took the title from Nona Tobin without her being given an opportunity to be heard as Nationstar so eloquently demanded for itself in 2016.
Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial all documentary evidence for Joseph Hong’s misconduct, which damaged only Nona Tobin.
Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial five of the six Hansen Trust’s causes of action (equitable relief (noncompliance with HOA governing documents), civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment), made on 1/31/17 CRCM vs SCA, 2/1/17 AACC vs. Jimijack (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and preliminary and permanent injunctions), and 2/1/17 CRCM vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, and civil conspiracy)
Judge Kishner also excluded from the trial Nona Tobin as an individual and ALL of Nona Tobin’s individual causes of action (quiet title & equitable relief (statutory non-compliance), equitable relief (noncompliance with HOA governing documents), civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment) made on 1/31/17 CRCM vs SCA, 2/1/17 AACC vs. Jimijack (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and preliminary and permanent injunctions), and 2/1/17 CRCM vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC (fraudulent conveyance, quiet title and equitable relief, and civil conspiracy)
A. Note that Nationstar fails to mention that Nationstar never filed any quiet title claims against Nona Tobin or against the HOA or against Red Rock or against Nona Tobin as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust.
B. Note that Nationstar fails to mention that Nationstar and Jimijack made a fraudulent side deal excluding Nona Tobin for the corrupt purpose of obstructing judicial scrutiny of Tobin’s evidence.
Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein.
Defendants collectively constitute a combination of two or more persons.
Defendants acted in concert by agreement, understanding, or a “meeting of the minds” regarding the objective and the means of pursuing it, whether explicit or by tacit agreement (the “Scheme”).
Defendants, and each of them, intended to and did accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming Plaintiff Nona Tobin through the Scheme.
The Scheme harmed Plaintiff Nona Tobin
As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Scheme, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $15,000 and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff Nona Tobin to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Nona Tobin to secure the services of an attorney, and Nona Tobin is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages.
Joseph Hong (NV Bar #5995) filed written false statements, filed frivolous unsupported harassing pleadings, knowingly made false verbal statements, made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts, concealed/failed to disclose material facts, conspired with others, received or transferred ill-gotten proceeds for his own benefit or for the benefit of clients or co-conspirators, on multiple dates, as evidenced by court and property records included in Exhibit 1:
6/16/15 COMP: Jimijack complaint sued Bank of America that had no recorded interest and did not sue Nationstar that did. Hong never served the complaint on the HOA and never submitted these claims, the only ones filed on behalf of Jimijack, to mediation per NRS 38.310. Hong never filed any NRCP 16.1 disclosures and so there is no evidence in the record to support that Jimijack is a legal entity (No trust instrument); no deed to replace Jimijack’s defective deed; no evidence to refute the HOA ownership record, the Resident Transaction Report, that shows that Jimijack took possession as the second owner of the property on 9/25/14, and that there is no record of either of Hong’s current or past clients, F. Bondurant LLC or Opportunity Homes, LLC ever having been owners of the property.
8/12/15, Summons to Bank of America is to the wrong address
10/16/15 JDDF judgment of default vs. Bank of America was recorded by Hog on 12/1/15 but no notice of entry of order was ever filed. NRS 40.110 prohibits a court from making a quiet title determination without an evidentiary hearing. Nationstar attorney Edgar Smith lied about knowing about this recorded order when he filed the 4/12/16 motion to set aside the BANA default and substitute Nationstar for BANA as the real party in interest.
6/8/16 AFFD, In an affidavit to support an order shortening time, Joseph Hong made statements in paragraphs4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 that are were known to be false and are contradicted by other records.
