Surprise! SCA attorney makes SCA membership pay to lose their voice!

What happened?

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:

Clarkson’s creative editing tailors SCA’s disclosure form to create the appearance of a conflict of interest where no financial risk to SCA existed when I served on the SCA Board before nor would exist if I were elected again.
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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?

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?

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.

2 thoughts on “Surprise! SCA attorney makes SCA membership pay to lose their voice!”

  1. I do not know Ms. Nona Tobin except for a phone call I made to her in 2017 at my own initiative. And, although I was not asked to provide a comment, it seem appropriate that I do so. No doubt my reply will generate some very nasty responses from certain politically motivated and possibly conflicted individuals, but the facts in this case will speak for themselves.

    Speaking as a previous Sun City Anthem Director and Vice President in the 2007-2008 board session, and as a Governor Sandoval-appointed Nevada HOA/Condo Commissioner a few years ago, I should be accepted as qualified to state an expert opinion concerning Ms. Tobin’s claims on this blog item.

    I am very experienced in HOA matters. I was highly trained on the job while serving on the board from 2007-2008. I was trained by the Nevada Attorney General’s office and Nevada Real Estate Division while serving on the State HOA Commission. I am not an attorney and not authorized to give legal advice. But, based on what she has posted in this public article, I can confirm Ms. Tobin appears to be 100% correct in her allegations and conclusions.

    It would appear to be a serious breech of the director’s individual board fiduciary duties if they accepted the seemingly wrongful discharge legal opinion without proper settlement action the board used to remove her from the board, and if that apparently wrongful/illegal act was used to deny her from being a candidate for the board at this time.

    The litigation risks and financial impacts of what appears to be board misinterpretation of the intent of NRS116, apparently accepting erroneous legal advice without obtaining written NRED advice, and conducting prior wrongful action stimulated by apparently conflicted individuals would eventually be born by all members of SCA, including myself.

    I urge members of the board and members of this SCA HOA to reject the flawed legal advice being given. It is highly deceptive, even if not eventually shown to be legally false.

    A group of a dozen or so SCA members should immediately co-sign a demand letter to the NRED to conduct emergency discussions/hearings at SCA to intervene and direct accurate and consistent following of NRS116 statutory authority over the election. It is not appropriate to be patient about resolving this matter. NRED should consider it an emergency matter deserving immediate corrective action without any delays.

    Based on the information available to me, Ms. Nobin cannot be denied from running for the board and she has legal standing to take legal action if her candidacy is impacted in any way. Some types of election interferences can be prosecuted as felony offenses.

    If any more disruption to the legal operation of the election occurs, the election may have to be redone at significant expense and at public ridicule that could reduce everyone’s property values–as has already occurred before in 2010.

    Board members who vote to follow wrongful legal advice may not be able to seek court forgiveness under the “business judgement rule” in this kind of situation. Such board misconduct could be cause for rejection of coverage under the D&O insurance policy and leave the board members vulnerable to defending themselves in court against such well-documented evidence of NRS116 violations.

    Sincerely yours,

    Robert E. Frank, Colonel, USAF (Ret.) and Former Nevada HOA/Condo Commissioner
    Member, Sun City Anthem HOA since 2004, Black Mountain Village

    1. I don’t know, Bob Frank, if you are aware of it, but David Berman has used your name in vain publicly in a defamatory manner for many years, and he is attempting to use the same sleazy tactics to discredit me now. He has created in people’s mind an imaginary link between us. To stop me from interfering with his self-proclaimed role as kingmaker, he is doubling down and attempting to link us — two people who have no relationship and no history– together in people’s minds as a pair that both belong “in the trash heap”. He designated me as your doppelganger, and as “untrustworthy” and “needing of training on how to be a Board member” in an email to the Board which was influential in getting them to take unlawful action to remove me based on false charges. In his self-proclaimed kingmaker role, he has used his megaphone to destroy the lives of political opponents for the last 11 years in the same destructive manner as Hedda Hopper used her gossip column to facilitate creating the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era that ruined many lives and careers for over 20 years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *