1/11/16 Nationstar started by filing to quiet title vs. the wrong buyer.
Opportunity Homes LLC was disinterested. Two others had recorded deeds on 6/9/15
1/11/16 Nationstar also lied about how it became the beneficiary of the 1st deed of trust that was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA foreclosure sale.
Jimijack somehow already had a default judgment by suing disinterested Bank of America.
How could that happen?
There were TWO banks with recorded claims that BANA gave its beneficial interest to it:
9/9/14 BANA recorded it assigned its interest, if any, to Wells Fargo on 8/21/14
12/1/14 Nationstar recorded it had BANA’s unrecorded power of attorney to assign BANA’s interest, if any, to itself on 10/23/14
Nationstar didn’t file any claims against me as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust or as an individual .
Nationstar got summary judgment by claiming BANA gifted the $389,000 loan balance to it 3 months after BANA gifted it to Wells Fargo immediately after it was extinguished by the HOA foreclosure.
How did that happen?
Neither Jimijack nor Nationstar nor the HOA have any filed claims but all got summary judgment by getting my claims precluded and my evidence stricken and their fraud undetected
Nationstar quietly dismissed all its filed claims without adjudication on 2/20/19, 3/12/19, 4/23/19, and 5/31/19
Nationstar covertly recorded a rescission of its claim to be BANA’s successor in interest
Nationstar’s attorney and Jimijack’s attorney told the judge to ignore all my evidence because I wasn’t really a party
Hong concealed from the court Jimijack covertly dumped its inadmissible deed
Joel Stokes encumbered the property with $355,000 CVS loan to launder Nationstar’s pay off for releasing the lien of the 1st DOT
Nationstar’s attorneys knew that Nationstar rescinded its claim that got its 2/12/19 joinder granted and knew its 3/8/19 claim recorded after discovery ended was fraudulently executed by a robosigner
Nationstar’s attorneys knew the PUD Rider prohibited turning the rejection of assessments into a de facto foreclosure and that’s what they were doing by this trick
Akerman still went all in two days before the trial with the quid pro quo
None of the elements for quiet title were met at the 6/5/19 trial as no party was at the trial who had any interest in the title to protect, and all documentary evidence was unfairly excluded.
The necessary elements of a declaratory relief or quiet title claim are as follows:
(1) there must exist a justiciable controversy; that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it;
(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy, that is to say, a legally protectable interest; and
(4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.
Kress v. Corey, 189 P.2d 352, 364 (Nev. 1948)
The elements for a claim of quiet title were NOT met in the 1st action.
No claims were properly adjudicated based on judicial scrutiny of verified evidence supporting claims by parties with STANDING.
1. 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;2. Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;
3. Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;
4. Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;
5. 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;
When a borrower signs a promissory note, he is agreeing to pay the lender a specific amount of money according to certain conditions. In order for the lender to protect his interests, he will require that the borrower sign a mortgage or similar security instrument in favor of the lender. This may be in the form of a mortgage or a deed of trust. Whichever document is used, the purpose of both types of documents is to secure the note and offer protection to the lender.
Depending on where the property is located, state law will determine which type of security instrument must be used. In title theory states, a mortgage is used and it conveys ownership to the lender. A clause in the mortgage provides that title reverts back to the borrower when the loan is paid. In lien theory states, the mortgage creates a lien only on the property and the title remains with the borrower. The lien is removed when all the payments have been made.
Some states are considered modified lien theory states and in these states the title remains with the borrower, but the lender may take title to the property if the borrower defaults.
The basic difference between the mortgage as a security instrument and a Deed of Trust is that in a Deed of Trust there are three parties involved, the borrower, the lender, and a trustee, whereas in a mortgage document there are only two parties involved, the borrower and the lender. In a Deed of Trust, the borrower conveys title to a trustee who will hold title to the property for the benefit of the lender. The title remains in trust until the loan is paid.
Often a title company, escrow company or bank, is listed as the trustee on the Deed of Trust. When the loan has been paid, the trustee will issue a release deed or trustee’s reconveyance deed. This deed of reconveyance should be recorded at the county recorder’s office, to make public notice that the loan has been paid and that the lender’s interest in the property has ended.
Another difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust is the manner in which foreclosure proceedings take place. State law will determine the method of foreclosure which must be used. Generally, the rules when using a Deed of Trust allow for a faster foreclosure time than with a judicial foreclosure required with a mortgage. Under a Deed of Trust, when the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender delivers the Deed of Trust to the trustee, who then is instructed to sell the property.
