3/4/21 Rejection of 2/14/21 complaint follows the State Bar’s pattern of refusing to investigate any member whose dues are paid
2/14/21 Complaint vs. Joseph Hong details
On 4/15/19 and 4/22/19, Hong served notice through the Odyssey system that the 4/23/19 hearing was continued to 5/7/19 so neither my counsel, Joe Coppedge, nor i attended.
Joseph Hong went anyway and Judge Kishner held the continued hearing after contacting dept 16 to get Melanie Morgan to show up. Hong told Kishner a bunch of lies about the court record and Judge Kishner refused to consider 935 pages of opposition to Hong & Morgan’s fraudulent side deal to settle the quiet title dispute without joining me as a necessary party.
I lost title to a $500,000 house I had inherited because Hong & Morgan ticked the court into not looking at the evidence or hearing any of my claims.
Then, because of opposing counsels’ trickery, I could not appeal the orders against me in 79295.
Judge Johnson then would not hear my case because all the attorneys ganged up on me and convinced her to dismiss my case on the grounds of res judicata and claims preclusion.
Then, Johnson sanctioned me for filing the A-19-799890-C complaint $3,455 per EDCR 7.60 to Hong & $8,949 as an NRS 18.010(2) sanction to Brittany Wood, the attorney for new defendants, that Hong’s clients sold the house to during the pendency of proceedings and while my lis pendens were on record.
Hong’s combined court filings in opposition to Tobin were unwarranted, abusive, and obstructed the administration of justice
7/29/19 MNTR was stricken, and so Judge Kishner never adjudicated Joseph Hong’s misconduct that precipitated the motion
7/22/19 MTD pursuant to NRS 38.310 was stricken and so Judge Kishner granted Hong’s requested relief despite their lack of compliance with NRS 38.310 and Judge Kishner’s lack of jurisdiction per NRS 38.310(2).
9/23/16 Tobin sworn affidavit that she had evidence that Hong’s clients did not have a valid deed and that Nationstar did not have a valid claim to be owed the 7/22/04 Hansen debt.
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.
11/22/19 Judge Kishner order, Page 4, paragraph 3
If all statements under oath support Nona Tobin’s claims, why does she keep losing?
4/15/19 Teralyn Lewis AFFD Teralyn Lewis, custodian of records authenticated the Ombudsman’s HOA foreclosure notice of sale compliance records for 2763 White Sage and 16 other HOA foreclosures related to Sun City Anthem and/or Joel Stokes/Joseph Hong.
Judge Kishner rejected sua sponte the State of Nevada Ombudsman for the Owners in Common Interest Communities’ HOA foreclosure notice of sale compliance records on the grounds that the compliance screen (that I filed into the court record multiple times unchallenged (Tobin 080 (Exhibit 14, p. 112)) was not verified and, even if verified, it was not evidence of a disputed material fact.
The same record verified by the Nevada Real Estate Division Custodian of Records Teralyn Lewis was resubmitted to support the motion for reconsideration as exhibit 7 to the 509-page 5/23/19 reply (See linked 5/23/19 TOC).
Judge Kishner also declared stricken from the record my 4/17/19 621-page Reply to support my pro se 4/10/19 JMOT/MSJ joinder to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment against Jimijack (also stricken) that included the authenticated Ombudsman’s HOA foreclosure notice of sale compliance records as an exhibit. See 12-page table of contents of the 4/17/19 filed, but stricken unheard, documentary evidence.
In her 5/31/19 denial of the motion to reconsider her 4/18/19 motion, Judge Kishner concluded
“The substantial exhibits that have been submitted in the case demonstrate that Nona Tobin as Trustee of the Trust was aware of the foreclosure and did not seek to stop the foreclosure.”
5/31/19 Judge Kishner order to deny reconsideration of the 4/18/19 order that granted the HOA’s highly disputed motion for summary judgment and Nationstar’s fraudulent joinder
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Red Rock’s only notice, recorded on 2/12/14, announcing a 3/7/14, 10 A.M foreclosure sale, was cancelled. No notice whatsoever was given for an 8/15/14 sale, and Red Rock never even gave any notice afterward that it had been sold.
The idea that I was aware a sale was going to happen and didn’t try to stop it is preposterous.
6/14/2016Linda Proudfit, co-owner Proudfit Realty, sworn declaration that the 311 broker files and 9 folders she delivered to Tobin on 6/14/16 “are a true, correct and complete copy of any and all documents for (Client Name) The Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, Nona Tobin, Successor Trustee”. This declaration is significant for two reasons:
None of Red Rock’s or the HOA’s or the Berkshire Hathaway broker’s subpoena response have “verifications” that say these words “are a true, correct and complete copy of any and all documents”
My statements under oath, e.g., that I did not receive notices that Red Rock claims to have sent or that Bank of America never recorded a notice of default on the Hansen deed of trust but refused to allow escrow to close on two fair market value sales are corroborated by the presence or absence of those records in Doug and Linda Proudfit Realty’s official broker records.
3/5/2019 DECL: Nona Tobin 3/5/19 opposing Sun City Anthem motion for Summary Judgment as the HOA was relying on the fraudulent records of the debt collector rather than requiring that its agents obey the law. Judge Kishner ignored this opposition that was filed an hour before (3/5/19 3:31 PM OPPM) sua sponte filed a 3/5/19 (4:45 PM) minute order to grant the HOA’s MSJ and Nationstar’s unsupported joinder as unopposed. Judge Kishner also ignored this declaration under penalty of perjury in both her 3/5/19 minute order and 4/18/19 order.
3/14/19 Tobin DECL DECL: Nona Tobin 3/14/19 AG Complaint 2-2019 opposing Nationstar lying about being owed $389,000 from the Hansen promissory note was rejected on 12/4/20 for lack of jurisdiction
3/26/19 AG email response was that the complaint had been referred to “the appropriate investigative unit within the Office of the Attorney general for review” and that I would be contacted if they had any questions.
12/4/20 AG email response rejected the complaint as outside of the AG’s jurisdiction “After careful review, it had been determined your complaint references allegations beyond the jurisdiction of this office.”
4/29/19 Nona Tobin declaration under penalty of perjury, included with 4/29/19 motion to reconsider was not considered by judge Kishner when she denied the motion for reconsideration at the 5/29/19 hearing (5/29/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 minutes, 5/29/19 VIDEO
12/16/20 DECL (20 pages) Nona Tobin complaint to the Mortgage servicing division vs. Nationstar and its attorneys has
on 1/28/21 I received an email, dated 1/27/21, from the Mortgage Lending Division forwarding a rejection letter, dated 1/6/21, I have yet to receive in the mail as of 1/28/21.
Nona Tobin’s analysis of the evidence supporting voiding the 8/15/14 HOA sale was published in “The HOA sale was fatally flawed“
By Judge Kishner’s refusal to look at the evidence and her unfounded insistence that there were no disputed of material facts surrounding the conduct of the HOA sale based on her ex parte 4/23/19 meeting with opposing counsels, Judge Kishner
declared stricken from the record my seven pro se filings – oppositions, joinders, motions for summary judgment and notices- filed between 4/9/19-4/17/19 because my attorney had not filed a motion to withdraw,[1]
ignored my 4/24/19 MVAC/MSJ motion to vacate her 4/18/19 order and motion for summary judgment against all parties,
denied my motion for reconsideration based on 509 pages of filed evidence in her 5/31/19 order,
ordered on 6/3/19 that all documentary evidence must be excluded from the trial,
ignored my attorney’s timely 6/3/19 Tobin/Trust FFCL proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and accepted Joseph Hong’s untimely and unsupported 6/5/19 Jimijack FFCL
6/5/trial 6/5/19 trial day 1 minutes, 6/5/19 trial day 1 RTRAN 6/6/19 trial day 2 50:42-minute VIDEO
Judge Kishner also declared stricken and unheard the Pro Se filings below 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
OPPONENTS’ CASES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY VERIFIED, CORROBORATED EVIDENCE.
No documents filed by parties opposing Nona Tobin in cases A-15-7220032-C, A-16-730078-C, Nevada Supreme Court appeal 79295 or A-19-798990-C were verified, corroborated, or supported by affidavits under oath.
Listed here are examples of what my opponents presented as verified evidence
Presented as evidence but lacking any sworn affidavit authenticating the records or stating that they are accurate, authorized, true or complete
Sun City Anthem disclosed the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) as unverified SCA 176 – SCA 643 by serving a picture of a DVD Pg 8 right after their ridiculous Privileges Log) on 5/31/18 (so I had no access to them until 12/24/18 a month after SCA mediated in bad faith). The Red Rock Foreclosure File (redacted), was disclosed per NRCP 16.1 as if it were the HOA’s true, complete, and accurate compliance, enforcement and foreclosure records without any certification of accuracy and completeness. Red Rock’s records are directly contradicted by SCA Board minutes and compliance records that were withheld in discovery. The 7-page blogpost linked here, aptly entitled, “Disputed Facts in Red Rock Foreclosure File Disclosed as SCA 176-643”, lists facts alleged by attorneys Steven Scow and David Ochoa that I dispute with verified documentary evidence that Judge Kishner ignored or excluded in toto without reasonable cause, notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Red Rock and SCA disclosed between them 110 pages of proofs of service, return to sender, etc. to create the deception that notices were sent that were not. There are no proofs of service or returns to sender for any of the disputed notices, e.g., SCA 278, SCA 286, SCA 642-643SCA 635, SCA 628
Judge Kishner relied on SCA’s Red Rock’s unverified, uncorroborated, sometimes blatantly falsified record at the 3/26/19 hearing (3/26/19 annotated transcript, 3/26/19 minutes, 3/26/19, RTRAN. At the same 3/26/19 hearing where Judge Kishner accepted the HOA attorney’s verbal misrepresentations of the facts and he concealed the HOA’s actual official records (HOA Board minutes, 2/26/19 HOA RESP 2 ROGs, 2/26/19 HOA RESP 2 RFDs, Resident Transactions Report) judge Kishner rejected sua sponte the State of Nevada Ombudsman for the Owners in Common Interest Communities’ HOA foreclosure notice of sale compliance records on the grounds that the compliance screen (that I filed into the court record multiple times unchallenged (Tobin 080 (Exhibit 14, p. 112)) was not verified and, even if verified, it was not evidence of a disputed material fact. The same record verified by the Nevada Real Estate Division Custodian of Records Teralyn Lewis was resubmitted to support the motion for reconsideration as exhibit 7 to the 509-page reply (See linked 5/23/19 TOC).