8/30/16 OPPM, Hong opposed the Tobin/Hansen 7/29/16 motion to intervene because the proposed pleadings weren’t attached. Hong did not oppose Nationstar’s 4/12/16 motion to intervene on the basis of no attached pleadings. On 4/23/19, Joseph Hong misinformed the court that the 7/29/16 MINV Tobin/Steve Hansen motion to intervene into A-16-730078-C had been granted, but that the 11/15/16 MINV of Nona Tobin, an individual, and trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, had been denied. Hong’s statements are contradicted by the record: 9/29/16 minutes, 9/29/16 RTRAN, 9/29/16 minutes, On 9/23/16 AFFD, Tobin filed a sworn affidavit that includes a challenge to both Jimijack’s and Nationstar’s standing, but Hong and the court ignored it at the 9/29/16 hearing. Hong did not prepare the order as instructed by the court. Later in 2018, Akerman attorneys’ awareness of this 9/23/16 AFFD, refused to join Tobin in a motion for summary judgment to void the HOA sale, for the sole improper purpose of stealing Tobin’s property without foreclosing in the manner required by NRS 107.080.
3/13/17 RCCM: In Hong’s opposition to Tobin/Hansen Trust’s 2/1/17 AACC. Hong did not enter into the court record any evidence to refute the Tobin/Hansen Trust’s claims against Jimijack in the 3/13/17 RCCM or at any other time. Hong did not produce a new deed to replace Jimijack’s 6/9/15 dee that was inadmissible per NRS 111.345. Hong did not ever move the court to admit the Jimijack deed. Hong prepared a defective 6/24/19 order that falsely claimed that the causes of action in the Nona Tobin’s 2/1//17 AACC vs. Jimijack were adjudicated at trial when they were not addressed at all. Hong did not file any counter claims vs. Tobin or the Hansen Trust in his 3/13/17 RCCM or at any other time.
3/13/17 RCCM: Hong’s equally vacuous response to Tobin/Hansen Trust’s 2/1/17 CRCM cross-claim vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC did not refute any of the claims vs. Lee and never produced any evidence and never served any NRCP 16.1 disclosures. Hong did not file any cross- claims vs. Tobin or the Hansen Trust on behalf of Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC in his 3/13/17 RCCM. Hong prepared a defective 6/24/19 order that falsely claimed that the causes of action in the Nona Tobin’s Tobin/Hansen Trust’s 2/1/17 CRCM cross-claim vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC were adjudicated at trial when they were not addressed at all. Neither Lee nor F. Bondurant LLC are listed in the HOA property records as ever having owned the subject property. Hong did not disclose that he has a controlling interest in F. Bondurant LLC or that he is the one who got CluAynne M. Corwin to fraudulently use her notary stamp to witness Yuen K. Lee to execute Jimijack’s deed as if Thomas Lucas stood before her.
12/5/18, DISC Joseph Hong prepared Joel Stokes’ response to Tobin’s interrogatories. This defective, deceptive, duplicitous response is Hong’s only entry of “evidence” into the court record in any eight court cases related to the dispute over the title to the subject property from 6/16/15 to the present.
The severe detrimental impact on Nona Tobin by Hong’s and Morgan’s 4/23/19 ex parte misrepresentations to the court are also documented in NCJD 2021-026 Attachment 16 Stricken, not Heard which is 963 pages of Nona Tobin’s Pro Se notices, motions, oppositions, and documentary evidence stricken solely because Judge Kishner reasonably expected officers of the court to tell her the truth.
4/25/19 Pre-trial conference Minutes
Joseph Hong violated NRCP 11 (b)(1) by attending the pre-trial conference on court call.
Hong’s misconduct in not attending the pre-trial conference, and faking the existence of a co-trial counsel, is well documented by 4/25/19 minutes, 4/25/19 RTRAN.
Also notable at the 4/25/19 pre-trial conference was Hong’s representation to the court that he had no evidence and no witnesses for either of his clients, Jimijack and F. Bondurant LLC.
Settlement documents status check hearing: 5/21/19 minutes, 5/21/19 transcript, 5/21/19 annotated transcript Hong’s deceiving the court about the Jimijack-Nationstar “settlement” is on display at the 5/21/19 settlement documents status check hearing where Judge Kishner relied on Hong’s misrepresentations and did not check the documents.
By virtue of Hong’s concealing this material fact, Judge Kishner was not aware the Jimijack did not have any recorded interest at the time of the Hansen Trust vs. Jimiack quiet title trial on 6/5/19.
