Tag: attorney fees

Judge Peterson forgot I was the victim and thinks Scow did nothing wrong keeping the excess proceeds from the HOA sale for 8+years

What the law requires

What interpleader standard is

“Legal Standard “In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who might have a claim to the money, deposits the money with the district court, and lets the claimants litigate who is entitled to the money.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992)

“Accordingly, many courts have held that those who have acted in bad faith to create a controversy over the stake may not claim the protection of interpleader. See, e.g., Kent v. N. Cal. Reg’l Office of Am. Friends Serv. Comm., 497 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1974) (“Interpleader, which is an equitable remedy, is not available to one who has voluntarily accepted funds knowing they are subject to competing claims.”) (citations omitted); Farmers Irrigating Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Kane, 845 F.2d 229, 232 (10th Cir.1988) (“It is the general rule that a party seeking interpleader must be free from blame in causing the controversy, and where he stands as a wrongdoer with respect to the subject matter of the suit or any of the claimants, he cannot have relief by interpleader.”) (collecting cases); see also44B Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 7 (“The equitable doctrine of ‘clean hands’ applies to interpleader actions.”

Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows interpleader of disputed funds where a Plaintiff is subject to double or multiple liability. Perfekt Mktg., LLC v. Luxury Vacation Deals, LLC, 2015 WL 10012987, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 16, 2015). The purpose of the interpleader is for the stakeholder to “protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants to a single fund.” Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012).

What interpleader asks the court to do

An interpleader action typically involves two stages. Id. In the first stage, the district court decides whether the requirements for a rule or statutory interpleader action have been met by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claimants to that fund. Id. If the Court finds that the interpleader action has been properly brought, it then makes a determination of the respective rights of the claimants. Id.”)

What the facts here are

Red Rock instructed Steven Scow to interplead $57,282.32 on 8/28/14 which was declared “excess funds” after Red Rock took its fees and the HOA had been paid in full. Red Rock did not have standing in 2021 to file an interpleader action.

Steven Scow concealed his and other’s wrongdoing

Steven Scow concealed his possession of the money and its location. He hid the fact that all named defendants had released their liens before the conclusion of the first action. Scow obscured his obstruction of my claim for the proceeds in the first action by refusing to provide them during mediation. He also hindered my second civil claim for the proceeds by filing a motion to dismiss it with prejudice, citing res judicata and the failure to include the HOA as a necessary party.

Scow further obscured his interference with my quiet title claims in the first two actions by providing inaccurate, incomplete, false, and falsified Red Rock foreclosure records. This prevented the sale from being entirely voided and allowed Nationstar and its co-conspirators to commit fraud on the court by having the sale declared valid regarding the sub-priority.

The attorneys perpetrated fraud on the court, covering up that Red Rock rejected assessments that cured the default three times, the sale would have been fairly voided in its entirety in the 1st action, and we would not be still litigating four years later without a judge ever looking at the evidence.

I was the sole claimant after June 3, 2019

3/12/15 Wells Fargo released the lien of the 2nd deed of trust

3/28/17 Gordon B. Hansen Trust closed and assigned its title interest to sole beneficiary Nona Tobin as an individual

6/3/19 Nationstar released the lien of the 1st deed of trust

What Judge Peterson believes despite the law and the facts supported by the evidence

She believes there is some unwritten law that says Red Rock doesn’t have to distribute the proceeds after the sale if someone might try to unwind the sale years later.

Judge Peterson buys into Red Rock’s argument so much she argues for them.

Judge Peterson’s argument matches Nationstar’s 4/26/21 argument also when she allowed multiple disinterested entities to oppose the funds being distributed to the sole claimant.

I didn’t file any quiet title claims against Nationstar in the 1st action and Nationstar didn’t file any against me.

I wanted the sale to be void to return to our respective positions. Nationstar filed for summary judgment against the Hansen trust, but not against me as an individual, met ex arte with the judge, got me removed as an individual party and got all my evidence suppressed, lied to the court to say that it was BANA’s successor in interest, then rescinded that claim a week after the end of discover, filed motion after motion to prevent me from being able to return to my pro se status to be able to represent myself or to be the real party in interest after the Hansen Trust was closed, made a fraudulent side deal with Jimijack, filed motions to have me declared a vexatious litigant, opposed the excess proceeds to be distributed to me as the sole claimant, and on and on and on.