Judge Kishner also declared stricken from the record my 4/17/19 621-page Reply to support my pro se 4/10/19 joinder to Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment against Jimijack (also stricken) that included the authenticated Ombudsman’s HOA foreclosure notice of sale compliance records as an exhibit. See 12-page table of contents of the 4/17/19 filed, but stricken unheard, documentary evidence.
In her 5/31/19 denial of the motion to reconsider her 4/18/19 motion, Judge Kishner concluded “The substantial exhibits that have been submitted in the case demonstrate that Nona Tobin as Trustee of the Trust was aware of the foreclosure and did not seek to stop the foreclosure.”
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Conclusion
The evidence supporting my claims is overwhelming, and there is virtually nothing supporting the claims of my opponents.
I am exhausted by my attempts to articulate what I consider to be a massive failure of the judicial system to ensure a fair adjudication of a quiet title dispute.
I feel the discouragement and frustration of being a Cassandra.
No matter how overwhelmingly one-sided the evidence is to support my claims, it is still probable – not just possible, but overwhelmingly probable – that many, many people – including those with the sworn duty to enforce the law and protect the Constitution by weighing, and acting on, the verified evidence – will still ignore ALL the evidence and keep believing in a reality based on “alternative facts”.
I am begging you, Nevada Commissioners for Judicial Discipline, to look at the evidence and act according to your oath of office. Do not sweep this under the rug.
Here is a link to my 333-page rough draft of my complaint which has a linked table of contents. I can’t do any more.
Thank you for your prompt consideration.
Prepared on January 28, 2021
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that the foregoing, and everything I say in all of these documents is true, correct, accurate as complete as I can make it.
4/23/19 orders from the ex parte 4/23/19 hearing and the orders from the 9/3/19 hearing (#21-25 were not formalized until 11/22/19 order was entered five months after the trial and nearly three months after the Supreme Court dismissed my claims (See 9/10/19 NV Supreme Court’s return of my docketing statement (27 pages) unfiled because I was not aggrieved by the loss of a $500,000 house, $100,000 in rents, $60,000 in Red Rock unlawfully retained proceeds.
Chiesi/Quicken recorded claims on 12/27/19 while Tobin’s lis pendens were on record which gave them notice of the title disputes in litigation. Brian and Debora Chiesi bought the property from Joel Stokes knowing that Joel Stokes did not have a valid deed as Jimijack had no valid interest to transfer and that Joel Stokes had not been party to the quiet title trial against Jimijack before Judge Kishner, and that Jimijack and Nationstar concealed from the court both Joel Stokes’ 5/1/19 deed and his encumbering the property on 5/23/19 with a $355,000 personal loan from non-party Civic Financial Services. Quicken Loans encumbered the property with a new $353,500 deed of trust on 12/27/19 knowing that the property was still encumbered with the 5/23/19 Civic Financial Services $355,000 deed of trust to Joel Stokes.
12/3/20 order unfairly expunged Tobin’s lis pendens as if they had never been recorded
“Said cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.”
lines 8-9, 12/3/20 order, recorded 12/4/20 by Quicken Loans’s and Brian & Debora Chiesi’s attorney, Brittany Wood, to cover up the duplicity of their 12/27/19 recorded claims while Tobin’s lis pendens were on record
NRS 14.010 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Recording.
NRS 14.010 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Recording.
1. In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon real property, or affecting the title or possession of real property, the plaintiff, at the time of filing the complaint, and the defendant, at the time of filing his or her answer, if affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, shall record with the recorder of the county in which the property, or some part thereof, is situated, a notice of the pendency of the action, containing the names of the parties, the object of the action and a description of the property in that county affected thereby, and the defendant shall also in the notice state the nature and extent of the relief claimed in the answer.
2. A notice of an action affecting real property, which is pending in any United States District Court for the District of Nevada may be recorded and indexed in the same manner and in the same place as provided with respect to actions pending in courts of this state.
3. From the time of recording only, except as otherwise provided in NRS 14.017, the pendency of the action is constructive notice to a purchaser or encumbrancer of the property affected thereby. In case of the foreclosure of the mortgage, all purchasers or encumbrancers, by unrecorded deed or other instrument in writing made before the recording of the notice, and after the date of the mortgage, shall be deemed purchasers or encumbrancers after the recording of the notice, and subject thereto, unless NRS 14.017 is applicable or they can show that, at the time of recording the notice, the plaintiff had actual notice of the purchase or encumbrance.
NRS 14.015 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Hearing; cancellation; bond.
NRS 14.015 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Hearing; cancellation; bond.
1. After a notice of pendency of an action has been recorded with the recorder of the county, the defendant or, if affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, the plaintiff, may request that the court hold a hearing on the notice, and such a hearing must be set as soon as is practicable, taking precedence over all other civil matters except a motion for a preliminary injunction.
2. Upon 15 days’ notice, the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action must appear at the hearing and, through affidavits and other evidence which the court may permit, establish to the satisfaction of the court that:
(a) The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the real property described in the notice or affects the title or possession of the real property described in the notice;
(b) The action was not brought in bad faith or for an improper motive;
(c) The party who recorded the notice will be able to perform any conditions precedent to the relief sought in the action insofar as it affects the title or possession of the real property; and
(d) The party who recorded the notice would be injured by any transfer of an interest in the property before the action is concluded.
3. In addition to the matters enumerated in subsection 2, the party who recorded the notice must establish to the satisfaction of the court either:
(a) That the party who recorded the notice is likely to prevail in the action; or
(b) That the party who recorded the notice has a fair chance of success on the merits in the action and the injury described in paragraph (d) of subsection 2 would be sufficiently serious that the hardship on him or her in the event of a transfer would be greater than the hardship on the defendant resulting from the notice of pendency,
Ê and that if the party who recorded the notice prevails he or she will be entitled to relief affecting the title or possession of the real property.
4. The party opposing the notice of the pendency of an action may submit counter-affidavits and other evidence which the court permits.
5. If the court finds that the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action has failed to establish any of the matters required by subsection 2, the court shall order the cancellation of the notice of pendency and shall order the party who recorded the notice to record with the recorder of the county a copy of the order of cancellation. The order must state that the cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.
6. If the court finds that the party who recorded the notice of pendency of the action has established the matters required by subsection 2, the party opposing the notice may request the court to determine whether a bond in an amount to be determined by the court would provide adequate security for any damages which the party who recorded the notice might incur if the notice were so cancelled and the party opposing the notice did not prevail in the action. If the court determines that a bond would provide adequate security, the party opposing the notice may post a bond or other security in the amount determined by the court. The court shall then order the cancellation of the notice of pendency and shall order the party opposing the notice to record with the recorder of the county a copy of the order of cancellation. The order must state that the cancellation has the same effect as an expungement of the original notice.
NRS 14.017 Notice of pendency of actions affecting real property: Transferability of property after withdrawal or cancellation.
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.
Click on photo for 4-minute Darcy Spears video. Slide right of bell for sound.
Lucky buyer got a half million dollar house for $30,000…
but he’s getting an even bigger windfall
He won’t make a mortgage payment – an HOA sale extinguishes the bank’s right to foreclose according to the Nevada Supreme Court
He may not pay property taxes. The bank will probably keep paying them property taxes while the case winds its way through the courts over the next few (or not so few) years
He didn’t pay Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) on the full market value because the Recorder’s office didn’t notice that he claimed the market value was $30,000
Nice deal if you can get it
…but just exactly how did that guy, Frank Komorowski from Williamsville New York, even know about the auction.
The homeowner and her real estate agent didn’t know it was going to auction and neither did the potential buyer who had an offer on the table.
The sale was advertised in the Nevada Legal News, but that seems to be a hard way for a guy off the street to find out about how to take advantage of such a spectacular windfall.
Frank is a Super Shopper indeed
I’m not saying Frank Komorowski is a straw buyer, but he’s gotten some really great deals in 2018 besides the one in Darcy’s story:
Red Rock Financial sold him a condo in Gowan Cliff Shadows for $5,000 on 2/13/18 at an unknown sale location
National Default Servicing sold him a place in Monteverdi HOA for $30,000
Hampton & Hampton gouged him out of $6,541 to buy unit 221, 5751 Hacienda Ave., $0.50 more than the unpaid debt, without even bothering with the pretense of an auction
Who was notified about the sale?
That’s a very good question, and, now my curiosity is piqued. So, to find out, I’m doing a little more public records research.
If random guy can make a killing at these mysterious HOA sales, who’s on the losing end of the deal?
Just about everybody else
It’s not just the homeowner that loses.
Taxpayers subsidized the sale by his shorting the county on the property transfer tax (Frank paid $153 on each $30,000 sale and instead of the $2,200 that he would have had to pay if he had declared the fair market value.
According to Nevada Realtors Association, the property value of each house in an HOA is diminished 1.7% for each foreclosure, but since there are two HOAs mentioned on the foreclosure deed, it’s not clear which homeowners.
The homeowners in Summerlin West will pick up the tab for all the attorneys fees while the bank sues Frank and the homeowner sues Frank, and the debt collectors will ride off into the sunset with the $30,000 Frank paid less the nine months of assessments plus interest that the HOA gets.
The real estate agent who worked hard on the short sale will be paid zero because the sale was snatched out from under him as well.
The bank loses big (unless it’s a bank that’s contributing to the problem by recording false affidavits on titles (but that’s another story for another time).
That can’t be right!
Well, it’s certainly not morally right for HOAs to allow their agents to engage in abusive debt collection practices.
Doesn’t the law limit collection fees?
Yes. It’s definitely not legal to keep money that’s not yours. NRS 116.31164 says exactly how the proceeds of an HOA sale are to be distributed. The debt collectors just don’t do it.
Keeping all the money (except nine months of assessments to the HOA plus interest) is just about all they distribute because they have been getting away with it.
Moral hazard
No big surprise.
When there is so much money to be made by cutting corners and playing fast and loose with the rules, lots of people who are supposed to be fiduciaries go to the dark side.