After proper notices have been posted and rules are followed, the property is sold at a trustee’s sale and the loan is paid. Be careful not to confuse a deed, which conveys title and is evidence of ownership to property, with a Deed of Trust, which is a means of securing a note and providing for foreclosure proceedings.
(a) Claims an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property in a document that is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid;
(b) Executes or notarizes a document purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, that is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid; or
(c) Causes a document described in paragraph (a) or (b) to be recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the real property is located and who knows or has reason to know that the document is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid,
Ê has made a false representation concerning title.
2. A person who makes a false representation concerning title in violation of subsection 1 is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
3. A person who engages in a pattern of making false representations concerning title is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 3 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
4. In addition to the criminal penalties imposed for a violation of this section, any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. This penalty must be recovered in a civil action, brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General. In such an action, the Attorney General may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
5. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the owner or holder of the beneficial interest in real property which is the subject of a false representation concerning title may bring a civil action in the district court in and for the county in which the real property is located to recover any damages suffered by the owner or holder of the beneficial interest plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The owner or holder of the beneficial interest in the real property must, before bringing a civil action pursuant to this subsection, send a written request to the person who made the false representation to record a document which corrects the false representation. If the person records such a document not later than 20 days after the date of the written request, the owner or holder of the beneficial interest may not bring a civil action pursuant to this subsection.
6. As used in this section:
(a) “Encumbrance” includes, without limitation, a lis pendens or other notice of the pendency of an action.
(b) “Pattern of making false representations concerning title” means one or more violations of a provision of subsection 1 committed in two or more transactions:
(1) Which have the same or similar pattern, purposes, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics;
(2) Which are not isolated incidents within the preceding 4 years; and
(3) In which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $250.
NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation; penalty. [Effective July 1, 2020.]
1. A person shall not, in the course of an enterprise or occupation, knowingly and with the intent to defraud, engage in an act, practice or course of business or employ a device, scheme or artifice which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact that:
(a) The person knows to be false or omitted;
(b) The person intends another to rely on; and
(c) Results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission,
Ê in at least two transactions that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents within 4 years and in which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $1,200.
2. Each act which violates subsection 1 constitutes a separate offense.
3. A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.
4. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order a person who violates subsection 1 to pay restitution.
5. A violation of this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice for the purposes of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive.
6. As used in this section, “enterprise” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 207.380.
1. A person who is a participant in a mortgage lending transaction and who:
(a) Knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation concerning a material fact or knowingly conceals or fails to disclose a material fact;
(b) Knowingly uses or facilitates the use of a false statement or misrepresentation made by another person concerning a material fact or knowingly uses or facilitates the use of another person’s concealment or failure to disclose a material fact;
(c) Receives any proceeds or any other money in connection with a mortgage lending transaction that the person knows resulted from a violation of paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) Conspires with another person to violate any of the provisions of paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) Files or causes to be filed with a county recorder any document that the person knows to include a misstatement, misrepresentation or omission concerning a material fact,
Ê commits the offense of mortgage lending fraud which is a category C felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
2. A person who engages in a pattern of mortgage lending fraud or conspires or attempts to engage in a pattern of mortgage lending fraud is guilty of a category B felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 3 years and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than $50,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
3. Each mortgage lending transaction in which a person violates any provision of subsection 1 constitutes a separate violation.
4. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if a lender or any agent of the lender is convicted of the offense of mortgage lending fraud in violation of this section, the mortgage lending transaction with regard to which the fraud was committed may be rescinded by the borrower within 6 months after the date of the conviction if the borrower gives written notice to the lender and records that notice with the recorder of the county in which the mortgage was recorded. A mortgage lending transaction may not be rescinded pursuant to this subsection if the lender has transferred the mortgage to a bona fide purchaser.
5. The Attorney General may investigate and prosecute a violation of this section.
6. In addition to the criminal penalties imposed for a violation of this section, any person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. This penalty must be recovered in a civil action, brought in the name of the State of Nevada by the Attorney General. In such an action, the Attorney General may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
7. The owner or holder of the beneficial interest in real property which is the subject of mortgage lending fraud may bring a civil action in the district court in and for the county in which the real property is located to recover any damages suffered by the owner or holder of the beneficial interest plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
8. As used in this section:
(a) “Bona fide purchaser” means any person who purchases a mortgage in good faith and for valuable consideration and who does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the lender or any agent of the lender engaged in mortgage lending fraud in violation of this section.