Why? Because Nationstar had no standing to foreclose

Because if the sale were voided in its entirety, than Nationstar would have to prove based on evidence that it actually had NRS 104.3301 standing to foreclose, and we both knew it couldn’t.

Thus, by eliminating my involvement, Nationstar obtained $355,000 for releasing the lien on the 1st deed of trust, which they falsely claimed to own from non-party Joel A. Stokes, on June 3, 2019, just two days prior to the show trial in the 1st action – a trial that neither Joel Stokes nor Nationstar were required to attend, and from which I was barred – all documentary evidence and witnesses were excluded.

For the result of a meritless interpleader action to be the preclusion of all the victim’s claims and the imposition of a vexatious litigant restrictive order for forced defense against entities who have no standing is unfair and disproportionate.

Judge Peterson’s bias gifted the case to my opponents

Steven Scow filed the interpleader action knowing it was meritless

Link to previous blogs (ScaStrong.com/tag/interpleader) on how this interpleader action was filed in bad faith because the law required ALL proceeds be distributed AFTER THE SALE, no one but me had standing to make a claim after June 3, 2019 and Scow got my 6/3/20 civil claim for the proceeds dismissed with prejudice before he sued me and four other defendants without standing on February 16, 2021 to interplead the excess proceeds he should have distributed in 2014.

Interpleader requires single fund, neutral stakeholder, and adverse claimants

This case: wrongfully withheld funds, misidentified, implicated holder joined by disinterested opponents to attack single claimant with standing

Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, Case No.: 2:11-cv-00186-GMN-GWF, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2011) (“Procedurally, an interpleader action encompasses two stages: First the district court decides whether the requirements for rule or statutory interpleader action have been met by determining if there is a single fund at issue and whether there are adverse claims to the fund. In the second stage the court makes a determination of the respective rights of the claimants. Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2010). (citing Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 1999)). 28 U.S.C. § 1335 allows a stakeholder, “to file an interpleader action to protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants to a single fund.” Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1999). ”)

Nevada case law supports sanctions for filing a meritless interpleader action knowing there is only one claimant and the other have no standing

Filing a meritless interpleader action could be sanctionable if the filer attorney has knowingly unlawfully held one person’s money and the other defendants have no standing to make a claim. Sanctions may be appropriate if the filer acted in bad faith, recklessly, or vexatiously, or if the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

Michelman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Interpleader is proper when a stakeholder has at least a good faith belief that there are conflicting colorable claims.”)

“See Tise, 234 F.3d at 426-27; Wells Fargo Bank v. PACCAR Fin. Corp., No. 1:08-CV-00904 AWI SMS, 2009 WL 211386, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 28, 2009). Further, “[b]ecause the interpleader plaintiff is supposed to be disinterested in the ultimate disposition of the fund, attorneys’ fee awards are properly limited to those fees that are incurred in filing the action and pursuing the plan’s release from liability, not in litigating the merits of the adverse claimants’ positions.””

Several of the cases cited here suggest that filing a meritless interpleader action could be sanctionable. For example, in Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., the Ninth Circuit discussed the principle that interpleader is not available to a party who has knowingly accepted funds subject to competing claims. This suggests that if an attorney files an interpleader action knowing that one of the defendants has no standing to make a claim, the attorney could be subject to sanctions. Additionally, in Mayorga v. Ronaldo, the court discussed its authority to sanction an attorney for bad faith conduct, including under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which authorizes an award of fees and costs against an attorney whose reckless conduct causes a litigant to incur them. This authority could be used to argue that filing a meritless interpleader action could be sanctionable if the filer acted in bad faith, recklessly, or vexatiously. Several other cases, such as Crawford v. Smith’s Food & Drug Store, Inc. and Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Seiu Local 24/7, discuss the circumstances under which attorneys’ fees may be awarded as a sanction for bad faith conduct. These cases suggest that sanctions may be appropriate if the interpleader action is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

Equitable doctrine of ‘clean hands’ applies to interpleader actions

Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir. 2012) (““It is generally recognized that interpleader ‘developed in equity and is governed by equitable principles.’ ” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona,223 F.3d 1030, 1033–34 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Lummis v. White,629 F.2d 397, 399 (5th Cir.1980), rev’d on other grounds by Cory v. White,457 U.S. 85, 102 S.Ct. 2325, 72 L.Ed.2d 694 (1982); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Marsh,119 F.3d 415, 418 (6th Cir.1997) (“[I]nterpleader is fundamentally equitable in nature.”)). Accordingly, many courts have held that those who have acted in bad faith to create a controversy over the stake may not claim the protection of interpleader. See, e.g., Kent v. N. Cal. Reg’l Office of Am. Friends Serv. Comm.,497 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1974) (“Interpleader, which is an equitable remedy, is not available to one who has voluntarily accepted funds knowing they are subject to competing claims.”) (citations omitted); Farmers Irrigating Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Kane,845 F.2d 229, 232 (10th Cir.1988) (“It is the general rule that a party seeking interpleader must be free from blame in causing the controversy, and where he stands as a wrongdoer with respect to the subject matter of the suit or any of the claimants, he cannot have relief by interpleader.”) (collecting cases); see also44B Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 7 (“The equitable doctrine of ‘clean hands’ applies to interpleader actions. The party seeking interpleader must do equity, not have caused the conflicting claims, and be free from blame in causing the controversy.”) (footnotes omitted).”)

Scow used interpleader to cover up his wrongdoing

On 2/16/21 Scow, concealed that he personally had unlawfully withheld the excess proceeds that Red Rock had instructed him to remit to the court on 8/28/14.

This is conversion, not interpleader

Scow caused summons to be served in the name of his client, Plaintiff FirstService Residential Nevada LLC (EIN 88-0358132) dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (“Red Rock”)(whose partners he refused to disclose in discovery in the 1st action) when he knew Red Rock had no standing to file an interpleader complaint as it didn’t have the money and it didn’t face adverse competing interests. Scow served five defendants knowing that four of the five defendants had no standing to claim the interpleaded funds.

I know of no legal way for Scow to take a check made out to the court and transfer it under his own personal proprietary control, particularly since Red rock ceased to be a fiduciary agent for Sun City Anthem in 2015. Under the bylaws of that HOA, Red Rock had to surrender all of the funds that it had on account collected under the statutory authority of SCA to the SCA Board in April 2015.

Nevertheless, Judge Peterson insisted that this was an ordinary interpleader action and I was not allowed to have any other claims against Steven Scow.

Scow unlawfully withheld $3,500 from the $57,282.32 that Red Rock had designated as “excess funds” knowing that the statute specifically does not authorize any attorney fees to be deducted from the amount designated as “excess” to file an interpleader complaint.

Judge Peterson, by granting a non-party’s motion, dismissed my 3/8/21 AACC, all counter- and cross-claims and affirmative defenses, including unclean hands, with prejudice, without requiring Red Rock to respond

On 3/8/21 I, Nona Tobin, as an individual, filed the only timely answer, affirmative defenses, and compulsory counterclaims, including a claim for the proceeds. My 19 affirmative defenses listed unclean hands at number 11.

  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.330, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  9. Priority
  10. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  11. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  12. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  13. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  14. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  15. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11.pdf
  16. Failure to mitigate damages
  17. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  18. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  19. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  20. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation

Judge Peterson did not dismiss Nationstar and Wells Fargo when they failed to make any compulsory counter-claims and did not answer my cross-claims

On 4/12/21, I filed a motion for an order to distribute the proceeds with interest to me as the sole claimant but Judge Peterson disregarded the law and let disinterested entities oppose me

On 4/26/21/ Judge Peterson let non-claimants Nationstar and Wells Fargo oppose the funds going to the sole claimant as long as I had other claims

Judge Peterson let Red Rock join the disinterested banks’ opposition even though Red Rock was supposed to be neutral

Red Rock’s/Scow’s true motives, and the banks’ collusion, for not distributing the proceeds after the sale, should now be apparent, but in case it’s not I’ll do a separate blog on that.

Scow knows that the banks are not going to make a claim for the proceeds and that if he can keep the owner from making a claim, then he can keep them, and the money trail will be virtually impossible to follow.

Being forced to pay attorney fees to Scow given his bad faith conduct is just plain wrong. He should be audited to account for the excess proceeds that were not distributed after the red Rock sales.

Mayorga v. Ronaldo, 2:19-cv-00168-JAD-DJA, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 14, 2023) (“The American Rule recognizes that each party in litigation must bear its own attorney’s fees in the absence of a rule, statute, or contract authorizing an award of fees.”)

