Category: Unequal treatment

A-21-828840-C court record

A-21-828840-C COURT RECORD

Date  Doc #Court Record
4/1/23 Register of Actions
2/3/20211Doc ID# 1 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure
02/03/212Doc ID# 2 Complaint for interpleader
02/03/213Doc ID# 3 Electronic Summons for Nona Tobin, as an individual and as trustee for the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08
2/9/20217Doc ID# 7 Notice of Department Reassignment
2/17/20218Doc ID# 8 Affidavit of service-Republic Services
2/17/20219Doc ID# 9 Affidavit of service- Wells Fargo
2/17/202110Doc ID# 10 Affidavit of service Nona Tobin, as an individual served via attorney John Thomson
2/17/202111Doc ID# 11 Affidavit of service-Nona Tobin as trustee of the Hansen Trust served via attorney John Thomson
2/17/202112Doc ID# 12 Affidavit of service-Nationstar
2/17/202113Doc ID# 13 Disclaimer of interest – Republic Services
3/8/202114Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, And Counter-Claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Cross-Claims vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC And Wells Fargo, N.A., And Motion For Sanctions vs. Red Rock Financial Services And Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and/or Nationstar Mortgage dba Mr. Cooper Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.470(1), NRS 42.005
3/15/202115Doc ID# 15 Request for Judicial Notice
Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Complete Official Clark County 2003-2021 Property Records for APN 191-13-811-052
3/22/202116Doc ID# 16 Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure for Nona Tobin an Individual
3/22/202117Doc ID# 17 Nona Tobin’s Third-Party Complaint 1. Abuse Of Process; 2. Racketeering (NRS207.360(9)(18) (29)(30) (35); NRS 207.390, NRS 207.400(1)(2); 3. Fraud NRS 205.330, NRS 205.360, NRS 205.372, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.395, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175; 4. Restitution And Relief Requested Exceeds $15,000 5. Exemplary And Punitive Damages Pursuant To NRS 42.005, NRS 207.470(1) & (4) 6. Sanctions Pursuant To NRCP 11(b)(1-4); NRPC 3.1, 3.3, 3.4,3.5(b), 4.1, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 8.4 vs. Steven B. Scow; Brody R. Wight; Joseph Hong; Melanie Morgan; David Ochoa; Brittany Wood
4/4/202118Doc ID# 18
Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of Relevant Unadjudicated Civil Claims and Administrative Complaints
4/7/202119Doc ID# 19
Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and Sun City Anthem Governing Documents Germane To the Instant Action
4/9/202120Doc ID# 20 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Answer to Red Rock Financial Services’ Complaint for Interpleader (NRCP 22)
4/9/202121Doc ID# 21
Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of NRCP 16.1 Disclosures and Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
4/12/202122Doc ID# 22 Nona Tobin’s Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin
4/14/202123Doc ID# 23 CNONCD Clerk’s Notice of Nonconforming Document (failed to say whether hearing was requested)
4/16/202124Doc ID# 24 Counter-Claimant & Cross-Claimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment vs. Counter-Defendant Red Rock Financial Services and Cross- Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC & Wells Fargo, N.A. and Motion for Punitive Damages and Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.401(1) and/or NRS 42.005
4/16/202125Doc ID# 25 Clerk’s notice of hearing Tobin’s amended motion (22) for an order to distribute on 5/18/21
4/16/202126Doc ID# 26 Clerk’s Notice of Nonconforming Document and Curative Action
4/16/202127Doc ID# 27 Clerk’s 7:39AM notice of hearing Tobin MSJ (24) and petition for sanctions on 5/18/21
4/16/202128Doc ID# 28 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions (14)
29Doc ID# 29 Clerk’s notice of hearing on 5/18/21 Non-party Red Rock LLC’s untimely motion (28) to dismiss Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions (14)
4/26/202130Doc ID# 30 Nona Tobin’s Opposition to Red Rock Motion to Dismiss (28) Tobin’s Counter-Claims and Motion for Sanctions (14) Pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or (4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.40(1), NRS 42.005
4/26/202131Doc ID# 31 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order (22) to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds
4/27/202132Doc ID# 32 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s rogue Joinder to Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition (31) to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds (22)
4/29/202133Doc ID# 33 Red Rock Financial Services’ Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (24)
5/3/202134Doc ID# 34 Wells Fargo, N.A. And Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s untimely Joinder To Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s rogue Motion To Dismiss (28) Counter-claimant Nona Tobin’s Counter-claim And Petition For Sanctions (14)
5/4/202135Doc ID# 35 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s & Wells Fargo’s Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Distribute Proceeds (22) And To Their Untimely Joinder (31) To Red Rock’s rogue Motion To Dismiss (28) And Tobin’s Reply To Support Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgment Vs. Nationstar & Wells Fargo (24)
5/5/202136Doc ID# 36 Wells Fargo, N.A. And Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Joinder To Red Rock Financial Services’ Opposition To Nona Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgment (24)
5/9/202137Doc ID# 37 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Red Rock’s Joinder To Nationstar’s & Wells Fargo’s Opposition To Tobin’s Motion To Distribute Proceeds
5/9/202138Doc ID# 38 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Red Rock’s Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment And Motion To Amend Third Party Complaint
5/11/202139Doc ID# 39 Non-Party Red Rock LLC’s Rogue Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim And Petition For Sanctions
6/22/202140Doc ID# 40 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – JOHN THOMSON FOR NONA TOBIN
6/26/202141Doc ID# 41 STIPULATION AND ORDER – MOVE EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO 8/18/21by stipulation, changed manually by the court to 8/19/21
7/27/202142Doc ID# 42 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF STIPULATION AND ORDER – MOVE EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO 8/19/21
9/10/202143Doc ID# 43 “ORDER & JUDGMENT ON PLAINIFF (SIC) RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s COUNTERCLAIM AND PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANTS/ COUNTERCLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS”
9/10/202144Doc ID# 44 Notice of Entry of Order & Judgment granting non-party Red Rock LLC’S rogue Motion to Dismiss Tobin’s Counterclaim, Petition For Sanctions And Tobin’s Motion For Summary Judgement against counter-defendant Red Rock
9/15/202145[45] Substitution of Attorneys for Tobin from John Thomson to Taylor Simpson, Suzanne Carver, P. Kerr Sterling
10/8/202146[46] Motion for Reconsideration
10/11/202147[47] Notice of Hearing Motion for Reconsideration
8/19/202148[48] Transcript of Proceedings 8/19/21
10/12/202149[49] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Third-Party Claims Without Prejudice
10/13/202150Doc ID# 50 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
10/13/202151Doc ID# 51 Notice of Entry of Order
10/21/202152Doc ID# 52 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for Reconsideration
10/22/202153Doc ID# 53 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s rogue Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions
10/29/202154Doc ID# 54 Tobin Reply in Support
11/9/202155Doc ID# 55Notice of Change of Hearing (from 10 AM to 8 AM
11/9/202156Doc ID# 5611/09/2021 Motion for Withdrawal
11/9/202157Doc ID# 57 DECLARATION OF NONA TOBIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ENTERED SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
11/10/202158Doc ID# 58 Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time
11/10/202159Doc ID# 59 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
11/10/202160Doc ID# 60 Nona Tobin’s Three-Day Notice of Intent to Take Default vs. Wells Fargo, N.A. as to Tobin’s Cross-Claims Filed on March 8, 2021
11/10/202161Doc ID# 61 Notice of Intent to Take Nationstar’s Default
11/11/202162Doc ID# 62 Motion to Withdraw As Counsel
11/12/202163Doc ID# 63 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
11/14/202164Doc ID# 64 Declaration
11/15/202165Doc ID# 65 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
11/15/202166Doc ID# 66 Motion to Strike
11/15/202167Doc ID# 67 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
11/17/202168Doc ID# 68 Order to Withdraw as Attorney of Record
11/19/202169Doc ID# 69 Notice of Entry of Order
11/30/202170Doc ID# 70
Order Clarifying Sept. 10th, 2021 Order and Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike
11/30/202171Doc ID# 71
Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion to Reconsider of Order Dismissing Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions and Defendant/Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions
11/30/202172Doc ID# 72 Notice of Entry of Order Clarifying September 10, 2021 Order And Mooting Notice of Default and Motion to Strike
11/30/202173Doc ID# 73 Denial of Motion to Reconsider
11/16/202174Doc ID# 74 Recorders Transcript of Hearing Re: Defendant/ Counterclaimant’s Motion for Reconsideration 11/16/21
12/14/202175Doc ID# 75 Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside Orders and for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 60(B)(3) and (D)(3), NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3)
12/14/202176Doc ID# 76 Notice of Hearing
12/28/2177Doc ID# 77 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s rogue Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60 (d)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process; For a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
12/29/202178Doc ID# 78 Notice of Appearance “Aaron D. Lancaster, Esq., of Troutman Pepper LLP, will appear as Counsel for Defendant, Wells
Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC.” No IAFD. No SUBT. No Signature from Wells Fargo, Nationstar, or Akerman. “Gary Schnitzer, of Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson Watson & Zeppenfeld, Chtd., the office of which is located within the State of Nevada at 8985 S. EasternAvenue, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89123, has agreed to serve as the Designated Attorney forservice of papers, process, or pleadings required to be served on the attorney, Aaron D. Lancaster, Esq., including service by hand delivery or facsimile transmission, as Troutman Pepper LLP does not maintain an office in the State of Nevada.”
12/29/202179Doc ID# 79 Wells Fargo and Nationistar’s Joinder to Defendant Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60 (b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60 (b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to EDCR 7.60 (1) and (3) NRS 18.010 (2); and Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/10/202280Doc ID# 80 Nona Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Set Aside September 10, 2021 Order and November 30, 2021 Orders Pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud) and NRCP 60(b)(3) (Fraud on the Court) and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Cots Pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) and (3), NRS 18.010(2); and, Countermotion for Abuse of Process for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/10/202281Doc ID# 81 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s And Wells Fargo’s Joinder And Countermotions For Attorney Fees And A Vexatious Litigant Order
1/11/202282Doc ID# 82 Notice of Change of Hearing
1/14/202283Doc ID# 83 Order Granting Akerman s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
1/19/202284Doc ID# 84 Notice of Entry of Order Granting Akerman s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC
1/19/202285Doc ID# 85 Recorders Transcript of Hearing Re: 01/19/22
4/26/202286Doc ID# 86 Notice of Appearance No IAFD. No SUBT. No authorization by nationstar or Wells Fargo. Aaron Lancater notices begin “VANESSA M. TURLEY, of Troutman Pepper LLP, is admitted and authorized to practice in this Court, and will appear as Counsel for Defendant, Wells
Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC.”
5/25/202288Doc ID# 88 Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees And Costs
5/25/202289[89] Notice of Entry of Order Denying Nona Tobin’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing To Set Aside 9/10/21 Order And 11/30/21 Orders Pursuant To NRCP 60(b)(3)(Fraud) And NRCP 60(d)(3)(Fraud On The Court) And Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Pursuant To EDCR 7.60(1) And (3), NRS 18.010(2); And, Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s 12/28/21 Countermotions For Abuse Of Process and Denying non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion For A Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin And denying For Attorney Fees And Costs
5/30/202290[90] Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30, 2021 and May 25, 2022
5/30/202291Doc ID# 91
Exhibits To Second Amended Motion For An Order To Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest To Sole Claimant Nona Tobin And Motion For Attorney Fees And Costs Pursuant To NRS18.010(2) And EDCR7.60(b)(1) And (3) And Motion To Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices Of Entry Of Orders Entered On 11/30/21 And 5/25/22
5/31/202292Doc ID# 92
Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
6/13/202293Doc ID# 93
Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Opposition to Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for An Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant toNRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30, 2021 and May 25, 2022; and Renewed Countermotion for Abuse of Process; For a Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
6/21/202294Doc ID# 94
Reply To Non-Party Red Rock LLC’s Opposition To Tobin’s Second Amended Motion For An Order To Distribute Interpleaded Funds With Interest To Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(B)(1) and (3)
6/22/202295Doc ID# 95
Nona Tobin’s Reply To Non-Party Opposition To Motion To Correct Notices Of Entry Of Three Orders
6/27/202296Doc ID# 96
Reponse to Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Countermotion for a Restrictive Vexatious Litigant Order Against Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Nona Tobins Counter-Motion to Adopt Tobins Proposed Final Judgment Order
6/30/202297Doc ID# 97
Notice of Appellate Decision
07/07/2022 Motion (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Peterson, Jessica K.)
8/29/202298Doc ID# 98
Notice Of Tobin Petition For Writ Of Prohibition And Or Mandamus
9/23/202299Doc ID# 99
Amended Notice of the Filing of a NRAP 40 Motion for Rehearing of Petition for a Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus
10/5/2022100Doc ID# 100
Motion for Rehearing Petition for Writ of Prohibition and /or Mandamus
11/28/2022101Doc ID# 101
Notice Of NRAP 40a Petition For En Banc Reconsideration 85251
12/19/2022102Doc ID# 102
Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood
12/19/2022103Doc ID# 103
Tobin Motin For An Order To Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar f Nevada
12/19/2022104Doc ID# 104
Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Steven Scow
12/19/2022105Doc ID# 105
Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Melanie Morgan, Esq. (SBN 8215), Akerman, LLP; and Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP, and Draft Alternative Civil Action
12/19/2022106Doc ID# 106
Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Joseph Y. Hong
12/19/2022107Doc ID# 107
Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. David Ochoa, Esq. (SBN 10414) and Adam Clarkson, Esq.
12/20/2022108Doc ID# 108
Corrected Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar
12/20/2022109Doc ID# 109 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
12/20/2022110Doc ID# 110 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
12/20/2022111Doc ID# 111 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing
1/3/20231121/3/23 Motion Doc ID# 112
1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to the State Bar And 2) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter-Claims and Cross-Claims vs. Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo 3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs. Red rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.040(1(a),(b),(i), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 And 4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order
1/3/2023113Doc ID# 113
Response to Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to the State Bar
1/6/20231141/6/23 Clerk’s Notice of Hearing Doc ID# 114
1/9/202311501/09/2023 Order Doc ID# 115
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motin to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/10/2023116Notice of Entry of Order Doc ID# 116
1/16/2023117Doc ID# 117
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Nona Tobin’s Second Amended Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Funds with Interest to Sole Claimant Nona Tobin and Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) and EDCR 7.60(b)(1) and (3) and Motion to Correct Nunc Pro Tunc Notices of Entry of Orders Entered on November 30 2021 and May 25 2022 and Granting in Part Red Rock Financial Services’ Countermotion for Abuse of Process; for a Vexatious Litigant Restrictive Order Against Nona Tobin and for Attorney Fees and Costs
1/17/2023118Doc ID# 118
Notice of Entry of Corrected 1/9/23 Order amended solely to correct the 1/9/23 order to state that Tobin had responded, refused to sign for the reasons identified in the opposition attached to the corrected order.
1/17/2023119Doc ID# 119
Red Rock Financial Services’ Response/Opposition to (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobins Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Motion to Withdraw Tobins Counter-Claims and Cross-Claims vs. Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo; (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobins Petitions for Sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar to include NRS 357.0401(a), (b), (i) and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395; and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobins Proposed Final Judgment Order
1/23/2023120Doc ID# 120
Tobin 1/23/23 Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings
1/24/2023121Doc ID# 121
Clerks’ Notice of Hearing
1/24/2023122Doc ID# 122
Wells Fargo and Nationstar’s Joinder to Red Rock Financial Services’ Response//Opposition to (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded to The State Bar; (2) Motion to WIthdraw Tobin’s Petitions For Sanctions VS. Red Rock, Nationstar to Include NRS 357.0401(A), (B), (I) and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395; and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order
1/31/2023123Doc ID# 123
Tobin’s Reply to Red Rock’s Opposition to Tobin’s Four 1/03/23 Motions to Amend Final Order
2/2/2023124Doc ID# 124 Declaration
Declaration of Steven B. Scow in Support of Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Red Rock Financial Services
2/2/2023125Doc ID# 125 Reply to Opposition
Tobin’s Reply to Nationstar’s Opposition and Vexatious Litigant Motion
2/12/2023126Doc ID# 126 Opposition to Motion
Tobin Opposition To Scow Declaration ISO Attorney Fees
2/16/2023127Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements
Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
2/20/2023128Doc ID# 128 Reply to Opposition
Tobin Reply in Opposition to Red Rock 2/16/23 Memo of Fees and Costs
3/3/2023129Doc ID# 129 Court Recorders Invoice for Transcript Ex parte 2/2/23 hearing
2/2/2023 recording fee and transcript
3/3/2023130Doc ID# 130 Recorders Transcript of 2/2/23 ex parte unnoticed Hearing added to court record on 3/3/23
3/28/2023131Order Declaring Nona Tobin a Vexatious Litigant, Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: (1) Motion to Withdraw Tobin’s Motion for Order to Show Cause why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should no be Forwarded to the State Bar; (2) Moton to Withdraw Tobin’s Counter- Claims and Cross-Claims vs Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo/ (3) Motion to Modify Grounds for Tobin’s Petitions for Sanctions vs Red Rock and Nationstar to Include NRS 357.404(1)(A), and NRS 199.210, NRS 205.0824 and NRS 205.0833, and NRS 41.1395 and (4) Motion to Adopt Tobin’s Proposed Final Judgment Order and Order Denying Defendant Nona Tobin’s: Motion to Reconsider 1/16/23 Order and Renewed Motion to Strike Non-Party Red Rock Financial Services LLC’s Rogue Filings
3/28/2023132Doc ID# 132
Notice of Entry of Order
4/1/23Register of Actions

Why do our HOA attorneys help crooks steal from the homeowners?

Really, I’ m asking.
I don’t know the answer.
I just know I’ve been in litigation for five years because they aren’t working for the client that pays them.

Yesterday I filed racketeering and fraud claims against Red Rock Financial Services

NONA TOBIN’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTER-CLAIM VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, AND CROSS-CLAIMS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC AND WELLS FARGO, N.A., AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS VS. RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, AND/OR NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE DBA MR. COOPER PURSUANT TO NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), NRS 42.005

PDF of my 131-page response when Red Rock sued me vs. voluntarily surrendering the $60,000 they stole from me in 2014.

I have been greatly damaged by our attorneys defending SCA’s agents and screwing over homeowners

So, it has come to this.

Mortal combat.

To the death.

The Table of Contents of my 131-page response below gives you all you need to know to see why I am livid at their gall.

  • AACC title
  • AACC-TOC-PG-2
  • AACC TOC PG 3
  • AACC TOC PG 4
  • AACC TOC PG 5
  • AACC TOC PG 6
  • AACC TOC PG 7

None of this litigation had to happen.

It was caused by an abuse of power and the attorneys’ total lack of professional ethics.

Who told the HOA attorneys to refuse my 2017 offer to settle at no cost?

HINT: It wasn’t the Sun City Anthem Board.

At SCA, either you’re “IN” or you’re “OUT”

Why knock them down & then kick them?

The Foundation Assisting Seniors (FAS) does not deserve to be treated as dead to SCA, “rubbed out” after being kicked to the curb.
After many successful years of partnership between FAS and SCA,

What changed…
  • that forced SCA to lose such a valuable amenity?
  • that converted a positive, mutually-beneficial arrangement into the bitter banishment of our partner?

I won’t rehash all the unnecessary escalation by SCA, that culminated in evicting FAS from their 15-year home on the flimsiest of reasons, but some things should never have happened:

  • assigning the GM to “mediate“ a dispute in which she was an interested party, and then blaming FAS for the failure to resolve the conflict,
  • filing a civil action against FAS without the required owner vote to approve it,
  • racking up $40,000 in unnecessary attorney fees that one of the two non-profits (SCA or FAS) had to pay.