More importantly, Hong concealed from the court that neither Jimijack nor Nationstar were parties to the “Jimijack – Nationstar agreement”. Hong concealed from the court the “agreement” executed by non-parties, Joel A. Stokes, an individual, and Civic Financial Services, LLC, and recorded on 5/23/19,
On 5/24/19 OPPM, Hong continued his relentless pursuit of obstructing Nona Tobin’s case with more misrepresentations to the Court regarding Nona Tobin’s standing that were without any basis whatsoever in fact or law, and Joseph Hong knew it. This opposition, like virtually all of Hong’s motions, oppositions, drafted orders and oral arguments, were produced for the sole purpose of obstructing the administration of justice.
5/29/19 video, 5/29/19 RTRAN,
Joseph Hong Joseph Hong refused to meet with attorney Joe Coppedge in May 2019 to prepare the mandatory EDCR 2.67 joint pre-trial memo and refused to respond to Nona Tobin’s pro se .
Third-party Defendants Hong made the following false representations regarding the facts, the court record and the law:
At the time of the Misrepresentations, Defendants knew each Misrepresentation was false. Defendants intended to induce the Court to act in reliance upon their Misrepresentations.
Judge Kishner justifiably relied on the Misrepresentation by Melanie Morgan and Joseph Hong, expecting them to be true to their duty of candor to the tribunal, to Nona Tobin’s detriment.
In reliance on Defendants’ Misrepresentations, Judge Kishner made erroneously rulings against Nona Tobin, an individual, without actually knowing what the facts, the court record, and the law were.
Judge Kishner never heard or considered Nona Tobin’s 4/24/19 MVAC and MSJ motion to vacate the order entered on 4/18/19 pursuant to the Agreement therefore lacked mutual assent. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff has been damaged in excess of [$15,000 (State Court) or $75,000 (Federal Court)], and in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
Defendants’ acts were committed with fraud, oppression, and/or malice, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005 in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ acts, it has become necessary for Plaintiff to secure the services of an attorney, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees and costs incurred herein as damages
Joel and Sandra Stokes 5/1/19 DEED conveyance of Jimijack’s inadmissible 6/9/15 DEED was for the purpose of evading detection that Jimijack had no standing and no evidence to pursue a quiet title claim at the 6/5/19 trial. Joseph Hong concealed this material fact from the court, and lied to her on 5/21/19 when she specifically asked him.
Bank of America (Youda Crain robo-signer, Teresa D. Williams notary fraud) recorded a false claim on 4/12/12.
Bank of America engaged in mortgage lending fraud. See 5/20/19 DECL Doug Proudfit. B of a was aided and abetted in this fraud by attorneys- Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom, & Winters LLP, e.g., Rock K. Jung on 4/8/13, 5/8/13,
Allegations regarding why quiet title should have been granted to Nona Tobin years ago
The HOA Sale Was Non-Compliant With Foreclosure Statutes
The sale was not authorized by valid HOA Board votes.
The owner was denied contractually guaranteed due process.
The sale was not properly noticed and bidding by bona fide purchasers was suppressed.
Tobin’s deed is superior to all others.
Bank attorneys filed false and recorded false claims.
BANA & NSM as they obstructed FMV sales, confiscated Tobin’s property without foreclosing.
All defendants recorded false claims to title.
Nona Tobin’s rejected 2017 offer cold have prevented five years of litigation
Tobin’s rights as an SCA member were abridged by SCA attorney misconduct.
SCA attorney David Ochoa (Herein “Ochoa”) unilaterally rejected Tobin’s March 22, 2017 offer to settle the case without cost to SCA or Tobin, without even submitting it to the SCA Board for their consideration:
Nona Tobin would agree to:
■ No claim for attorney fees
■ No claim for damages Waive claim of Respondeat Superior
■ Withdraw 2/1/17 Cross-claim against SCA as if with prejudice
■ No further civil action or NRED complaint to hold SCA accountable for acts of SCA’s agents that resulted in a defective foreclosure sale
SCA Board would have to agree to
■ Not oppose my A720032 3/3/17 motion to void the sale for
– statutory non-compliance NRS 116.31162 et seq & NRS 116.31085
– Failure to provide Tobin notice and due process
– Failure to distribute the proceeds per NRS 116.31164
– Improper accounting and excessive fees charge
■ Instruct the attorneys to withdraw two motions to dismiss Tobin as an individual and as trustee for NRS 38 mediation and for practicing law without a license
■ SCA Board to conduct a review of the collection process to ensure owners get the same notice and due process when their house is sold as SCA owners get when fined $25 for a dead tree.