What about at SCA?
SCA is no better. SCA has been ripped off by EVERY ONE OF ITS DEBT COLLECTORS, to a greater or lessor degree, since 2014 (that I know of, for sure).
For example, in April, 2015, SCA hired some very crooked attorneys, Alessi & Koenig, LLC, as debt collectors, after SCA dumped Red Rock Financial Services (who was really SCA managing agent FSR in disguise).
A & K filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in January, 2017, allegedly because A & K was named in over 500 lawsuits out of the 800+ HOA foreclosures they did between 2011-2015, not to mention a $640,000 judgment against them for bid rigging and racketeering in the Melinda Ellis case. (You’re right. They stiffed her.)
When the A & K bankruptcy was dismissed, and the creditors were told to pound salt, it looks like the attorney/debt collectors had kept $2.6 million out of $2.9 million they admitted receiving in HOA sales proceeds.
And there’s a multi-million dollar mansion in David Alessi’s sister’s trust’s name in Malibu (unless he’s picked a new place to hide assets from creditors).
Retained quite a bit over the legal limit, I’d say.
Next time
More to come about the exciting ways HOA agents make the big bucks for a few lucky winner while the HOA homeowners foot the bill.
or as Chuck Lorre, the creator of Big Bang Theory crudely put it in Vanity Card #586:
(Quote redacted)
Item 11 E – Quarterly Litigation Reports
Now that I have your attention, let’s discuss how item 11 E – quarterly litigation reports – is an example of how the Board wastes lots of our money to use the many SCA lawyers to control who sits on the Board. (I’m sorry. It seems I have to offend some people to keep everyone else awake.)
Only one Board candidate seemed to notice problems
In member comments, Board candidate, Gary Lee, pointed out some inadequacies in the reports.
Of the 15 cases reported, 9 are foreclosures. Is there a problem with the way we are handling foreclosures? There are inconsistencies.
Gary did not know what I’ll tell you below. In my case, that the defamatory and false statements were used as the pretext for kicking me off the Board and that the Board has refused my repeated requests to correct “errors” for a year.
Clarkson, SCA legal counsel and debt collector, lies like a rug
Clarkson Law Group has given the same false report for the last five quarters on the case that supposedly disqualified me from the Board.
Wrong!
The current status of the quiet title case is not as of 2/1/17. That is the date when the original cross claim was filed, but dismissed on 5/25/17.
This ignores that the claims of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, by Nona Tobin, individual and trustee, were dismissed by Judge Kishner at a hearing on 5/25/17, and that the order (due in June 2017) was not filed by the SCA attorney until 9/20/17, a month after I was ambushed and kicked off the Board on 8/24/17 .
The mere existence of this case is what Clarkson falsely claims disqualified me from serving on the Board. More importantly, what this lie has achieved is keeping my nose out of his debt collection business.
The Lipson law firm’s report is defamatory.
I was not removed from the Board “for cause”.
This is a horrible, hurtful lie.
It brands me “guilty!” without any finding of fact. It is a continuation of the harassment and retaliation I have been subjected to for over a year.
I was unlawfully removed by the other six Board members in a secret meeting based on the totally false and unsubstantiated allegation that I was making a profit from my position on the Board. Poppycock.
The FACTS
SCA was a named party in 2015 by the plaintiff Jimijack, who has possession of the house and been collecting rents on Bruce’s house since 2014.
Nationstar filed a second lawsuit against the buyer at the foreclosure sale of 2763 White Sage Dr. in January, 2016 and completed a failed mediation with SCA a month before I showed up as the third lawsuit.
On behalf of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, I entered the case on 2/1/17 as a defendant in intervention on the two existing cases in order to regain the title for the trust.
The 2/1/17 cross claim against SCA was to get SCA to void the defective foreclosure sale from which SCA’s former agents unlawfully kept $60,000 that should have been distributed to either Nationstar or the GBH Trust after paying SCA only $2,701.
On 5/25/17, all claims against SCA were dismissed ($2,701 paid SCA in full in 2014 so SCA has no financial stake in the quiet title dispute), but the Lipson attorney did not file the 5//25/17 order until 9/20/17, a month after I was kicked off the Board on the pretext that the mere existence of this case disqualified me from being on the Board.
I did not, and could not, make a profit from my position on the Board.
And yet, the Lipson report brands me
My request to correct false reports was not heard.
The tone of the meeting and the mood of the crowd made it clear that there was a zero% chance that the Board would see through their prejudices and willful ignorance to treat me fairly.
There was a standing ovation for Jim Coleman who was shaken and outraged at being falsely accused of voting to kick me off the Board by lying, probably racist, Mr. (name redacted) blogger.
There was zero acknowledgement that I existed in the room, let alone was deserving of compassion as the falsely accused (of making a profit off my Board position) and the actually-injured (kicked off the Board without a trial or finding of guilt) victim.
Who cares?
Good question. The issue is way bigger than me.
The precedent puts homeowners in all 3,000 HOAs in Nevada at risk of losing control over who sits on their Boards if who they elect can be “disappeared” without cause, a trial or an appeal on a pretext.