(b) “Mortgage lending transaction” means any transaction between two or more persons for the purpose of making or obtaining, attempting to make or obtain, or assisting another person to make or obtain a loan that is secured by a mortgage or other lien on residential real property. The term includes, without limitation:
(1) The solicitation of a person to make or obtain the loan;
(2) The representation or offer to represent another person to make or obtain the loan;
(3) The negotiation of the terms of the loan;
(4) The provision of services in connection with the loan; and
(5) The execution of any document in connection with making or obtaining the loan.
(c) “Participant in a mortgage lending transaction” includes, without limitation:
(7) A loan modification consultant as defined in NRS 645F.365;
(8) A mortgage loan originator as defined in NRS 645B.0125;
(9) A mortgage company as defined in NRS 645B.0127; and
(10) A mortgage servicer as defined in NRS 645F.063.
(d) “Pattern of mortgage lending fraud” means one or more violations of a provision of subsection 1 committed in two or more mortgage lending transactions which have the same or similar purposes, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics.
Note that Nationatar’s 12/1/14 claim that it had acquired Bank of America’s interest in the Hansen deed of trust was fraudulent and Nationstar rescinded it on 3/8/19. Nationstar did not have a recorded claim to the Hansen deed of trust until one week after discovery ended, and that 3/8/19 claim was fraudulent as well.
According to Nationstar’s attorneys, Nona Tobin is NOT entitled to due process before her property was confiscated by Nationstar whose claims were all fraudulent.
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
Red Rock Financial Services recorded false claims on 12/14/12, 3/12/13, 4/3/13, 4/8/13, and executed the foreclosure deed Thomas Lucas recorded on 8/22/14.
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 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.
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
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
Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
Brittany Wood filed these unwarranted, meritless motions, joinders, and requests into A-19-799890-C to unfairly get Nona Tobin’s claims dismissed with prejudice for no proper purpose as to her clients had a simple remedy of making a title insurance claim.
Chiesi/Quicken wrongly prevailed by 12/3/20 NODP notice of dismissal with prejudice that expunged three lis pendens to cover up that her clients were not bona fide purchasers nor innocent third parties
NRS 111.180Bona fide purchaser: Conveyance not deemed fraudulent in favor of bona fide purchaser unless subsequent purchaser had actual knowledge, constructive notice or reasonable cause to know of fraud.
1. Any purchaser who purchases an estate or interest in any real property in good faith and for valuable consideration and who does not have actual knowledge, constructive notice of, or reasonable cause to know that there exists a defect in, or adverse rights, title or interest to, the real property is a bona fide purchaser.
2. No conveyance of an estate or interest in real property, or charge upon real property, shall be deemed fraudulent in favor of a bona fide purchaser unless it appears that the subsequent purchaser in such conveyance, or person to be benefited by such charge, had actual knowledge, constructive notice or reasonable cause to know of the fraud intended.
NRS 14.017 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Transferability of property after withdrawal or cancellation.
1. Upon the withdrawal of a notice of the pendency of an action affecting real property, or upon the recordation of a certified copy of a court order for the cancellation of a notice of the pendency of such an action with the recorder of the county in which the notice was recorded, each person who thereafter acquires an interest in the property as a purchaser, transferee, mortgagee or other encumbrancer for a valuable consideration, except a party to the action who is not designated by a fictitious name at the time of the withdrawal or order of cancellation, shall be deemed to be without knowledge of the action or of any matter, claim or allegation contained therein, irrespective of whether the person has or at any time had actual knowledge of the action or of any matter, claim or allegation contained therein.
2. The purpose of this section is to provide for the absolute and complete transferability of real property after the withdrawal or cancellation of a notice of the pendency of an action affecting the property.
Brittany Wood would also have seen, if she had looked, that nobody’s claims were adjudicated fairly in the prior proceedings, i.e., Nationstar never put on a case, never went to trial and prevailed despite dismissing all its claims without adjudication.