Adding insult to injury

Yet, it has not been enough to force FAS out. SCA management is now refusing to print any article or picture in the Spirit if it says anything positive about FAS.

The recent incident that chapped my hide involved refusing to allow the Women’s Golf Club to report on the 2018 FAS Memorial Day Golf Tournament.

The most significant FAS fundraiser is this annual golf tournament at Revere in which 250+ golfers participate, and probably, 50 or more volunteers organize and put on.

In the past, the Spirit frequently had articles, maybe even a cover story, about the FAS Memorial Day golf tournament.  But not this year
The Women’s Golf Club liaison to the Spirit submitted an article for the August issue that included a reference to the FAS golf tournament.

The Spirit contact was polite and tried to help get, at least, part of the FAS article published.

But SCA GM/Board would not allow it.  Why?
Why must FAS be treated as dead to SCA?

How do SCA owners benefit by this brutal break-up?

The rationale for evicting the Foundation was that FAS was using facilities that belong to the association, and it would be a violation of the Board’s fiduciary duty to let FAS get a free ride.

This is not true. FAS was a free service, an amenity, that many volunteers and donors from across the valley contributed to over the years. By the way, the anonymous donor has extended his offer to match all contributions until the end of July, and I think FAS is only at 2/3 of their $30,000 goal now.

FAS continues to provide 85% of its services to Sun City Anthem despite being evicted and the SCA Board approving $25,000 for the Community Services Group (CSG) to purchase durable medical equipment to duplicate FAS’s service to SCA residents.

According to Favil West,

“The total amount the Foundation has paid as a benefit to SCA has been nearly $200,000.”

Aren’t SCA owners being forced to pay more for less?

How is the GM/Board’s making services to owners more expensive and less convenient meeting their fiduciary obligations?

Compare the actual benefit SCA residents have already received from our long affiliation with the Foundation with the “betting-on-the-come” deal the SCA Board/GM almost cut to bring in a restaurant vendor:

  • Free rent
  • Free utilities
  • Monopoly on catering
  • No share in the profits for SCA until a nearly impossible $1.4 million in annual revenue is reached
That deal fell through, but I’m just saying…

I don’t think owners are well served when the GM/Board offers sweetheart deals to some people who can make a profit off the owners’ backs while other people who have served our community for years, but who are not in the current IN-GROUP, are beaten up like a poor step-child.

Collateral damage: the Coffee Corner

Really, why use volunteers when paid staff will do?

Another chance to balance the SCA Board

Who should fill the surprise vacancy on the SCA Board?

Bob Burch abruptly resigned last week,

…for reasons which will not be revealed, Rex Weddle announced to owners, or at least, to the 850 owners who have opted-in to receive SCA eblasts.

Rex also said that the Board would be appointing someone to fill Bob’s seat until the next election (May 2019).

Surprisingly, Rex then invited owners to submit their names for consideration by next Friday, July 13 @ 5 PM to the GM at [email protected].

If you are interested in being considered by the Board of Directors for appointment to a position on the Board, please be sure to place your written request to General Manager, Sandy Seddon, no later than end of business on Friday, July 13, 2018.  Click Sandy Seddon to submit via email.  This correspondence should include your name, phone number and a brief statement as to why you feel you should be considered to serve on the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors.

Once the Board votes on this appointment, they will also vote on the re-organization of the Board and select its officers.

Please consider volunteering to serve on the Board
SCA Board needs a better balance of perspectives

It should come as no surprise that, although the SCA governance and Board elections are structured to be completely non-partisan, there is a clear demarcation between factions in our community that might be identified as:

  1. Berman Believers
  2. Followers of Other Bloggers
  3. Everybody Else

If there is any hope in healing this community’s divide, there needs to be a shift in the representation on the Board to include voices from all three groups.

Otherwise, the currently-entrenched group-think  will continue to dominate our public discourse and distort governance so all residents are not equally well served.

I, for one, do not think this dynamic is healthy for the community. At a minimum, it has reduced my own joie de vivre, and I don’t think it is a stretch to say that I speak for others.

If you feel that you have a perspective that would assist the Board to be more effective at representing the entire community rather than just the segment whose voices are now heard, please step up.

Why was the request for owners to self nominate a surprise?

Because that’s not the way they did it last time. Jim Coleman was appointed last September by a secret process that

  • did not include notifying owners that the Board intended to fill my seat without an owner election (which was required at that time)
  • did not allow owners to submit their names for consideration
  • did not include any public deliberations by the Board of the selection criteria

The Board kept secret how Jim Coleman had been recruited and what competitive process, if any, had been employed. They were also silent as to where the Board got the authority to fill the seat of a director who had been removed when the NRS and the bylaws required a membership vote.

What’s wrong with the Board meeting in secret?

And, what’s happening now?

One has to wonder what motivated this 180-degree turn to a more open, competitive process to fill a vacated Board seat.

And, I’m sure, the more cynical among us, will question how open this current process really will be.

One might ask

  • Will the names and qualifications of the people who self-nominate be kept a secret?
  • Will the GM deem anyone”disqualified”  and not turn those names over to the Board?
  • Will they use the required candidate disclosure form from the NRED website or use the Clarkson  “I-make-up-my-own-laws” version, or will they not require disclosures from Board appointees?
  • Will the attorney usurp the authority of the Board and, at owner expense, issue an order, rather than an opinion, to block any applicant?
Let’s hope not.
I, for one, will give them one more chance.

 

No restaurant as of June 28 Board meeting

The game goes on…but now they’ve got a scapegoat.

I have been dealing with other things this past month, and had not kept up with the last month of the two-year restaurant process. I had heard that the negotiations had broken down with the one vendor left standing.

So, I went into the Board meeting thinking that the deal with G2G was off the table.

When I sat down, an irritated resident told me the Board was still negotiating a sweetheart deal with G2G.

I was further confused when I opened my computer and saw that at 1:13 PM,  literally minutes before the 1:30 PM meeting, palace-favorite, blogger Berman published a letter G2G sent to the GM saying that the deal was off, no matter how big the subsidy.

And here’s the kicker – it’s all Dick Arendt’s fault that G2G pulled out because he talked bad about them on Anthem Opinions.

How (and why) did Berman get a leg up?

It is inappropriate, from my perspective, for the GM and the Board to have a death grip on information which should be openly and immediately shared.

But it’s worse when they blatantly give David Berman “scoops” because they can count on him to consistently write favorably about the GM and the Board – NO MATTER WHAT – and unfavorably about other bloggers who won’t give the Board or the GM a free pass when they screw something up or screw someone over.