Let’s face it
I was kicked off the Board because the GM and the majority of the Board did not like me telling them they sub-standard in their implementation of self-management and that they were breaking lots of rules and needed to straighten up or I would tell on them.
So, they made up a story to get rid of me
If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere
All the directors in any HOA would need to do to get rid of a Board member they don’t like would be to deem their position vacant by operation of law.
It’s easy to kill a political opponent if you have attorneys willing to ignore all the other laws that exist to protect homeowners from arbitrary and capricious abrogation of their rights.
This precedent is especially risky for the state because Adam Clarkson is the president-elect of the Community Association Institute and claims that his firm represents 300 HOAs, 10% of those in Nevada.
10 owners self-nominated for the Board
7 cleared whatever vetting the GM and attorney dreamed up
2 did not pass muster, but will remain unnamed for unknown reasons
1 was declared ineligible in yet-another $325/hour attorney letter.
4 candidates who did not show up on 2/13 were included in the drawing for ballot position
2 of the 4 no shows on 2/13 did not send a rep and did not send regrets
1 candidate (Nona Tobin) showed up on 2/13, but was prohibited from drawing for a ballot position because, of course, she is a monster.
What happened to the other two nameless candidates who were gone in the first round?
The unnecessary secrecy makes me suspect that the GM’s implying that 3 owners were ineligible (deeming anyone ineligible to run is unprecedented) was a sham to cover up how I have been singled out and wrongfully disqualified by the attorney asserting the same false charges used to unlawfully kick me off the Board last August which was done without legal authority, without a requested open hearing and without any appeal or equal time to contradict the defamatory statements they’ve published about me.
Who are the 7 candidates whose names will appear on the ballot?
The candidates are listed above in the order assigned to them by which lot was drawn for them at the 2/13/18 Election Committee meeting.
Two of the listed candidates – Vickie Lisotto and Cliff Wigen – did not show up for the drawing, Nevertheless, the Election Committee drew ballot positions for them without knowing whether Vickie or Cliff were even still interested in running. They thought it was the only fair thing to do since they were absent. They apparently didn’t see anything wrong with prohibiting me from drawing a ballot number even though I was present and I had submitted an appeal.
What if there are only five candidates and four openings?
If Vickie and Cliff drop out, or were shills to begin with, and the Board is vindictive and disingenuous enough to insist I am a such a financial threat to SCA that I must be kept out of the race, there will only be five candidates for four seats.
This means that at least one of the two incumbents, Aletta and Bob, will get re-elected, despite the fact that they usurped the rights of the 2,000 owners who voted for me when Aletta and Bob voted to unlawfully kick me off the Board at exactly the same time that they were themselves were the subjects of recall petitions signed by 800+ owners.
Don’t forget that Aletta and Bob voted to spend almost $90,000 of owners’ money to pay a CPA and the attorney to botch the recall election so they could keep their seats and the attorney and the GM could keep their big, fat jobs.
Very convenient for Bob Burch and Aletta Waterhouse who have tried to ruin my reputation by saying that I deserved to be kicked off without any recourse and who personally benefit from knocking me out of the competition.
I guess nobody in power sees a problem with that.
Notes on Incumbents
Robert (Bob) Burch has been on the Board one term. He has not been an officer, but he has been instrumental in causing serious deterioration in owner oversight, the personnel and compensation policy areas, has aggressively attacked owners who signed the petitions of no confidence in the GM or who signed petitions to recall four of the directors. He failed to disclose that he has lived across the street from 2763 White Sage, the property that is subject to my quiet title litigation and two other lawsuits. and he voted to force me to recuse myself from all collection matters even though he voted against me and voted to kick me off the Board over the litigation about that same house. Bob should be questioned about his reasons for refusing to address any of the owners’ concerns listed in the petitions for an election to remove him from the Board.
Aletta Waterhouse is Board Secretary and a two-year incumbent who was the subject of a petition and a vote for removal from the Board. She needs to be held accountable for her failure as the Secretary to ensure that the agendas, minutes, and other documents were not corrupted by error, negligence or fraud.
Both Bob and Aletta should be questioned and need to be held accountable for their actions as Board members in kicking me off the Board, refusing to respond to any of the concerns owners raised in their petitions, for concealing information that is legally accessible to owners, and for harassing and retaliating against me, for tolerating significant misconduct on the part of the GM is threatening frivolous litigation, using the association attorney as her personal attorney, and for allowing the GM and attorney to expend unbudgeted funds
James Coleman was hand-picked last August without any competitive process in violation of SCA bylaws 3.6 to fill my Board seat after the 6 other directors unlawfully kicked me off. Jim was not involved in any of the decisions that led to my being kicked off unlawfully off the Board and did not vote on any of the myriad foolishness the other two incumbents participated in.
Today’s SCA Election Committee meeting was an important part of the SCA Board election process because it was the official start of the election process where candidates drew lots for their ballot position. What could it hurt if I drew a lot until the proper authority rules on my eligibility to serve?
Instead of considering the rejection of my candidacy for the Board as final, why not just treat me like any other neighborhood volunteer – at least until there was one iota of proof that I really was worthy of such vilification?
What happened went I went looking for justice?
I gave the Board and management notice that I was appealing the 2/9/18 Notice of Ineligibility that the Clarkson Law Group had whipped up on SCA owners’ dime to make sure that someone who had the support of at least 2,000 owners was blocked from even being a candidate.