4/23/19 bench orders were not formalized until 11/22/19 order was entered five months after the trial I was excluded from:
Because she is not a party to the case, all documents filed with this Court by Nona Tobin as an individual, are rogue documents and are stricken from the record. This includes both the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for New Trial (and all oppositions or replies) and the Notice of Lis Pendens.
Page 4, paragraph 3, 11/22/19 post-trial order that formalized Judge Kishner’s 4/23/19 ex parte bench orders to strike Nona Tobin’s pro se filings from the record
Judge Kishner also refused to hear or consider Nona Tobin’s post-trial Pro Se motions that were stricken by granting improper motions by Joseph Hong (8/7/19 RESP/MSTR/MAFC) for counter- defendants and David Ochoa for cross- defendant HOA (8/8/19 RESP/JMOT) at the 9/3/19 hearing
8/7/19 NOLP 39-page Notice of Lis Pendens of case not in Judge Kishner’s court expunged from the property record by Judge Kishner granting the motion to strike by the HOA that had no adverse claim to Tobin for the title
Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. A lawyer shall not: (a) Unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.
Brittany Wood did not explain how her clients would have been prejudiced if Nona Tobin’s claims had been heard on their merits, and yet she took aggressive actions, including gross misrepresentations of the property record, the court record, and the law and ensure that ALL Nona Tobin’s claims, even those to which her clients held no interest, were dismissed with prejudice and ALL her evidence suppressed.
Brittany Wood suppressed the preliminary title report and proof of title insurance
Wood concealed all property records related to the fraudulent actions dispute between Nona Tobin accused Nationstar and Joel Stokes
She deliberately excluded from the 7/6/20 Request for Judicial Notice ALL of the assignments related to the Hansen deed of trust that are germane to Tobin’s case against Nationstar and Joel Stokes.
4/22/04 Hansen deed of trust assignments are all disputed and none were included in Wood’s request for judicial notice
3/8/19 ASSIGN Wells Fargo to Nationstar by Nationstar
6/3/19 RECONVEY Hansen DOT to Joel Stokes – not to Nona Tobin, the personal representative of the borrower’s estate – by Nationstar
Brittany Wood knew that Jimijack’s deed was void
6/9/15 DEED Jimijack defective VOID deed was in Wood’s Exhibit 7 even though Brittany Wood knew that Jimijack’s deed had no legal capacity to hold or transfer title was inadmissible per NRS 111.345 and that all subsequent transfers were also void
Brittany Wood knew that Jimijack’s 5/1/19 transfer of title was void as Jimijack had no valid interest to convey
5/1/19 DEED fraudulent conveyance of title from Jimijack to Joel Stokes five weeks bfore the trial to evade detection by Judge Kishner that both the Hansen Trust’s 8/27/08 deed or Nona Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed were superior to Jimijack’s deed for which no notary record exists.
Jimijack to Joel Stokes deed was recorded five weeks before the trial and without Judge Kishner ever admitting it into evidence despite NRS 111.345, but it is in Wood’s Exhibit 15.
Brittany Wood knowingly misrepresented Nona Tobin’s deed as”a wild deed outside the chain of title.”
Wood deliberately damage Nona Tobin, and obstructed her case from being heard, by misrepresent the 3/28/17 recorded deed, as an individual, to falsely represent to the court that this deed was inadequate to give Nona Tobin standing to pursue an NRS 40.010 claim.
Why then falsely claim that I had recorded a wild deed? (7/6/20 JMOT, page 6)
Nona’s authority to close the Gordon B. Hansen Trust and execute a deed to transfer its sole asset to the sole remaining beneficiary has been uncontradicted in the Clark County official property record since 2017.
Brittany Wood advocated vigorously for the preposterous argument that Nona was in privity with herself as trustee of a trust that was closed in 2017 as if there was only one element to claims preclusion and not four.
Brittany Wood assiduously ignored Jimijack’s obviously defective deed because she knew that the Chiesi deed is the fruit of the poison Jimijack deed tree.
Brittany Wood condoned the covert transfer of Jimijack’s defective deed to non-party Joel A. Stokes before the trial solely because she knew that Jimijack’s deed was void and that all subsequent transfers were void.
Jimijack’s 6/9/15 deed is void. Joel Stokes’ 5/1/19 deed is void. Wood’s clients’ 12/27/19 deed is also void
12/27/19 DEED Joel A. Stokes to Brian and Debora Chiesi
Implicated Statutes Fraudulent Conveyances
NRS 205.330 Fraudulent conveyances. Every person who shall be a party to any fraudulent conveyance of any lands, tenements or hereditaments, goods or chattels, or any right or interest issuing out of the same, or to any bond, suit, judgment or execution, contract or conveyance, had, made or contrived with intent to deceive and defraud others, or to defeat, hinder or delay creditors or others of their just debts, damages or demands; or who, being a party as aforesaid, at any time shall wittingly and willingly put in use, avow, maintain, justify or defend the same, or any of them, as true and done, had, or made in good faith, or upon good consideration, or shall alien, assign or sell any of the lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, chattels or other things before mentioned, conveyed to him or her as aforesaid, or any part thereof, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
NRS 205.360 Knowingly receiving fraudulent conveyance. Every person who shall receive any property or conveyance thereof from another, knowing that the same is transferred or delivered in violation of, or with the intent to violate, any provision of NRS 205.345, 205.350 and 205.355, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
NRS 111.175 Conveyances made to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers are void. Every conveyance of any estate, or interest in lands, or the rents and profits of lands, and every charge upon lands, or upon the rents and profits thereof, made and created with the intent to defraud prior or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration of the same lands, rents or profits, as against such purchasers, shall be void.
Berge v. Fredericks, 95 Nev. 183, 186 (Nev. 1979) (“However, a party claiming title to the land by a subsequent conveyance must show that the purchase was made in good faith, for a valuable consideration; and that the conveyance of the legal title was received before notice of any equities of the prior grantee.”)
“In cases of this kind it is seldom, if ever, possible to prove fraudulent intent by direct evidence, hence it is necessary to resort to circumstantial evidence. Badges of fraud are infinite in number and form. 27 C.J. 483, 822.” S.G. R. Bank v. Milisich, 48 Nev. 373, 376-77 (Nev. 1925)
Excerpt from Dec 17, 2018 Post by AssetProtectionAttorneys
A transfer is considered fraudulent if made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. There’s no bright-line rule here. A judge looks for indicia or “badges” of fraudulent intent. A judge has broad discretion in determining whether the presence of one or more badges indicates a transfer was fraudulent.
Furthermore, the standard of proof that must be met to indicate fraudulent intent is not the “beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal trials. But rather it is the less rigorous “preponderance of evidence” standard of civil litigation. The potential badges you should avoid include:
1. The transfer or obligation to an insider:
This may, or may not, be a factor in determining whether there was a fraudulent transfer. For example, it’s common business practice for someone to transfer personal property to a business they control (such as an LLC, LP, or a closely held corporation) in order to capitalize it. Such a transfer, if done while creditor seas are calm, will almost certainly not be considered fraudulent, especially if the transferor receives an interest in the company equivalent to their capital contribution. On the other hand, transferring real estate to one’s uncle the week before a lawsuit commences will likely be considered fraudulent.
2. The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer:
This may or may not be a factor in a fraudulent transfer case. For example, although a lien is a transfer of equity, mortgaged real estate typically remains in the owner’s possession as a matter of standard business practice. In contrast, placing one’s home in an international trust and then continuing to live in it rent-free is more likely to be seen as a fraudulent transfer.
3. The transfer or obligation was concealed:
See the comment for badge of fraud (7) below.
4. Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit:
Some transfers (such as a gift to an insider) are very vulnerable to a fraudulent transfer ruling if they occur after a creditor threat arises. At the same time, no judge would expect you to stop your normal business activities once you’ve been sued, especially considering that a lawsuit may drag out for years. Of course, some business activities may involve transfers of assets.
Consequently, if you are facing a lawsuit, it’s important to transfer property so there is a plausible reason for the transfer, besides trying to protect assets. For example, by taking money and investing it in an LLC, you can protect the money while honestly claiming that you were only engaging in a business venture, instead of trying to defeat a creditor. At the same time, your claim of having a valid business purpose may be insufficient if other badges point to the fact that you transferred the asset to hinder, delay, or defraud your creditors.
7. The debtor removed or concealed assets:
Oftentimes, there’s a good reason for financial privacy, besides trying to defeat a creditor. Depending on your reasons, it may not be safe to conceal assets while the creditor seas are calm. However, this is usually not a good idea once one is threatened by creditors. Remember: everything can and will usually be revealed in court, and privacy is more for lawsuit prevention than anything else. Above all, remember that no plan should rely exclusively on secrecy and that improper (but not all) financial privacy measures are usually considered a badge of fraud.
Above all, remember a judge must determine whether a particular transfer was undertaken to cheat a creditor. If there’s not a plausible economic reason for a transfer, and if the transfer is not a part of “business as usual”, then it might not stand up if challenged in court. Such transfers will almost always carry at least one badge of fraud.
Brittany Wood ignored all the lis pendens
She did not include any of the lis pendens in the RFJN that show both that her clients recorded claims adverse to mine while lis pendens were on record, but also the Joel and Sandra Stokes released a lis pendens that wasn’t theirs.
Lis Pendens exhibit (76 pages) shows all the recorded and released lis pendens that Brittany Wood failed to acknowledge when she got Judge Johnson to expunge Tobin’s lis pendens as if they had never existed.
The only purpose for this order was to cover-up criminal actions, and Brittany Wood knows it.
More implicated professional ethics standards
TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS
Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others. In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) Fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.
Rule 4.4. Respect for Rights of Third Persons.
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct.
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
The dispute is over a $436,000 Western Thrift & Loan Deed of Trust (DOT) executed by Gordon Hansen on 7/15/04. Nationstar serviced the loan beginning on 12/1/13 on behalf of an investor NSM refused to identify.
On 12/1/14, Nationstar recorded a claim that Nationstar was owed the $389,000 balance that remained outstanding after the borrowerʼs death.
(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.
No bank foreclosure was ever initiated on the Hansen deed of trust. Nationstar just stole it.
Neither servicing bank, (Nationstar succeeded Bank of America as servicing on 12/1/13) foreclosed on the Hansen DOT even though it was in default after Hansen died on 1/14/12.
Had Nationstar been the beneficiary of the DOT, it would have foreclosed or collected the debt by allowing the property to be sold at fair market value. NSM did not record a notice of default on the Hansen DOT.
Nationstar did not allow the property to be sold to MZK for $367,500 on 5/8/14. Nationstar did not complain when RRFS rejected its 5/28/14 super-priority offer of $1100 to close the MZK escrow.
Nationstar allowed the property to be sold for $63,100 while a $358,800 was pending lender approval .
Then, three months after the HOA foreclosed to collect $2,000 in delinquent HOA dues, NSM claimed that Bank of America gave NSM the Hansen DOT on 10/23/14.
Nationstar recorded and filed false claims and dismissed all its claims without adjudication
Nationstar prevailed despite ALL declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin and not Nationstar, by tricking the court into ignoring all the evidence, such as…
No affidavits support Nationstar’s claims, but so what?
In its 3/27/17 OMSJ, Nationstar claimed that on 12/1/14 Wells Fargo had given NSM the DOT. This was supported by a duplicitous declaration regarding business records.
Link to 3/8/19 Nationstar rescission of its 12/1/14 claim that Bank of America assigned its interest to Nationstar
In February 2019, Nationstar refused to produce any documents in response to Tobinʼs RFDs and interrogatories to prove any of its claims.
On 3/8/19, Nationstar recorded that it rescinded its 12/1/14 claim that it got its interest from Bank of America, and then two hours later recorded that it had Wells Fargoʼs undisclosed power of attorney to give Nationstar the authority to assign Wells Fargoʼs non-existent interest to Nationstar.
Nationstar produced no proof that it owned the Hansen DOT during two lawsuits over the validity of the HOA sale.
All the evidence Nationstar entered into the record actually proved the opposite, but it was never subjected to judicial scrutiny Nationstar.
The real owner of the Hansen DOT would have supported Tobinʼs efforts to void the sale so the DOT would not have survived as it the sale had never happened.
Tobin and Nationstar were initially aligned to get the court to void the HOA sale until Nationstar learned that it would be impossible to foreclose on Tobin since Tobin had put it into the record that she had documents that could prove NATIONSTAR did not have the standing to foreclose.
Nationstarʼs covert deal with Joel Stokes was solely to prevent the Court from conducting an evidentiary hearing that would have exposed the inconvenient truth that neither Nationstar nor Stokes could prove their claims.
Nationstar was excused from trial by saying all claims had been resolved by Nationstar-Jimiack settlement.
The HOA wrongly foreclosed, but not without Nationstarʼs assistance.
The banks could have stopped the HOA from foreclosing by recording a Notice of Default (NRS 116.31162(6)).