Shouldn’t everybody have easy access to the same information at the same time?

If it is confidential, it is confidential from everybody. If it is not confidential, it should be made readily available for the easiest possible access. The GM and the Board are creating a huge amount of unnecessary conflict by the way they mis-handle communications.

The GM and the Board play favorites and do not uniformly enforce the rules of confidentiality. They use information as power, and block access from their detractors. When criticized for this failure, they go crazy, and threaten the owners, particularly bloggers, who out them.

Why couldn’t G2G make it?

Apparently, free rent, free utilities, and ZERO profit-sharing with SCA until the obviously-unattainable $1.4 million revenue number was reached was not a sufficient subsidy to overcome the damage done by the bad-mouthing of the non-Berman blogger.

How did the GM characterize what happened?

The GM did not quote the entire G2G “we’re outta here” letter with those attending the Board meeting that she unfairly shared with David Berman before the meeting.

I say “unfairly” because it allowed her to use a willing tool to illegitimately stoke the fires of animosity AGAIN against  their common nemesis, and his reviled, competing blogger, without her having to dirty her hands.

Anyone else who requested such a document would have been threatened with sanctions for even asking for it, and then had to swear on the head of her newborn grandchild that it would not be disclosed before it would have been handed over.

She did, however, in making her report, focus on the phrase in the letter that most effectively, albeit unfairly, shifted the blame away from her, and her own gargantuan part, in designing an RFP/negotiation process ensured to fail.

She said that the SCA-G2G negotiations had reached impasse over “drop and go’s”, alcohol and pot lucks,

The Board wanted to talk some more, and SCA’s team thought they could get a deal, but G2G wrote her today that it is no longer interested. She paraphrased this part of the pull-out letter.

“… the blogging of Dick Arendt and his call to boycott the restaurant even before we opened.

So, …(we’re withdrawing due to)… the poisonous atmosphere illegitimately manufactured by a blogger.”  G2G

What’s the bottom line?
The Board approved a motion to direct management to continue to look for a restaurant tenant.

The GM asked the Board to approve two Board members to work with her. Tom Nissen is now fully retired from the Board and not willing to serve as a non-Director member of the work group. No matter how many times this method has failed (using a couple of Board members with the GM instead of an independent, specialized expert), hope springs eternal.

The good news is Gary Lee, the Director I think has the most experience negotiating restaurant contracts, was appointed to the team.

The bad news is that, to get a successful restaurant, Gary Lee will probably have to do a lot of the GMs job. The GM has not demonstrated herself capable of getting a successful restaurant tenant in place since she got here in November 2015 – even through that expectation was the one specific criterion the Board adopted – and probably ignored – for her 2017 bonus.

Public comments

One owner had specific suggestions about how to economically poll owners about whether they want a restaurant at all, and encouraged the Board to look at the possibility of just a bar and appetizers. There were suggestions for the Board to take a broader view of what would work in that space, including a food court or the high quality of places he had seen in Asia.

The old guard continued to promote the idea that only people who show up at meetings should get a voice, but I got the sense there was a small crack opening in Board acceptance of the idea that other people need to be heard.

What were some of the Board comments?

Several Directors said they were disappointed to be back at square one, but had an interest in getting more owner input. They saw the need for improving the RFP process to more clearly spell out the parameters in advance and to be open to wider competition.

Several Directors unfairly blamed bloggers, particularly Dick Arendt, for G2G pulling out, just as other Directors have voiced this same unfortunate refrain to deflect criticism of previous Board decisions that weren’t particularly owner-friendly.

“Shut up. We’re in charge here.”

They again asserted that the Board should take legal action to stop the criticisms of the Board and management that they think are totally unwarranted.

It’s a weird perspective to me – this being America and all. Utterly lacking in a sense of what gives legitimacy to their power

“Governments are instituted …deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
-the Declaration of independence

I am particularly saddened when I hear Art and Jim rant about the need to silence dissent. I like them both, on a personal level, and think they are good people.

I think they just are not getting how they are unwittingly contributing to the polarization of the community by representing only some of the people, and by not tolerating  diversity of opinion about the way we want to be self-governed.

To self-righteous and aggressively defend themselves and those who agree with them against perceived injustices only becomes dysfunctional when that outrage is used as justification for intolerance and threatening to use legal force to stop the free expression of dissent.

I never wanted to be a blogger, but now, I will defend my right of free expression to my last breath.

Part 3: In case you don’t think this is enough evidence

This is the third, and final, part of my 6/6/18 email to the NRED Chief Investigator and Ombudsman to clarify NRED’s process for ensuring that
1. the rights of homeowners in HOAs are protected,
2. Nevada statutes are uniformly enforced, and
3. Board members or agents suffer consequences if they fail to act as fiduciaries.

Justice delayed is justice denied

Three Hawaiian Princesses – Tara Noalani, Ella Nahiena’ena welcome Issa Anale’a to the world. I fight to ensure “liberty and justice for all” is a core value in the world we pass on to them.

Justice delayed is justice denied

The length of time NRED has taken to address the complaints I submitted last September without response has unfairly diminished their credibility or, in some cases, rendered them moot.

This is unacceptable, particularly since these issues (election interference, concealing association documents, retaliation, harassment, unlawful removal from the Board for essentially political purposes are all issues of great import to protect homeowners in all Nevada HOAs.

Denial without prejudice? Hardly.

Denial “without prejudice” in one election interference case was nonsensical. A 10/20/17 complaint that Bob Burch was wrongly left off the removal election ballot because two pages with a combined total of 22 signatures mysteriously disappeared so allegedly, he was two signatures short of being placed on the ballot. On 12/11/17 the complainant (not me) was notified by Christina Pitch that the case was closed stating:Say, what?

Claiming that the Ombudsman’s attendance at the vote count of the ballots (ballots that did not include Bob Burch) was sufficient justification to deny the complaint that Bob Burch’s name was wrongly excluded from the ballot (due to 22 missing signatures) is a complete non sequitur.

NRED might as well have denied the complaint because Kilauea volcano erupted.

Further, Bob Burch was treated as a non-conflicted Board member at the November 1 recall vote count despite the complaint about his not being included on the ballot was still open until NRED’s December 11 rejection.

To say that this was not prejudicial to the claimant (meaning that he could file the complaint again after the point was moot) adds insult to injury.

Inappropriate use of association attorney

NRED appears to condone SCA GM and Board giving an inappropriate level of deference to association attorney Clarkson.

Those same 11/1/17 recall vote count owner meeting minutes show the tip of the iceberg of the completely inappropriate role Adam Clarkson took in the recall election process.
Not only was there no Board approval:

  1. to amend the adopted SCA Election and Voting manual,
  2. to dump the volunteer Election Committee and
  3. no Board approval to hire a CPA and
  4. no Board approval to pay the CPA firm and the Clarkson firm over $100,000 in unbudgeted funds to take over (and bungle) the recall election,
No law gives an HOA attorney decision-making authority

There is substantial additional evidence that Clarkson unlawfully acts as a decision-maker, or as the GM’s attorney, rather than solely as a legal advisor to the full Board.

What more does NRED need?

In what form can I submit this evidence where I can be assured that it will be weighed by an independent trier of fact?

Freedom of information is non-existent at SCA

GM’s concealing association records and using the attorney to threaten owners for even asking appears to be condoned by NRED.

NRED gave two different responses to the draconian records request form revised by the Clarkson law group 2/28/18 to suit the GM regardless of the law or best interests of the homeowners.

NRED response 1 was pro-homeowner.

The first was an email response to a homeowner in March correctly stated the owner protections in the law,

“The “mandatory acknowledgement” form…is contrary to NRS 116, as such a document is not required by law.”

NRED response 2, as reported by Bob Burch, was pro-management.

The second NRED response was only reported verbally.

I haven’t seen any written response from the Ombudsman to the SCA Board, but the Board President has reported that NRED approved the unlawful “acknowledgements” on the document request form that restrict the homeowner from sharing legally accessed material with third parties.
Could this really be true?

According to the Board, NRED has approved the SCA threatening homeowners that, if the information (released per NRS 116.31175) is disclosed to third parties, the owners may be subject to fines and penalties up to foreclosure.

These Clarkson-crafted “acknowledgements” are allegedly (according to Clarkson) binding even if the owner does not sign or agree. According to SCA, NRED says this is okay, just so long as the owner is not required to sign the acknowledgement.

Does NRED have a double standard?
Note that the document request form’s revision was not approved by an official Board action despite the requirement of SCA bylaws 6.4(a)(b) p. 24.)

The Board abdicated its duty to make records accessible to owners contrary to NRS 116.31175, and the GM never signed a management agreement acknowledgement per NRS 116A.620(1)(a)and (m) that the HOA records do not belong to the manager.
Yet, NRED apparently issued a verbal ruling giving the SCA Board and management carte blanche to carry on.

Could this really be true?

And one last thing

Lack of transparency allows SCA homeowners to be put at risk due to

  • management errors,
  • bad decisions,
  • inappropriate use of the attorney at triple the adopted budget, and
  • resistance to implementing sufficient checks and balances.

My insistence in attempting to address these problems led to the harassment and retaliation that was the true impetus of my removal from the Board.

Note that NRED has not responded to my 7/21/17 Form 781 complaint other than to refer it to the investigations division. The problems of withholding and concealing records have been exacerbated over the past year, and I have submitted additional documentation to the complaints in September,  November and January evidencing this unacceptable pattern.

What is NRED going to do to address these issues?

Part 2: Secret meetings in general

This is the second part of my 6/6/18 email to the NRED Chief Investigator and Ombudsman to clarify NRED’s process for ensuring that
1. the rights of homeowners in HOAs are protected,
2. Nevada statutes are uniformly enforced, and
3. Board members or HOA agents suffer consequences when they fail to act as fiduciaries.

Issa Anale’a didn’t make us wait as long as NRED

Why has NRED needed more than nine months?

Tomorrow, I’ll see what NRED Chief Investigator’s perspective is on the 6/6/18 email I am sharing below in Part 2 “Secret meetings”, in the previous blog, “Why so quiet?“, and in the final part 3, “In case you don’t think this is enough evidence”

Part 2: Secret meetings in general

The second complaint was that the Board deliberates in secret meetings.  This complaint being dismissed perfunctorily is also problematic. It appears as if NRED condones a pervasive pattern at SCA of decisions being made by the Board, the attorney, the GM or individual directors without proper action by the Board in open session.

It also appears that there are no consequences if SCA Board is not compliant with NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, or SCA governing documents.

NRED previously instructed SCA on this point

Previous NRED officials have issued letters of instruction (attached to previous email) to require statutory conformance (with owner protection laws) which SCA now ignores.

I, as well as other SCA residents, have alleged that, currently, many Board decisions are made improperly, i.e.,

  • in group emails,
  • in “workshops”,
  • in improperly noticed meetings,
  • private Board training (no notice, agenda or minutes) sessions which are
    • deemed “attorney-client” privilege while
    • simultaneously are deemed to NOT be executive sessions, but of which recording is prohibited:
  • meetings or email chains involving only a few Board members or which pointedly exclude dissenting directors
What does it mean when the NRED investigation of these complaints just stops without a finding?

Obviously, the SCA Board was notified that SCA has won by default, but apparently the owner who complained was not.

As Bob Burch said,

Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed.

This is essentially what has occurred in 100% of the cases filed in the past year.

Is that NRED’s intent? 

  • Does NRED really intend to say that this Board conduct, that has generated many owner complaints, is permissible despite the Board’s failure to meet the requirements of NRS 116.31183 or NRS 116.31085?
  • Or are you not convinced that the complainants accurately reported impermissible acts?
  • Does NRED’s investigative protocol permit your investigator to rely on information provided by the HOA, but prohibit further investigation by seeking additional information, or at least a response, from the complainant?

Whose call is it anyway?

NRED needs to be aware that at SCA, Board decisions are routinely made by the GM or attorney in policy areas in which the Board is prohibited from delegating by SCA bylaws 3.20 and 3.18 pursuant to NRS 116.3106(1)(d).

These wrong parties (the GM, the attorney, a subset of the Board) falsely claim the Board made decisions that the Board didn’t make correctly, or worse, didn’t make at all, e.g.,

  • hiring debt collectors without an RFP (competitive process),
  • increasing group exercise user fees,
  • failing to comply with the Election & Voting Manual in the 2017 recall election,
  • hiring a CPA without a contract or an RFP to do the volunteer Election Committee’s job,
  • paying that CPA and attorneys, at a $100,000+ un-budgeted combined cost, to usurp the recall election process,
  • over-expending the legal fees budget by $200,000+ in 2017,
  • taking punitive actions, without legal authority, against me as a Board member and unit owner, i.e., threatening letters and kicking me off the Board in retaliation for my complaints and records requests,
  • authorizing the use of owners’ money to pay for the association attorney
    • to appear in the GM’s divorce and
    • to withhold SCA records in discovery that had been previously released to OSCAR, the anti-recall group.
When the NRED investigation into these actions just stops, or maybe never even starts, what does it mean?
  • Is abdication and usurping of Board authority okay in NRED’s view?
  • Does NRED need more documentation and more specific examples to establish that this practice is occurring?

What else does NRED need to stop this?

Here is a link to a www.SCAstrong.com blog, “If they had only known, part 3” that gives some examples of GM decisions that resulted in election interference, hiring bankrupt or conflicted debt collectors without due diligence or following proper procedure, a biased selection of a restaurant vendor (that is not proceeding for unknown reasons, leaving SCA with no restaurant for 2 1/2+ years and counting).

I can also provide you links to the actual documents that are are evidence of these and other specific incidences if NRED needs more documentation to make a finding and prohibit agents from taking advantage of SCA.

Coming up:

Part 3: In case you don’t think this is enough evidence

Why so quiet?

Sorry for the big break in my updates about SCA shenanigans.

I’m in California for some family events,

Nathaniel graduated

and a new granddaughter due any minute

But, while we’re waiting for the next big thing, I’ll tell you

The real cause for pause

After a fun-filled trip to Mexico, I dragged myself to the May 24 Board meeting. I was immediately stunned by the President’s report that NRED had stopped investigating two complaints that impacted me.

I wondered if NRED’s practice was to rely on management or agents rather than get the whole story. I hoped not. But, I had a sinking feeling…

Ordinarily, I would have posted something right away, but I decided to talk to NRED’s new chief investigator, Terry Wheaton, first. Multiple attempts to set up a meeting were unsuccessful so I documented my concerns in writing.

It is even longer than my usual missives, so I’ll break it up for you. It was full of hyperlinks to the actual evidentiary documents. I will break the links in this public distribution, just in case, my transparency forces the SCA Board and GM to claim it is their fiduciary duty to pay the attorney $10,000+ to threaten to sue me to kingdom come.

Part 1 of email to NRED

Fwd: Issues related to dismissed and open investigations; NRED Letters of Instruction to SCA

I am writing you now to document my concerns and request that you evaluate these documents before there is a final determination on my form 514a, 781, and three form 530 complaints  (harassment/retaliation, recall election interference, and for removing me from the Board without complying with NRS 116.31036 on false and unproven charges that I had placed matters before the Board from which I stood to make a profit.

1. NRED investigations are closed without notice or reason

In March, I raised this concern to Christina Pitch in the email I am forwarding here. You can see her response. However, the pattern of NRED closing complaints without a clear, legally defensible, equitable resolution seems to be continuing.

At the last Sun City Anthem Board meeting on 5/24/18, the new President Bob Burch made the following claims in his President’s report which were extremely disheartening because I have received no communication from NRED about these issues which intimately affect me and about which I have formally filed affidavits and declarations.

President’s report

Next, I would like to report that we have been advised by the Nevada Real Estate Division that two complaints filed against the Association have been closed. In one case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held an emergency meeting on July 18, 2017 to discuss employer liability and that the meeting did not meet the requirements for an ‘emergency’ under NRS116. In the second case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held secret meetings beginning in March or April 2017 in which appointments to committees were agreed upon and Association business was decided upon. Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed.  – Bob Burch, 5/24/18

What does “no good cause to continue the investigation” mean?

Does NRED condone or just not care?

Dismissed complaint 1: July 13 “emergency” executive session

In my view, having a Board meeting without notifying me for the other six directors to approve a cease & desist order against me was an unlawful abuse of authority and certainly not an emergency.

What does NRED think?

Does NRED’s closing the complaint investigation without disciplinary action against SCA mean:

  • That NRED says it’s okay for the GM to fail to give me, an elected Board member, ANY verbal or written notice that the Board I was elected to was being called into an “emergency” executive session two hours after I was standing in her office being denied access to ANY SCA records despite NRS 116.31175 and SCA bylaws 6.4(c)?
  • That NRED says it’s okay for a GM, an at-will employee, to use the association attorney at SCA owner expense to threaten litigation against SCA (her employer) and me, a Board member, personally for creating “employer liability” for asking for justification for her being paid double the market rate and criticizing her performance and judgment despite NAC 116A.345(5)?
  • That NRED says it’s okay for six Board members to meet without and issue orders against me, the seventh EQUAL, ELECTED Board member, to limit authority as a Board member, restrict my duties, TOTALLY restrict my access to information needed to make decisions as a Board member, and restrict my right to vote on an equal basis with the other directors despite the prohibitions in NRS 116.3103(2)(d)?
  • That NRED says it actually was an emergency as defined by NRS 116.31183(12) affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community for 6/7 of the SCA Board to meet to order me, the seventh, to stop asking for a verification of the GM’s former salary and to reprimand me, without legal authority, for asking the GM to reconsider a ruling she made to prevent equal time in SCA official publications for a proponent of the recall election?
  • That NRED says that six members of the Board constitutes a quorum, and they (6 of 7) can meet in executive session to make decisions for the Board as a whole or to take action against the seventh Board member even if the six directors prevent the seventh Board member, despite the limitations defined in NRS 116.31185 or NRS 116.3103(2)(d),
    • from attending their secret session,
    • from voting, or even
    • from knowing their secret meeting is going to occur ?
  • That NRED doesn’t care that the SCA Board failed to comply with multiple provisions of state law and SCA governing documents?
Or is NRED saying
these owner complaints are frivolous and aren’t serious matters worthy of at least a complete investigation?

That meeting, actually held on 7/13/17, had numerous flaws which I spelled out to NRED in form 514a on pages 4-5 and claims are  supported by written evidence.

I now have a meeting scheduled for June 18.

Next time

Part 2: Secret meetings in general

 

Why SCA now pays so much in unnecessary legal fees

Adam Clarkson trained the Board,

and he has convinced them that the budget doesn’t matter when it comes to legal fees.

The Board, following Rex’s leadership, foolishly insisted that the 2017 Board training be conducted in secret by Adam Clarkson.

Despite the excellent free training programs available through NRED, the Board refused to allow owners to see how they were being trained to abdicate their decision-making authority.

And the the Board certainly didn’t want owners to be able to comment on the self-serving training that was provided by Clarkson so it was deemed “attorney-client confidential” even though the training packet began with a legal disclaimer.

NRED complaint still pending

The secret Clarkson training was a self-dealing disaster. It bordered on elder abuse, and my complaints about the abusive conduct at that July 25, 2017 “attorney-client-privileged, not-an-executive-session workshop” are still under investigation by NRED.

Naturally, Adam Clarkson is billing the association ($325/hour, thank you very much) to defend himself and the other perps from my complaints about being bullied and harassed in that session in retribution for my telling the lot of them that they needed to straighten up and follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

What was wrong with the way Clarkson trained the Board?

Setting aside the for the moment the attorney-led misconduct of the participants (shunning, threatening and bullying me), Adam Clarkson twisted the interpretation of the law so far as to assert that it was a violation of the Board’s fiduciary duty to act ON ANYTHING without the attorney’s blessing.

Reward for complicity

Adam Clarkson rewarded the Board members who fell for his money grab, by creating a punitive cone of silence around non-confidential, discoverable SCA records against the non-compliant Director. Clarkson has also given his blessing to the unlawful claims that

  • the GM controls which owner or Board member can access SCA records and can withhold records at will, including in violation of a court order
  • the GM, President or Secretary
    • can exclude a Board member from Board meetings, and
    • can prevent a Director from voting,
    • and can block a Director from placing items on a Board meeting agenda
    • and can falsify the minutes of those meetings
  • the President does not have to follow Parliamentary procedures and
    • can magically use non-existent “substitute motions” and
    • can block a vote on a Director’s seconded motion and
    • can prevent a nomination for an officer position that would compete with the President’s pre-selected slate.
  • Annual reporting of gifts is voluntary

What does “fiduciary duty” mean?

Adam Clarkson actually gave this self-dealing definition of fiduciary duty saying that being guided by legal professionals was required by law AS IF only lawyers were experts on every subject.

The legal requirement is actually to consult with appropriate experts of all types (not just attorneys) when it is prudent to do so. This means reserve specialists, HR experts, accountants, construction experts, not just attorneys. There is no legal requirement for a Board to delegate its decision-making authority to attorneys. In fact, it is prohibited by both NRS 116.3106 and SCA bylaws.

“Consult with appropriate professionals as necessary before making major decisions…”

And the definition of fiduciary really is focused on the duty of care that the fiduciary has to ACT SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MEMBERSHIP.

A fiduciary is personally accountable for a duty of care and using good judgment to serve owners, not oneself.

It does not cut it to do (or not do) something that hurts the membership and then claim,

“The attorney made me do it.”

Defy the ruling of Judge (and jury) Adam Clarkson at your peril!!!

According to Adam Clarkson, attorneys are justified in verbally attacking and threatening a Director who tells the other members of the Board that:

  1. attorneys don’t have the expertise to assist on ALL Board decisions and that
  2. it is the individual Director’s responsibility to use common sense and ethical principles to evaluate courses of action to decide how to vote.

Give me a break. That’s idiotic.

We are actually paying $325/hour for that type of inane self-dealing pronouncement against a Director who tells the attorney to knock it off.

Guilty until proven innocent

“Unauthorized practice of law” for “advising other members that legal counsel is not necessary”????

“… will be deemed to have committed a prima facie violation of NRS 116.3103”?????

“Prima facie”  =  A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

Quid pro quo = “something for something”

Quid

“Guilty until proven innocent” is the Clarkson pro forma edict he uses to bully Board members who are not in his or the GM’s pocket.

Quo

At the same time, Clarkson has protected the interests and defended the unlawful actions of the GM and those Board members who unquestioningly have agreed to pay whatever he bills with OPM (other people’s money).

“Prima facie” = “presumed guilty”

Here’s what NRS 116.3103 actually says

Clarkson is wrong

Telling the Board that the buck stops with it, and not with the attorney, is NOT a violation of a director’s fiduciary duty.

It is a true statement made on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that

  • getting attorneys out making decisions for management or the Board, and
  • preventing attorneys from self-dealing or
  • serving the personal interests of a few individuals over the interests of the membership

is acting in the best interests of the association.

Per Rex: “Shut up. We’re in charge here.”

Rex Weddle’s’s May President’s Report in SCA’s Spirit Magazine is entitled (apparently unaware of the irony) “Keeping our nest clean“. Rex again  devotes his entire official communication to sharing with all owners and residents his personal and chronic whine about how owner complaints about him, the GM and the Board are ruining this community.

Boo hoo.

Bloggers called Rex and his buddies “thugs and bullies”. Private individuals  accused him, the Board, the attorney and the GM of unlawful conduct and criminal corruption. Rex belittles those who complain, but without specifically denying any of the charges.

What’s a poor, hand-wringing President to do?

Rex seems oblivious to his contribution to SCA’s problems. He did not suggest any way he could use his position of authority to address owner concerns or to heal community division.

Rex thinks that bullying bloggers into silence is the best course of action.

Rex apparently lacks any self-awareness of how inappropriate it is to use the Spirit, SCA’s official publication, to express his personal opinion and his personal hostility toward certain members of the community.

The President of the Board has a column in the Spirit which is intended to share with the entire community news about what actions the Board is taking, how the owners’ money is being spent, or to provide inspirational words of leadership.

Rex, unfortunately, has chosen instead to use SCA’s official publication as a personal soap box, to chastise residents for complaining about him personally or for criticizing actions of SCA elected official or agents that individual owners or bloggers believe are detrimental to the community.

Rex’s message: “My way or the highway“

Don’t you think it is ironic that Rex Weddle, speaking officially as the SCA President, uses the Spirit, the SCA website, Board meetings, and other official SCA communication channels, to shame and demean residents for expressing their personal opinions on blogs that they privately own, just because he personally disagrees with them?

Doesn’t it seem odd that he does not recognize that his claim that blogs have a negative impact on our property values is just his personal opinion, and one that has no data to back it up?

“Because they read like a bad restaurant review, the buyers may choose to go elsewhere.”    -Rex Weddle

That is like a restaurant owner blaming his bad Yelp reviews on the customers instead of trying to figure out why they are saying the food and the service sucks.

Bob Burch only hears those on his side

Don’t expect these Spirit President Reports to be any better now that Rex’s protege and probable puppet, Bob Burch, will have his name on the President’s report byline. Bob’s intolerance of dissent and his blind spot when it comes to equal treatment of resident’s are huge.

How can I say such mean things?

I am just defending myself and my rights and protecting the rights of ALL owners. I don’t see that as being mean. I do see what Rex et al are doing as being mean.

For example,

after the restaurant workshop, I forwarded a copy of a blog, “How to cook our goose” to all members of the Board. I wanted them to know I thought the restaurant vendor selection process was unfair and incompetent.

Here’s what Bob graciously emailed me back:

“You really are a very strange person.  In any case, any further emails from you will be considered SPAM and will be treated as such.”                -Bob Burch

And another example of responsive leadership

Here is the gratuitous observation Bob made (not to me, but about me, on the only community blog that Board members seem to think deserves their respect) in response to my blog, “Being accountable for being good neighbors“,

Ouch.

I wonder if Bob is so non-judgmental about all of his constituents, or if I am just special.