In the prior notice, I asked for them not to use the attorney or security to threaten or humiliate me. They accommodated me only insofar as owners didn’t pay for an outside agent to ensure that I was relegated to pariah status. But then, they knew full well, they didn’t need to bring in the heavy-weights, the Election Committee – dutifully, sternly, and totally predictably stepped up to take on the enforcer role.
The Officials act official, or was it officious?
Before the meeting, I went to the EC chair, Carol Steibel, and told her that I was appealing the attorney’s decision to deem me ineligible and that I wanted to draw for a ballot number so I could stay on equal footing in the election process until a determination on my eligibility was made by proper authority (NRED).
When I handed her my 2-page appeal, she tossed it aside testily, and said,
“I’ve already read that.”
“How could you have? I just wrote it this morning.” said I.
“Well, I read something else, then. The attorney said you can’t be a candidate, and we have to listen to the attorney.”
When I sat at the table, two members of the committee told me sternly to get away from the table. Only candidates could sit there.
Carol somberly started the meeting by saying that the meeting would not be recorded and that no one was allowed to record it as it was against the law.
The thing about this edict that totally chaps my hide is a major owner protection to allow recordings so, to be ornery I guess, I said I was going to record it. Their reaction was intense. Forrest Quinn joined in saying that he did not authorize recording him.
Bob Burch said he wanted my assurance that I wasn’t going to record it. I said I wasn’t recording it, and he announced to the crowd,
“We’ve had this trouble before”
further solidifying the ‘Us vs. Them Her’ dynamic permeating the room.
Carol very formally read a notice from the attorney about my situation. She would brook no argument. It was FINAL!
The Board deemed Nona Tobin’s Board position vacant by law making her ineligible to be on the Board.
Nona herself made the charges public.
No circumstances have changed that would make her eligible.
Clarkson law office was merely asked to inform Nona since the Board’s decision that was ineligible has not changed.
My, my, my…what an awful person that Nona is! An existential threat. Carol’s tone made it totally clear that questioning the veracity or authority of the attorney would be considered treason, the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty” totally shrouded by her blind spot. P.S. None of the above statements from the attorney that Carol reported are true. I’ll be handing the documents over to NRED to prove it as soon as I can.
Carol was so busy genuflecting before Clarkson’s awesomeness that she might have forgotten for the teensyist second that as the Election Committee Chairperson, her primary job is to protect the integrity of the election process, to ensure the election is free from undue interference and to protect ANY owner from being disenfranchised.
Maybe a little training? I suggest training should come from NRED or any competent, independent professional, but absolutely not conducted by Adam Clarkson.
Gary Lee, Board candidate new to the scene, innocently asked for a better explanation why I was dumped, but Carol was adamant that she had said all that needed to be said on the subject, and that he was holding up the very, very important business of the committee. Tobin appeal to being disqualified as a candidate
Quick note about # 4 above, it should read that in addition to the NRED form 850, I also submitted the disclosure form as edited by the attorneys even though it was not legally-mandated for me to do so.
Tobin Appeal Page 2
Ask Yourself:
Would my actions make sense if I were on the Board to make a profit?
What does my being on the Board have to do with what the court does about the house? The Board doesn’t have anything to say about it.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the Board could vote on something related to the outcome of the title fight. If my ulterior motive was to get the Board to vote to quiet title to me instead of the bank, wouldn’t I have tried a different approach?
If I were trying to get a Board vote on litigation I could profit from, wouldn’t I have been smarter to ingratiate myself and “go along to get along”.
Wouldn’t I have been foolish to risk the ire of the Board to protect the right of owners to legally sign petitions to call for a vote to remove directors from the Board?
Would I have pursued formal complaints to enforcement authorities saying that the attorney and the GM should be fired for causing the Board to act unlawfully?
Ask yourself: Isn’t it more likely that the same over-compensated GM and attorney, after protecting compliant directors in power from a removal election, just created a convenient ruse to bypass owners’ votes and remove the thorn in their side and block me from coming back?
As I told you last week, I timely filed my application to be a candidate for the Board. Although I meet the legal requirements to be a candidate, two hours after the closing bell for applications, I received a 43-page document entitled “Notice of Ineligibility“, generated by the Clarkson Law Group @$325/hour to be fully paid for by SCA homeowners, that said I was disqualified to be a Board member.
Don’t I meet the legal requirements to be on the Board?
Absolutely. The law requires that I disclose that I am a member in good standing.
I am, and I did.
And the law and our bylaws require that I
“[m]ake a good faith effort to disclose any financial, business, professional or personal relationship or interest that would result or would appear to a reasonable person to result in a potential conflict of interest for the candidate if the candidate were to be elected”
I did. In fact, I disclosed everything twice.
First, using the official NRED form 850, I made my candidate disclosures in good faith on time, and, by law, SCA SHALL distribute the disclosures on my behalf because they include nothing defamatory, libelous or profane.
And, just to be safe, I voluntarily did a second set of disclosures, although the NRED Form 850 form I signed above clearly states:
“Any additional information provided by the candidate to the executive board is voluntary and is not a requirement under NRS 116.31034.”
I submitted the SCA candidate disclosure form (rev.2 by Clarkson Law Group, but not approved by the SCA Board) since Clarkson’s crafty, creative corruption of the candidate disclosure requirements had obviously been tailored to exclude little, old me from eligibility:
Why did the letter say I was ineligible to run for the Board?
These self-serving rationalizations to keep me off the Board aren’t true, of course, and they are more than a little infuriating to have to deal with.
I consider this action to block my candidacy, and to disenfranchise at least the 2,000 voters who elected me to the Board last May, further unlawful, defamatory, politically-motivated retaliation for my outspoken advocacy for homeowners’ rights and my progressively more strident demands that the Board, Adam Clarkson, and the GM hold themselves accountable to the homeowners and not to their own power trips or financial self-interest.
In fact, much bigger potential conflicts have not been disclosed by Adam Clarkson and Sandy Seddon, and they are the ones who are financially benefiting from making these false statements (that I’m making a profit off being on the Board or that I’m failing to disclose that I could hypothetically make a profit) to keep me off the Board and to keep me from disclosing how much money they are actually making off the homeowners.
Anyway, here’s the gist of what the attorney’s letter says about why letting me run for the Board would pose a massive threat to SCA:
You are ineligible because you stand to make a profit from matters before the Board:
Your outstanding August 10, 2017 demand to the Association that included the following demand for monetary damages: SCA to pay damages for the GM’s, CAM’s, SCA attorney Adam Clarkson’s and the Board’s misconduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, attorney fees and other costs associated with my defense against the unlawful abuse of process, defamation, libel and false claims that I committed illegal acts, violated my fiduciary duty or created employer liability.
You have a pending quiet title claim against the Association and additional claims that may be asserted against the Association.
Failure to Disclose Potential Conflicts of Interest and False Statement of Fact
The candidate form you submitted failed to identify the potential conflicts of interest associated with your candidacy including, but not limited to, the following: 1) failure to disclose that on August 10, 2017 you made monetary demands upon the Association that remain outstanding. See Attachment 3; and 2) in relation to your litigation against the Association, the failure to indicate that your claims against the Association that were dismissed without prejudice may be reasserted against the Association subsequent to your completion of the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) alternative dispute resolution procedures under NRS 38.310 et seq. See the Notice of Entry of Order attached as Attachment 4.
Are there matters before the Board that I could make a profit from?
No. What about the August 10, 2017 “demand for monetary damages?
On August 10, I sent a NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN INTERVENTION AFFIDAVIT against the Board, the GM and Adam Clarkson for harassment and retaliation, for withholding SCA records, excluding me from Board meetings, and other violations of their fiduciary duty.
Look at the date – 2 weeks before they kicked me off the Board as I walked into the August 24 Board meeting – without any notice, due process, cause, or legal authority. Kicking me off the Board was the Board’s only response to my complaint that I was being bullied and retaliated against, and now Clarkson is saying my requesting reimbursement of attorney fees is a demand for monetary damages that makes me ineligible to be on the Board.
That’s like beating someone up and throwing her out in the street, then beating her up again if she came back and wanted her hospital bills to be paid.
Look at what is actually being done here. It could apply to any owner who speaks up.
I have no demand for monetary damages against SCA. Period.
Quiet title litigation is not disqualifying per se. NRS 116.31084 says what to do if a Director might make a profit from being on the Board: 1) Disclose it, and 2) Don’t vote on it.
Done and done.
Here’s why the quiet title litigation is not a disqualifying conflict except in Clarkson’s mind.
SCA has no skin in the game. SCA was paid in full in 2014.
Nothing the Board has to decide will affect the outcome of the title decision that will be made by the court.
Judge Kishner is being asked to void a foreclosure sale defective because SCA’s former agents violated the statutory requirements for a valid sale.
SCA will lose nothing in the title dispute, It does not matter to SCA financially whether the judge quiets title to me, trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust that owned it, to the bank, or to the guy who got the property on a fraudulent quit claim deed.
SCA will be out attorney fees which will be substantial because they are foolishly defending the former debt collectors who stole money from me on this one house, but stole from the Association on lots of houses.
What potential conflict of interest did I fail to disclose?
Nothing.
Accusing me of it is just wrong. The attorney’s logic is specious and speculative. All claims against SCA were dismissed at a hearing on May 25, 2017, except quiet title that SCA has no financial interest in, but SCA attorneys didn’t file the order until September 19, 2017, a month after they kicked me off the Board. Why?
The attorneys have filed false litigation reports for the past year claiming that the current status of the case was back in February 1, 2017. Why?
The most recent litigation report defamed me by falsely stating that I had been removed from the Board for cause. Why?
When the Clarkson Law Group was hired, Adam Clarkson failed to disclose prior employment that would appear to a reasonable person to be a potential conflict of interest requiring disclosure. Why?
The blog, “Who gets to decide who is eligible to serve on the Board?“, discusses why the SCA membership has more to fear from over-compensated, power-grabbing attorneys than from me, a homeowner advocate who also is also trying to get title back to a house that was essentially stolen by SCA’s former debt collector.
Wrong!
I have no demand for monetary damages against SCA. Period.