SCA Board would affirm or deny on their merits Tobin’s 2/1/17 claims that:
■ No notice was given to owner or Ombudsman
■ Premature unnecessary referral to collections
■ Excess fees charged
■ Foreclosure deed relied on rescinded 3/12/13 NOD
■ Canceled 2/12/14 NOS of 3/7/14 sale
■ No NOS in effect when sold on 8/15/14
■ Sale not commercially reasonable – 18% of FMV when no lender approval on four FMV sales up to $395,000
■ Agents falsified records to keep their actions covert
■ Agents kept $60,000 that belonged to the GBH Trust
Allegations related to the fraudulent sale and the unlawful retention of proceeds
This action rises out of attorney misconduct during the course of legal proceedings that has caused severe damage to Nona Tobin. Defendants have violated professional and ethical standards of their profession by overzealously aiding and abetting racketeering and other criminal activities of their clients. This interpleader complaint was for the purpose of continuing to obstruct a fair, evidence-based adjudication of Nona Tobin’s claims.
2763 White Sage was sold by an unknown entity, without notice and without legal authorization by the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors. Thomas Lucas, a Berkshire Hathaway real estate salesman working under the broker Forrest Barbee, purchased it at the unnoticed sale on 8/15/14, while Forrest Barbee had an exclusive right to sale contract with Nona Tobin from 2/20/14-10/31/14 through another Berkshire Hathaway sales agent, Craig Leidy.
Lucas paid $63,100 and took title as an alter-go entity, Opportunity Homes, LLC, but there is no HOA record of the sale and no HOA record of the $63,100 and no HOA record that either Thomas Lucas or Opportunity Homes ever owned the property. The HOA records show that on 8/27/14 an entry of a collection payment on page 1336 in the Resident Transaction Report that $2,701.04 was paid to the HOA as “PIF”, payment in full of Gordon Hansen’s assessment account. On page 1137, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust was charged a new owner set up fee on 9/25/14 to become the second owners of the property. None of the opposing attorneys disclosed or refuted this discrepancy. Some disclosed doctored records. All concealed inculpatory records. Hong disclosed nothing. Nationstar and Brittany Wood disclosed and knowingly misrepresented Jimijack’s void, inadmissible 6/9/15 deed with the obvious intent to deceive the court and obfuscate that neither of their clients had valid title claims superior to Nona Tobin’s.
The unnoticed sale took place after Craig Leidy had sold the property on auction.com for $367,500 on 5/8/14, but the unidentified beneficiary of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust refused to accept the high bidder.
The unnoticed sale took place after the Ombudsman had cancelled the 2/12/14 notice of sale process tracking on 6/2/14 after receiving notification, upon information and belief, from Red Rock, that the 5/15/14 trustee sale was cancelled and “the owner retained”.
The unnoticed sale took place on 8/15/14 after Nona Tobin had signed a $375,000 counter-offer on 8/1/14, pursuant to Nationstar’s instruction to Craig Leidy, to Yvonne Blum’s $358,800 7/26/14 offer that was in hand pending lender approval.
According to documents disclosed by Sun City Anthem and provided by Steven Scow in response to subpoena, the proceeds of the sale that Red Rock agent Christie Marling identified as “excess” were transmitted to Steven Scow to deposit with the court for interpleader on 8/28/14. See SCA 223-224 and RRFS
Steven Scow did not deposit the $57,282.32 with the court for interpleader immediately after the sale as required by NRS 116.31164(3)
Nona Tobin contacted Red Rock in Sept 2014 to make a claim for the excess proceeds, but Red Rock informed her that they went to court for interpleader. See 10/14/14 email with Leidy 5/11/18 DECL.