“Courts usually award attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff in interpleader actions absent a showing of bad faith. Schirmer Stevedoring Co. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 188, 194-95 (9th Cir. 1962).” Here, however, bad faith abounds, and attorney fees are definitely not appropriate.

Judge Peterson’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned by declaring Red Rock LLC was a party

The court can’t render judgment for or against a non-party

Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“the district court entered judgment on this un-asserted claim without conducting a trial (and without employing any recognized trial substitute such as NRCP 12(c) or 56). Instead, the court simply resolved all pending factual and legal disputes on its own, in chambers, without hearing the sworn testimony of any witnesses, without applying any rules of evidence or any recognized procedures for admitting evidence, without permitting the parties to assert any objections to any evidence, without permitting any cross-examination of any witness by any party, and without identifying the legal standards used to resolve any factual or legal disputes, and without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law.”)

Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“The district court clearly erred by failing to apply the Nevada Revised Statutes, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable precedent from our supreme court, and by entering judgment without a trial in favor of a party that never even pled a claim for relief”)

Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *3 n.2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“Booke was not a party to the case, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter any judgment against him. See NRCP 4(d); Schwob v. Hemsath, 98 Nev. 293, 294, 646 P.2d 1212, 1212 (1982) (“Without proper service of process the district court acquires no. jurisdiction over a party.”) (citing Brockbank v. District Court, 65 Nev. 781, 201 P.2d 299 (1948); State v. District Court, 51 Nev. 206, 273 P. 659 (1929)). ”)

“A district court may render judgment for or against a person only where the court has jurisdiction over the parties. C.H.A. Venture v. G. C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 383, 794 P.2d 707, 708 (1990). Thus, a court may not enter a judgment for or against a nonparty.”

NRCP 10(a)(1) The complaint must name all the parties

10(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, the county, a title, a case number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The caption of the complaint must name all the parties; the caption of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.

NRCP Rule 10. Form of Pleadings

Pacific States Sec. Co. v. District Court, 48 Nev. 53 (Nev. 1924)

“Parties are those who are named as such in the record, and who are properly served with process, or enter their appearance. 20 R.C.L. p. 662; Womach v. City of St. Joseph, 201 Mo. 467, 100 S.W. 443, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 140.”

A party must file an appearance, and no attorney ever appeared for Red Rock LLC

A court does not have jurisdiction over non-parties

I.C.A.N. Foods, Inc. v. Sheppard (In re Aboud Inter Vivos Trust), 314 P.3d 941, 946 (Nev. 2013) (“Young v. Nev. Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442, 744 P.2d 902, 905 (1987) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action.””)

Red Rock LLC did not intervene as a timely motion and an interest in the proceedings would have been required.

Non-party Red Rock LLC never timely filed the required NRCP 24(a)(2) motion to intervene. It could not assert it had an interest it did not have relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, i.e., it never had any relationship to the HOA, the interpleaded proceeds, or this dispute, other than sharing an attorney and a similar name with the Plaintiff.

The 2/3/21 complaint must identify ALL the parties per NRCP 10a1 and Red Rock LLC is NOT named as the Plaintiff

Red Rock LLC did not serve any summons to claim relief as the plaintiff

I filed the only counter- and cross-claims, and I did not serve any claims against Red Rock LLC.

C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 709 (1990) (“Personal service or a legally provided substitute must still occur in order to obtain jurisdiction over a party.”). Moreover, “[a] district court is empowered to render a judgment either for or against a person or entity only if it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter,” and a district court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a party—even one with actual notice of the proceedings—unless that party has first been adequately served.

Red Rock LLC is not, therefore, a counter-defendant just because Scow added an LLC designation to counter-defendant in the caption.

No party timely responded to my 3/8/21 claims so I filed 1st 4/12/21 motion for the proceeds

No party timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B) responded to my 3/8/21 claims so I filed a 4/15/21 motion for summary judgment

Counter -claims require a timely responsive pleading (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B))

(B) A party must serve an answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim within 21 days after being served with the pleading that states the counterclaim or crossclaim.

Rule 12.(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.

4/16/21 Scow filed a rogue, unsupported NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss on behalf of non-party Red Rock LLC the day after I filed my MSJ because no party filed a timely answer to my 3/8/21 AACC.

12/28/21 Non-party Red Rock LLC filed an improper opposition to my motion for an evidentiary hearing and a motion for vexatious litigant restrictive order against me and motions for attorneys fees when it had no standing to be in the case

6/13/22 Non-party Red Rock LLC filed an improper opposition to my 2nd motion for the proceeds with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld 8+ years and another motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me for moving to correct the orders for the party identification and another motion for legal fees.

Judge Peterson granted the non-party’s 6/13/22 motion for attorney fees but Scow didn’t accurately write the 1/9/23 order

I insisted that my opposition be added and a corrected order was filed on 1/16/23

1/23/23 I filed motion to reconsider this 1/16/23 order because it was granting the motion of a non-party and because it did not deny my prior 6/27/22 motion to strike the rogue filings of non-party Red Rock LLC in an written appealable order.

State, Div. Child Fam. Servs. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 452 (Nev. 2004) (“[p]rior to the entry of a final judgment the district court remains free to reconsider and issue a written judgment different from its oral pronouncement.” Consequently, we stated that “[a]n oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid for any purpose; therefore, only a written judgment has any effect, and only a written judgment may be appealed.””)

2/10/23 I filed an order granting these motions as unopposed

2/15/23 court denied because of ex parte hearing I knew nothing about

Judge Peterson just ex parte declared “Red Rock is a party” and I’m a vexatious litigant and the court rules don’t apply to my opponents

1/23/23 motions ask for equal treatment of non-parties to fairly end this dispute

Judge Peterson allowed Scow to write the order. The order misrepresents the motion to reconsider as “frivolous” and violating the court’s admonitions.

It is not improper to move to strike the rogue filings of a non-party. It is asking for equal treatment.

Vexatious litigant label was attached to the wrong parties

Court records show that the interpleader action was meritless as it was filed when I was the sole party with a recorded claim after June 3, 2019. 

The statute NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) required that all the proceeds from the August 15, 2014 HOA foreclosure sale be distributed in a specified manner by the person conducting the sale.

Red Rock’s attorney’s failure to comply with the law and Red Rock’s instructions caused years of litigation and enabled bank fraud.

The law required all the proceeds to be distributed after the sale in 2014, but Red Rock didn’t do that and forced years of litigation to claim money that was rightfully mine and enabled massive fraud on the court by other parties as a result. When Red Rock sued me in a meritless interpleader action, I fought back with fraud, racketering and conversion claims. No party answered so I filed a motion for summary judgment, but then a nonparty filed a motion to dismiss per res judicata which the court granted while denying my motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there were disputed facts and my claims were precluded anyway and she didn’t need to address my claim for the proceeds as long as I was attempting to unwind the sale on appeal. 

Red Rock filed a successful motion to dismiss my claim for those proceeds on June 23, 2020 on the grounds of NRCP 12(b)(5) (res judicata) (even though the excess funds from the 2014 sale had not been distributed as required by the statute NRS 116.31164(3)(c)(2013) and NRCP 12(b)(6)(failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its interest in the excess proceeds (despite the fact that Red Rock had paid the HOA in full $2,701.04 on 8/21/04 (according to HOA records that Red Rock falsified in discovery).

Plaintiff Red Rock did not have standing to file 2/3/21 interpleader complaint

Plaintiff Red Rock Financial Services was referred to as “RRFS” in the complaint, but as “Red Rock” elsewhere throughout the case, and as “RRFS was contracted by the Association to collect debts for unpaid homeowners assessments owed to the Association by defendant Nona Tobin as the trustee for the Gordon Hansen Trust for the property located at 2763 White Sage Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89052”. This “RRFS” was a partnership subsidiary of FirstService Residential Nevada, LLC (EIN 88-0358132). The relevant debt collection contract, also concealed in discovery by Red Rock, was signed with Sun City Anthem on 4/27/12. 

Judge Peterson did not require my opponents to have standing

The Plaintiff Red Rock is a different legal entity from Red Rock Financial Services, LLC, is a disinterested non-party utilized by their shared attorney to improperly file rogue documents into these proceedings. Judge Peterson’s 7/7/22 declaration that Red Rock LLC was a party is factually and legally incorrect. Red Rock LLC never had a contract with Sun City Anthem, never had the proceeds, never had anything to do with this case until Steven Scow started adding the LLC designation in the caption or filing rogue documents in when the plaintiff or the counter-defendant had not filed a responsive pleading or a written opposition or filed a motion.

Judge Peterson gave preferential treatment to my opponents

The interpleader action was a meritless abuse of process.

Judge Peterson assumed without support of evidence or law that ALL the proceeds didn’t have to be distributed after the sale

Red Rock misrepresented in the complaint that it faced multiple liabilities.

I presented evidence that this was false and Judge Peterson did not distribute the funds to me for over yet and almost all the funds are gone in fees.

How Plaintiff Red Rock is identified

The funds that the court was asked to distribute were the excess proceeds of an HOA sale conducted by FirstService Residential Nevada LLC (Formerly RMI Management LLC) dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that was under a 4/27/12 debt collection contract and the NRS 649 debt collection license with Sun City Anthem that was terminated in April, 2015.

Plaintiff Red Rock wrote a check to the court on its collection account

Shown below is the check for the interpleaded proceeds that Red Rock agent gave to Steven Scow on 8/28/14 with instructions to remit it to court. That check is written on a co-mingled collection account that is under the control of Scow’s client FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) who is the Plaintiff in this case.

Why Scow refusing to distribute the funds is harassment, maybe conversion

This is significant because the interpleader action was meritless because Scow was supposed to deposit the money with the court in 2014 as his client Red Rock instructed, but he failed to do so. I have spent over $300,000 trying to get my huse back and these funds and Scow has fought me every step of the way.

The cover up – why they fight so hard to silence me

He has filed false evidence in response to subpoena to cover up that Red Rock sold my house without notice, that included files and accounts that had been doctored and he acted in concert with the Nationstar and HOA attorneys to cover up that the sale was void in its entirety because Red Rock conducted the sale after it had rejected assessments that cured the default three times.

It would have been over BUT FOR

The sale should have been voided in the 1st action, and it would have been BUT FOR the misconduct of the opposing parties that met ex parte with Judge Kishner and convinced her that I had never been granted leave to intervene as an individual, and therefore that all of my verified evidence and me, a necessary party under Rule 19, were excluded from the trial.

As a result, I was never permitted to defend my 3/28/17 deed.

There never was the evidentiary hearing mandated by NRS 40.110.

Judge Kishner awarded quiet title to Jimijack on 6/24/19 who had no deed at all to protect after Jimijack had fraudulently reconveyed its defective inadmissible deed on 5/1/19 to non-party Joel A Stokes.

Nationstar didn’t have to go to trial to prove anything because the court didn’t know that the lien it released on 6/3/19 had already been rescinded on 3/8/19 as if it had never existed.

My claim of conversion and my claim for interest and penalties stems from the fact that I have been forced to litigate over and over to get money that he was supposed to deposit with the court in 2014 and not obstruct

I assert that his successful manipulation of the court got my claims unfairly precluded and got me unfairly declared a vexatious litigant. Scow tricked the court into not looking at the evidence by repeatedly saying that the evidence had been examined before when it had not been.

The banks should have been dismissed. The court allowed attorneys for disinterested parties and non-parties file oppositions to my claims for the proceeds because I had other claims

2/16/21 FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) served five defendants a complaint for interpleader when only one had standing to make a claim

2/17/21 Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrew from the case

3/8/21 I, Nona Tobin, as an individual, filed the only timely counter-claim for the interpleaded proceeds, and contained the compulsory counter-claims that I had vs. Red Rock and cross-claims vs. Nationstar of Fraud, Conversion, Racketeering, and sanctions per NRCP 11, NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.270(1)(4). NRS 42.005

The court didn’t require the banks to file NRCP 13(a)(1) counterclaim for the proceeds or answer my crossclaims

4/9/21 Nationstar and Wells Fargo filed a nonsensical answer that had NONE of the compulsory NRCP 13(a)(1) counter-claims, including for the proceeds and NO timely response to my 3/8/21 cross-claims, and NO mention of res judicata in its affirmative defenses. Further, the banks didn’t properly disclaim interest in the proceeds, and the first filing, or any filing thereafter, did not include an Initial Appearance Fee Disclosure so when considered with the affidavit supporting Akerman’s motion to withdraw, it is likely that Wells Fargo doesn’t know it was even in this case.

4/12/21. I filed a motion for an order to distribute the interpleaded funds to me as the sole claimant with interest in which I showed the property records that proved my claim and showed that the banks had no standing to oppose me

4/15/21 I filed a motion for summary judgment as no one filed a timely response to my 3/8/21 courter-claims and cross-claims

4/16/21 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services LLC, filed a motion to dismiss my 3/8/21 counter-claims.

4/26/21 Doc ID# 31 Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds

4/27/21 Doc ID# 32 Scow listed Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC as the Plaintiff and the counter-defendant to Wells Fargo, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s Limited Opposition to Defendant Nona Tobin’s Motion for an Order to Distribute Interpleaded Proceeds. In either case, it just manipulated and confused the court who never understood what was really going on.

Red Rock LLC has nothing to do with this case and Scow knows it

Instead of distributing the proceeds to me in 2021 as the sole claimant they jerked me around for years precluding all my claims

Request for Judicial Notice: Laws & Regulations Exhibit 7 Victim access to remedies

NRS 207.470       actions for damages resulting from racketeering.

1.  Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by reason of any violation of NRS 207.400 has a cause of action against a person causing such injury for three times the actual damages sustained. An injured person may also recover attorney’s fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The defendant or any injured person in the action may demand a trial by jury in any civil action brought pursuant to this section. Any injured person has a claim to forfeited property or the proceeds derived therefrom and this claim is superior to any claim the State may have to the same property or proceeds if the injured person’s claim is asserted before a final decree is issued which grants forfeiture of the property or proceeds to the State.

      2.  A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the State in any criminal proceeding under NRS 205.322 or 207.400 estops the defendant in any subsequent civil action or proceeding from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense.

      3.  Any civil action or proceeding under this section must be instituted in the district court of the State in the county in which the prospective defendant resides or has committed any act which subjects him or her to criminal or civil liability under this section or NRS 205.322, 207.400 or 207.460.

      4.  Any civil remedy provided pursuant to this section is not exclusive of any other available remedy or penalty.

NRS 207.480  Order of court upon determination of civil liability.  

A district court may, following a determination of civil liability under NRS 207.470 or 207.490, take such actions as it deems proper, including ordering the defendant to pay all costs and expenses of the proceedings.

NRS 207.480

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

NRS 38.310             Limitations on commencement of certain civil actions.

NRS 38.320             Submission of claim for mediation or referral to program of dispute resolution; contents of claim; fees; service of claim; written answer.

NRS 38.330             Procedure for mediation or arbitration of claim; payment of costs and fees upon failure to obtain a more favorable award or judgment in court.

Sun City Anthem CC&Rs XVI: DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND LIMITATION ON LITIGATION

NRS 116.4117  Effect of violations on rights of action; civil action for damages for failure or refusal to comply with provisions of chapter or governing documents; members of executive board not personally liable to victims of crimes; circumstances under which punitive damages may be awarded; attorney’s fees.

      1.  Subject to the requirements set forth in subsection 2, if a declarant, community manager or any other person subject to this chapter fails to comply with any of its provisions or any provision of the declaration or bylaws, any person or class of persons suffering actual damages from the failure to comply may bring a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief.

      2.  Subject to the requirements set forth in NRS 38.310 and except as otherwise provided in NRS 116.3111, a civil action for damages or other appropriate relief for a failure or refusal to comply with any provision of this chapter or the governing documents of an association may be brought:

      4.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, punitive damages may be awarded for a willful and material failure to comply with any provision of this chapter if the failure is established by clear and convincing evidence.

      6.  The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

      7.  The civil remedy provided by this section is in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other available remedy or penalty.

NRS 116.4117

Sandy Seddon used the HOA attorney to keep her big fat unjustified pay check

SCA’s attorney billed owners for “legal letters” to stop me & channel 13 from knowing how much Seddon is paid.

The Clarkson Law Group & Sandy Seddon should both be fired for their long-term pattern of acting in their own self-interest instead of as fiduciaries.

By the Numbers – Part 2

Who Controls the Budget?

Sun City Anthem (SCA) homeowners are being taken for a very expensive ride. Six of the seven elected members of the SCA Board are allowing SCA’s new attorney, Adam Clarkson, along with Sandy Seddon, General Manager and Lori Martin, Community Association Manager, to have an unlawful level of control over Sun City Anthem.

These highly compensated employees and attorney are unjustly profiting from their power grab. Six of the seven members of the Board are just letting them do it. Owners are expected to ‘just take it and pay for it.’

Cost of Control

Every expenditure for one purpose is an opportunity lost for something else you wanted to buy. Why do we have a budget (which is a spending plan defining the priorities and use of money that is assessed from the homeowners for the benefit and betterment of the community) if the GM can change it at will?

Why even have a Board if the attorney in concert with management is really calling all the shots?

Who said that the 2017 adopted budget, which has NO allocation for any of these expenses, could just be ignored so the unit owners would have to pay?

Who said it was okay to over-expend the $30,000 (May-August) Legal Services budget by $73,000 to pay Adam Clarkson $103,000 for his first four months of service as SCA’s attorney?

Who said the attorney Clarkson was authorized to take over the removal election process at a cost of $325/hour?

Who said that the GM had the authority to execute a contract with an unknown CPA to pay for an unknown, and unlimited, amount to work with Clarkson Law Group to certify petitions and mail out ballots for the removal election?

By the Numbers

Based on their current compensation, Sandy Seddon, Lori Martin, and Adam Clarkson will continue to financially benefit if they can help keep the four directors currently facing a recall vote, from being removed from power. These four the directors helped to hire them and fiercely protect them during any discussions from the residents. However, they illegally removed without a recall election the one director, me, who challenged their salaries and actions.

Here’s the profit they are making for working for the Board:

  • The GM was paid $100,000+ over market when hired and was given a bonus of $20,000 six months after FSR left.
  • The 2017 budget also includes another $20,000 bonus but is not tied to any publicly-adopted performance standards or measures.
  • Compensation for four management employees eats up 10% of SCA’s total 2017 operating budget.
  • The legal services provided by Clarkson during his first four months as association attorney have cost owners $103,000, primarily spent on writing “legal letters” to stop me from questioning or to take legal action to evict the Foundation.

The Finance Committee stated that the legal services budget should double to $180,000 in 2018 proposed budget by extrapolating the trend of payments. How does SCA benefit from this expenditure?

My Removal from the Board

The reason given for removing me from the Board is that I was trying to profit. Here’s the profit I was making for being on the Board…Zero dollars.

My cost so far has amounted to $3,000 in attorney fees for my defense against the other six members of the Board’s illegal actions against me. However, by law, these attorney fees should be paid by SCA.

According to Article 3.4 (f) of the SCA by-laws – Indemnity. If a member of the Board of Directors is named as a respondent or sued for liability for actions undertaken in his role as a member of the Board, the Association shall indemnify him for his losses or claims and undertake all costs of defense, unless it is proven that he acted with willful or wanton misfeasance or with gross negligence.

Clarkson has refused to let SCA pay my attorney fees, stating that I am personally liable (even though I am innocent of any charges). SCA paid Clarkson ten times that $3,000 amount to illegally attack me, while objecting to my rights, under the above-stated By-Laws, to attorney representation.

Clarkson also redefined my demand for attorney fees as a ‘demand for monetary damages as putting matters before the Board from which I could make a profit.’

I’m saying that because of their obvious conflicts of interest, Sandy Seddon, Lori Martin, the majority of the Board, and attorney Adam Clarkson should have been excluded from making any expenditures or making any decisions related to the recall election. I don’t believe that they are performing in a neutral or fair manner, especially after their secret meeting to expel me from the Board.

I’m saying that the attorney and the GM, having convinced the other six members of the Board that the GM has the authority to spend money for unbudgeted purposes, make a pretty big profit and have an extraordinary level of power. For instance:  

  • Hiring a consultant about the shuttered restaurant,       
  • Hiring a CPA to do the Election Committee’s job for the removal election  
    • According to Article 3.5(b)(i), The secretary or other officer specified in the By-Laws shall cause a secret ballot and a return envelope to the sent prepaid, by United States mail to the mailing addresses of each Lot or to any other mailing addresses designated in writing by the Owner.         
  • Paying the attorney $73,000 over the $30,000 budgeted for his first four months.

Did you get that?

I’m saying that the other six members of the Board have abdicated that much power even though it is flat out against the law. Right now, the GM is able to rob Peter to pay Paul. She has been allowed to expend SCA funds as she sees fit without legal Board action to amend the budget, without any financial limits, and without any notice to members regarding where the money would come. So much for our spending plan.

I’m saying, these highly compensated individuals certainly have a motive to do just about anything to protect their gravy train, and we have seen how they have taken illegal actions to run me over for getting in the way of that train.

I’m saying that Adam Clarkson should not have been given a blank check to collect $325/hour for whatever he says SCA needs. Why do we need a Board if an attorney has to bless every decision?

Resources:

GM compensation comparison chart (pdf)