The HOA sale should have been cancelled when BANAʼs agent tendered $825 on 5/9/13 to cure the nine months that were then delinquent.
The HOA sale would have been avoided if the serving banks had not prevented four escrows from closing as escrows instructions were to pay the HOA whatever it demanded.
The HOA sale would have been avoided if Nationstar had not rejected the 5/8/14 $367,500 www.auction.com sale to MZK Properties.
Nationstar, the servicing bank that is supposed to be a fiduciary, acting on behalf of the investor, turned a blind eye to an 8/15/14 HOA sale for 18% of the $367,500 www.auction.com sale price that Nationstar had just rejected.
NATIONSTAR does not hold the original Hansen promissory note.
NSM 258-259 is a COPY of the Hansen promissory note that Nationstar entered into the record to trick the Court.
NSM does not have Hansenʼs original note, but NSM tried to conceal that fact by disclosing a COPY in NSM 258
NRS 52.235 “Original required. To prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in this title.”
NSM 260 shows no endorsement of Hansenʼs note to Nationstar or to ANY of the lenderʼs NSM claims assigned the note to Nationstar.
3/27/17 NSM filed a DECL that misrepresents its servicing bank record to deceive the court that NSM had no proof it owned the DOT
All Nationstar’s and Bank of America’s recorded actions affecting the Hansen deed of trust are fraudulent
All Nationstar’s disclosures in discovery were deceptive and fraudulent
Wells Fargo did not assign anything to Nationstar.
Page 7 is Morgan’s totally deceptive ploy to obfuscate the fact that Nationstar has no valid claim to be the beneficiary.
Servicing banks (those that handle the paperwork on behalf of the “beneficiary” who is the investor to whom the debt is actually owed).
The dispute with Nationstar is not because Nationstar wrongly foreclosed on the Hansen deed of trust.
The dispute is caused by:
Both BANA & Nationstar obstructing multiple fair market value, arms-length sales, approved by the Hansen Estate.
Nationstar’s letting the HOA foreclose without notice for 18% of the $367,500 www.auction.com sale that Nationstar had just rejected, and then
After the Hansen DOT was extinguished by the HOA foreclosure, Nationstar lied on the record about being owed the $389,000 outstanding balance on Hansenʼs DOT.
According to NRS 107.28, (2.) A trustee under a deed of trust must not be the beneficiary of the deed of trust for the purposes of exercising the power of sale pursuant to NRS 107.080, but Nationstar claimed to be both the beneficiary and the trustee – when it was neither – and reconveyed the property to Joel Stokes on 6/3/19 to steal the house from Nona Tobin
The Clark County Recorderʼs Office Property Record shows NSM began recording conflicting claims on 12/1/14, more than three months after the HOA sale.
Nationstar lied in its 1/11/16 complaint to say that some unspecified entity had assigned its interest to Nationstar on 2/4/11
BANA & NSM recorded 11 claims regarding the Hansen DOT, but neither ever recorded a Notice of Default, the mandatory condition precedent to the trusteeʼs executing the power of sale on behalf of the beneficiary.
No bank has the right to confiscate a property without foreclosing by following the notice and due process steps defined in NRS 107.080, as amneded by AB 284 (21011), Nevada’s anti-foreclosure fraud law.
Links to exhibits to 2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
12/1/14 Assignment Nationstar – no power of attorney – executed B of A to Nationstar assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
NSM 258-260 Nationstar disclosed it did not have the original Hansen promissory note, and the copy of the note it had was not endorsed to Nationstar
2/20/19 SODWOP Nationstar dropped all its quiet title claims against all parties except Jimijack (1/11/16 COMP in A-16-730078-C) without adjudication or any judicial scrutiny of evidence.
2/2819 RESP Pg 6 Nationstar admitted in response to interrogatories that it was not the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust; it was just the servicing bank for non-party Wells Fargo who has never claimed to be the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. On page 7, the verification only included that Nationstar was the servicer and was signed by a previously unknown person of unknown authority.
3/8/19 Rescission Nationstar – no power of attorney – rescinded 12/1/14 B of A to Nationstar assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust which means that Nationstar had no recorded claim to give it standing to be in either cases A-15-720032-C or A-16-730078-C and is judicially estopped from claiming that it was the owner of the Hansen deed of trust during all relevant times or ever.
3/8/19 Assignment Nationstar – no power of attorney – executed Wells Fargo to Nationstar assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
3/14/19 AG 2-2019 Complaint to the AG that was allegedly served on Melanie Morgan
3/18/19 NITD Nationstar three-day notice to take default against Jimijack since Jimijack did not answer the 6/2/16 AACC
3/21/19 MSJ Nationstar filed an MSJ against Jimijack and not against Nona Tobin, the HOA or the Gordon B Hansen Trust
4/10/19 OPP/MSJ Tobin opposition to Nationstar’s MSJ as Nationstar did not own the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust; and the HOA sale was void in its entirety so foreclosure would have to have been against Tobin for any lender; plus Jimijack’s deed was void per NRS 111.345.
4/9/19 NRS 38.310(2) Notice of completion of mediation by Tobin/Hansen Trust when neither Jimijack nor Nationstar had complied with NRS 38.310 so the court lacked jurisdiction to grant them relief sought.
4/12/19 NS Jimijack (who didn’t have a valid deed never filed any claims against Nationstar or against Tobin or the Hansen Trust) prevailed in the quiet title case by “settling” out of court with Nationstar in a fraudulent deal that excluded Tobin and the Hansen Trust. Judge Kishner never examined any evidence to support their claims (Judge Kishner held 42 hearings, but never examined any evidence.)
4/19/19 RESP Nationstar convinced the court that it was ok for Nationstar and Jimijack to settle the quiet title dispute without the court examining any evidence because Nationstar and Tobin/ Hansen trust weren’t really opposing parties.
4/23/19 NWM Nationstar dropped its motion for summary judgment against Jimijack without Jimijack filing an opposition (that Judge Kishner required to be filed by 4/26/19 on her 4/12/19 order continuing the hearing to 5/7/19and convinced Judge Kishner that was the end of the case because she had granted the HOA’s motion for summary judgment (based on no evidence) and Nationstar’s limited joinder (based on no evidence and explicitly contrary to the Hansen deed of trust PUD rider Remedies (f) (NSM 160) that prohibits the use of tender of delinquent HOA assessments as a de facto foreclosure.
4/23/19 Transcript Nationstar & Jimijack’s attorneys, Melanie Morgan & Joseph Hong met with Judge Kishner ex-parte after serving notice that the hearing was continued on 4/15/19 (SAO) and 4/22/19 (NTSO) in order to get Nona’s pro se motions and notices stricken unheard from the record to make a fraudulent “settlement”.
5/23/19 DOT annotated Neither Nationstar nor Jimijack are parties to $355,000 deed of trust executed & recorded on 5/23/19 by nonparties Joel A Stokes & Civic Financial Services
5/1/19 DEED Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack dumped Jimijack’s deed by transferring the title into Joel’s name as an individual. Judge Kishner never ruled on Jimijack’s deed that Nona Tobin claimed was inadmissible per NRS 111.345 in her 2/1/17 AACC vs Jimijack and in two declarations under penalty of perjury.
5/21/19 Transcript Nationstar attorneys characterize as a settlement agreement between parties Jimijack & Nationstar that excluded parties Nona Tobin & the Gordon B. Hansen Trust from the title fight without the court examining any evidence including not examining the alleged settlement documents.
5/31/19 NESO Nationstar stipulates that it drops its remaining quiet title claim against Jimijack with prejudice so they both win without the judge ever looking at the evidence or hearing Nona Tobin’s claims against Nationstar & Jimijack.
6/3/19 Reconvey Nationstar dba Mr. Cooper falsely claimed to be both the beneficiary and the trustee of the Hansen deed of trust and reconveyed without legal authority the property to Joel A Stokes two days before the quiet title trial (A-15-720032-C) that allegedly was held to determine the title rights between the Gordon B. Hansen Trust and the Jimijack Irrevocable Trust.
Supreme Court case 79295 Online case management system – see how opposing parties were successful in getting me removed as a party by saying I was not aggrieved. See orders SC 19-37846 and SC 20-016346.
Judicial Jiu-jitsu Youtube channel contains closed-caption videos of all the A-15-720032-C court hearings from 2016-2019 and all the A-19-798990-C court hearings held in 2020 as well as brief videos explaining the trickery employed by the opposing attorneys to suppress Nona Tobin’s evidence and obstruct her access to a fair adjudication of her claims on their merits by an impartial tribunal.