Nona Tobin attempted to get the excess proceeds distributed to her by COA 5 i her 1/31/17 CRCM
Nona Tobin attempted to get the excess proceeds distributed to her in NRS 38.310 mediation that Steven Scow responded to on behalf of the non-responding Respondents, Joel Just, former President of RRFS, during all times relevant, and Steven Parker, President of First Services Residential, Nevada, the managing agent for Sun City Anthem and NRS 649 debt collector licensee DBA Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0805132??). Steven Scow’s only response to Nona Tobin’s 8/20/18 filed claim for mediation, was one sentence “claim is time-barred”
Nona Tobin met with Steven Scow in his office on 11/30/18 since the 11/13/18 mediation lasted less than 30 minutes and the HOA and Steven Scow refused to respond to any of Nona Tobin’s claims.
At that meeting Steven Scow informed her that he had the excess proceeds in his attorney-client trust fund and would not distribute them until the litigation was resolved.
Nona Tobin attempted again to get the excess proceeds distributed to her by COA 4 in A-19-799890-C 8/7/19 COMP.
On 8/11/20 Brody Wight, Koch & Scow LLC associate attorney speaking for Steven Scow, stated (quote) “the only reason we’re holding these funds is she keeps litigating”
Upon information and belief, Red Rock’s complaint for interpleader, signed by Steven Scow, and stamped “Electronically issued 02/03/2021 12:38 PM” was personally served on John Thomson for Nona Tobin, on 2/15/21, but there is no affidavit of service filed into the A-21-828840-C Odessey NVefile and serve court record system to prove it.
Steven Scow named four defendants in the complaint that did not have a recorded claim to assert an interest in the proceeds, and knowingly made the false statement in the complaint that:
These statements are duplicitous and self-serving by Steven Scow in that he association was paid what it was owed by Gordon Hansen’s estate, $2,701.04, on 8/27/14. Yet, Scow filed a 6/25/20 duplicitous motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claim for the excess process in case A-19-799890-C on the grounds of NRCP 12(b)(6) failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its nonexistent interest in the excess proceeds of the sale.
There is no legal justification for Steven Scow to not have distributed the funds immediately after they were given to him by Christie Marling on 8/28/14 with instructions to deposit them with th court.
Scow’s failure to distribute the funds took a much more sinister turn when he did not put them in the HOA’s trust fund as the HOA Board is prohibited by its bylaws from losing control of ANY funds collected for the HOA.
Gag me now
Nona Tobin’s dispositive motions were not adjudicated in prior proceedings
Steven Scow knows, or has access to information that would have allowed him to know that, Nona Tobin’s claims were not already litigated as Nona Tobin’s 4/24/19 Motion to vacate and MSJ are languishing in the record unheard.
On 8/11/20, Brittany Wood, attorney for Quicken Loans, Inc (not LLC) and Brian and Debora Chiesi, who recorded claims adverse to Nona Tobin on 12/27/19 and who were not parties to the dispute over the excess funds, gratuitously and falsely informed the court that these excess funds belonged to two lenders and not to Nona Tobin.
Steven Scow also informed her that he had a file that showed notices had been given to Craig Leidy about the sale. Nona Tobin was shocked by this news and contacted her attorney, Joe Coppedge, informed Nona that he had a CD of disclosures from the HOA. He transmitted them to her on 12/26/18.
The Sun City Anthem disclosures in SCA 164-643 contain many false and falsified documents related to the contractual relationship between Red Rock and Sun City Anthem.
SCA attorney David Ochoa and Steven Scow who responded to Nona Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena on behalf of RRFS, the partnership, failed to disclose the HOA’s official records that show there are no HOA Board agendas or minutes of any HOA Board meeting compliant with NRS 116.31183 at which the SCA Board authorized
the sale of 2763 WS or
the sale of a dozen other properties that Red Rock confiscated in 2014.
by a vote of the Board and personally prevented the HOA custodian of records Elyssa Rammos from disclosing in response to Nona Tobin’s interrogatories and requests for documents
failed to disclose any documents that showed the HOA Board complied with the due process requirements of NRS 116.31162(4), NRS 116.31085, or NRS 116.31031
failed to disclose the 4/27/12 contract that requires Red Rock to indemnify the HOA
what they did disclose was the Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643 and RRFS 001-425 which will be provided to the Court separately in a request for judicial notice. These unverified, uncorroborated filed were misrepresented to the court as the HOA’s official records. In fact, they are criminally fraudulent, falsified, incomplete, inaccurate revisionist history that covered up the theft of property and funds belonging to Nona Tobin, the individual owners of the other dozen properties, and from the HOA membership at large.
Nationstar attorneys filed false statements, claims for relief known to be unwarranted, and motions, oppositions and joinders known to be unsupported by fact or law on these dates:
Nona Tobin moves the court to require restitution of Nona Tobin’s property, impose sanctions and penalties pursuant to NRCP 11, NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.470(1) and (4), NRS NRS 207.377, and NRS 42.005 vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC and its attorneys (NAMES)
Nationstar’s filings that contain the sanctionable statements will be compiled with Nationstar’s
Nationstar was the servicing bank, but never was the holder of the original note.
Nationstar’s first claim to be owed the $389,000 balance on the Hnsen deed of trust was on 12/1/14 when it recorded a claim to be BANA’s successor in interest, but Na
The third-party defendants named are individuals who failed in their duty of candor to the court, misrepresented the facts, law and the court record, presented false evidence, and/or withheld evidence of probative value to Tobin’s case, filed unwarranted, harassing motions, oppositions and pleadings that obstructed the administration of justice and made a mockery of the Nevada judicial system.
There has been no evidence-based adjudication of Nona Tobin’s claims in any Nevada Court since 7/29/16 to the present in any of the three district court cases that arose from the disputed 8/15/14 foreclosure sale. There are currently four appeals that are wasting the resources of the Nevada Courts of Appeal that were necessary because all the attorneys in the district court cases opposing Nona Tobin lied to the district court judges in order to prevent Nona Tobin’s claims and evidence from being heard.
The named third-party defendants – Steven Scow, Brody Wight, Joseph Hong, Kaleb Anderson and his subordinate attorneys, David and Angela Ochoa, in Lipson Neilson, Melanie Morgan (for her own actions and omissions and those of her subordinates in the Akerman LLP and for her knowledge of the fraud of Nationstar’s and B of A’s WFZ and Miles Bauer attorneys)
The corrupt pattern in my case was executed by attorneys abusing the quiet title litigation process.
In my case, Nationstar was the servicing bank from 12/1/13 to the present (B of A was the servicer before)
Neither B of A nor Nationstar ever recorded a notice of default or took any of the steps mandated by NRS 107.080 to foreclose on the Hansen DOT even though there were no payments after 2011 because the borrower died.
B of A/Nationstar both obstructed fair market value sales, I sold it on 5/8/14 on auction.com for $367,500 on 5/8/14, but Nationstar falsely claimed the unidentified beneficiary disapproved the sale.
Nationstar refused to identify the beneficiary and let the HOA sell it for $63,100 on 8/15/14 with no notice to me whatsoever.
Nationstar circled back, filed a fraudulent civil action in 2016 (1/11/16 COMP) for quiet title against Opportunity Homes who did not have any recorded interest after 6/9/15) based on the false claim that NSM was the beneficiary since 2011.
Nationstar falsely claimed that the HOA sale was void because B of A had paid the super-priority of delinquent HOA fees, concealing from the court that the PUD rider prohibits any lender from twisting the payment of delinquent HOA fees into a de facto foreclosure without complying with NRS 107.
I intervened to support Nationstar’s suit to void the sale and said that I had evidence that Nationstar was lying about being the beneficiary.
Nationstar and Jimijack made a fraudulent side deal to prevent the court from seeing that neither of them had any evidence to support their claims. Nationstar circumvented the judicial process by dismissing its claims on 2/20/19 and 5/31/19 without going to trial.
The elements of a civil claim for damages caused by racketeering are:
1. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to NRS 207.360, including (9) taking property from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery, (18) Grand larceny; (29) Perjury or subornation of perjury; (30) Offering false evidence; (35) Any violation of NRS 205.377;
2. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of NRS 207.470;
3. Defendants, and each of them, committed at least two separate crimes relating to racketeering constituting a pattern of racketeering activity. (the “Predicate Acts”);
4. Defendants’ crimes are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents but are a part of a pattern of criminal activity;
5. The Defendants, and each of them, violated NRS 207.400;
6. Plaintiff Nona Tobin has suffered damages;
7. Plaintiff Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages against Defendants, and each of them. NRS 207.470(1);
8. Plaintiff Nona Tobin is entitled to an award of punitive damages; and
9. Plaintiff Nona Tobin is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs as damages. NRS 207.470(1).
A partial list of the Counter-Defendants’, Cross-defendants’ and third-party defendants’ Predicate Acts
Attorneys for Wright, Finley, Zak, aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into these quiet title civil actions statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence Edgar Smith (NV bar #5506) on 1/11/16, 4/12/16 DECL, 4/12/16, 5/10/16, 6/2/16, 6/3/16, 6/10/16, 3/27/17 DECL , 3/27/17, 11/9/17, 2/9/18, (Dana Johnson Nitz NV Bar #0050, Michael Kelly NV Bar #10101).
Detailed allegations against defendants are delineated in complaints to the Nevada Attorney General on 3/14/19 and 11/10/20.
Detailed allegations against defendants are delineated in complaints to the Nevada State Bar on 2/14/21 and on 2/16/21.
Detailed allegations against multiple defendants are delineated in these publications
Specific allegations related to false claims recorded by multiple defendants in the Clark County Official property records are in this publication
Detailed allegations against Brittany Wood are delineated in these publications
Detailed allegations against Melanie Morgan are delineated in these publications
Detailed allegations against Nationstar are delineated in these publications
This fraud on the court publication has nine videos that show exactly how the attorneys tricked the court into letting Nationstar and Joel Stokes steal Nona Tobin’s house without ever putting on a case, meeting their Plaintiffs’ burden of proof, or refuting Nona Tobin’s claims against them.
Some allegations against Steven Scow & Brody Wight are delineated in these publications
Court records that evidence fraud on the court Joseph Hong are partially found here
Documentary evidence of abuse of process, fraud on the court, conspiracy, and racketeering are in linked exhibits to the Nevada attorney General & to the Mortgage Lending Division
Specific allegations related to false claims recorded by multiple defendants in the Clark County Official property records are in this publication
A fable to illustrate Joseph Hong’s & Melanie Morgan’s fraud on the court is in this publication
This publication of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure will be updated to highlight relevant rules related to proposed sanctions and proposed civil court reform
Nona Tobin’s Cross-claims vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo and counter-claims vs. Red Rock Financial Services and motions for attorney sanctions in Nevada district court case A-21-828840-C are found in this publication
Detailed allegations vs. Joseph Hong are in these publications
The Elements of fraud apply to all the defendants being named in case A-21-828840-C that were opposing counsels to Nona Tobin in Nevada district court cases related to a dispute over the title of 2763 White Sage that was sold at an HOA foreclosure sale in 2014, i.e., in cases A-21-828840-C, A-19-799890-C, A-16-73-0078-C, and A-15-720032-C.
The elements of the cause of action of Fraud on the Court:
1. Defendant makes a false representation as to a past or existing fact.
2. With knowledge or belief by defendant that representation is false or that defendant lacks sufficient basis of information to make the representation;
3. Defendant intended to induce the Court to act in reliance on the representation;
4. Justifiable reliance upon the representation by the Court;
5. Causation and damages to plaintiff Nona Tobin as a result of the Court’s relying on misrepresentation; and
6. Must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and be pled with specificity.
Relevant Nevada court cases
NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 9.01;
Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 51 (2005);
J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009 (2004);