“Legal Standard “In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who might have 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)
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pundyk, No. 2:16-cv-01196-APG-GWF, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) (“District courts have original jurisdiction over interpleader actions involving $500 or more in controversy if “two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship…are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property…” 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).
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).
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.”)
All proceeds were legally required to be distributed AFTER THE SALE in 2014.
rrfs 047
The interpleader complaint in 2021 was meritless.
Steven Scow filed for interpleader in 2021 when his client FirstService Residential dba Red Rock Financial Services (EIN 88-0358-132) instructed him to remit a check designated as excess proceeds to the court as the law required.
In 2021 Steven Scow did not deposit the stale 2014 check to the court nor did he admit he had defied the law and his client’s instructions for seven years.
2/3/21 Scow filed the complaint knowing Red Rock did not have standing to file for interpleader in 2021 when he had been instructed to remit the funds to court on 8/28/14.
“Legal Standard “In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who might have 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)
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Pundyk, No. 2:16-cv-01196-APG-GWF, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) (“District courts have original jurisdiction over interpleader actions involving $500 or more in controversy if “two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship…are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property…” 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).
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).
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.”)
High Noon at Arlington Ranch Homeowners Ass’n, Nonprofit Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 402 P.3d 639, 645-46 (Nev. 2017) (“Under Nevada law, an action must be commenced by the real party in interest—”one who possesses the right to enforce the claim and has a significant interest in the litigation.” Szilagyi v. Testa , 99 Nev. 834, 838, 673 P.2d 495, 498 (1983) ; see NRCP 17(a). Generally, a party has standing to assert only its own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party not before the court. Deal v. 999 Lakeshore Ass’n , 94 Nev. 301, 304, 579 P.2d 775, 777 (1978)”)
Stockmeier v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 122 Nev. 385, 393 (Nev. 2006) (“This court has a “long history of requiring an actual justiciable controversy as a predicate to judicial relief.” In cases for declaratory relief and where constitutional matters arise, this court has required plaintiffs to meet increased jurisdictional standing requirements. However, where the Legislature has provided the people of Nevada with certain statutory rights, we have not required constitutional standing to assert such rights but instead have examined the language of the statute itself to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to sue.”)
My 3/28/17 deed made me the only one with with standing to assert a claim for the proceeds as all other liens were released by mid-2019 before the 1st action was decided.
3/30/17 Republic Services released both its garbage liens due to the 3-year statute of limitations on non-enforcement.
2/17/21 Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest and withdrew from the lawsuit the day after it was served
6/3/19 Nationstar released the lien of the Western Thrift & Loan 1st deed of trust
Two days before the quiet title trial in the first action, Nationstar recorded a release of the lien of the first deed of trust, delivering the property free and clear to Joel A. Stokes, a non-party individual. In return for recording this unauthorized lien release, Nationstar received $355,000. As a result, Joel A. Stokes and Sandra F. Stokes, trustees of the Jimijack Irrevocable Trust, gained quiet title in the first action’s trial, despite the fact that Jimijack’s deed, inadmissible as evidence and leqally insufficient to hold or transfer title, had been covertly quitclaimed to the non-party before the trial. The trial did not consider evidence as mandated by NRS 40.110.
3/12/15 Wells Fargo released the lien of the Wells Fargo 2nd deed of trust
Link to 3/12/15 PDF of Wells Fargo’s 2nd deed of trust lien release
Wells Fargo was not involved in the first two actions. The bank filed an IRS Form 1099-C to cancel the outstanding $15,000 debt on the line of credit after the borrower, Gordon Bruce Hansen, passed away on January 14, 2012. However, they didn’t release the lien until a few months after the HOA sale. Wells Fargo never asserted to be the beneficiary of Hansen’s July 22, 2004, first deed of trust, and was likely unaware of Bank of America’s recorded corporate assignment of its non-existent interest.
Additionally, Wells Fargo probably didn’t know that debt buyer Nationstar intermittently claimed to service the loan on their behalf, or that Akerman LLP alleged that they were authorized to represent Wells Fargo in the A-21-828840-C interpleader action.
For the last four years, I have subscribed to a legal services research service found on casetext.com. On 3/15/23, I upgraded to its new level of service called Co-counsel that includes an OpenAI-enabled document analysis feature that I utilized to assess Judge Peterson’s appearance of impartiality in the court hearings. I asked for an analysis of each hearing by providing a series of questions. Below are the responses for the 2/2/23 hearing.
Identify where in the transcript the judge made accommodating statements to or about the parties present
Pgs. 21-22, 3, 5, 10, 11
The judge makes several accommodating statements throughout the transcript. The most explicit examples are on pages 21-22 (LINES: 138-140) where the judge thanks Mr. Scow and asks Ms. Turley if she has anything to add. There are also other instances where the judge is understanding or polite to the parties present, such as not faulting Mr. Scow for a delay (pgs. 3,5) and allowing him to speak when he interrupts (pgs. 10,11).
The judge does not make any explicitly accommodating statements, but there are a few places where the judge seems to be understanding or accommodating. For example, the judge does not fault Mr. Scow for the delay in submitting an order because they were waiting for a transcript and for a writ issue to be resolved (LINE:130). Additionally, the judge tells counsel that they do not need to file an opposition to certain motions because the judge is advancing all motions to that day (LINE:113).
The judge does not make any explicitly accommodating statements, but there are a few instances where the judge is polite or respectful to the parties present. For example, the judge says “Go ahead” when Mr. Scow interrupts (LINE:116), and the judge responds “Okay, perfect” when Mr. Scow confirms that Ms. Tobin received notice (LINE:125).
The judge made several accommodating statements to or about the parties present. For example, the judge said “Thanks for coming down” (LINE:139) and “Appreciate it” (LINE:140) to Mr. Scow. Additionally, the judge asked Ms. Turley if she had anything to add, and when she said no, the judge responded “All right” (LINE:138).
Identify where in the transcript the judge made complimentary statements to or about Nona Tobin.
No relevant language found.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about Nona Tobin.
Throughout
The judge makes negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript, including that she does not understand the law (Lines 103, 115), is repetitive and unmeritorious in her filings (Lines 110, 124, 126), and is a “vexatious litigant” (Line 113). These statements occur on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17.
The judge makes several negative statements or implications about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint” (LINE:115), that she “continues to argue” a point that has already been decided (LINE:120), and that she “continues to file seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” (LINE:126).
The judge makes several negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Tobin is “wrong and… misunderstanding what the law is” (Line 103), that she “did not seek leave of this Court to do so as required” (Line 108), that she “is simply wrong” (Line 110), and that she has filed “seriatim motions with this Court that are devoid of legal merit” (Line 124).
The judge makes several negative statements about Nona Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111), and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113).
Identify where in the transcripts the judge made negative statements to or about the parties present.
Against Ms. Tobin
The judge makes a number of negative statements or implications about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript, including that she does not understand the law (Lines 103, 115, 118), files motions without merit (Lines 108, 110, 116, 126), and is a “vexatious litigant” (Line 113). The judge also refers to one of her requests as “inappropriate” (Line 145). These statements occur on pages 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17.
The judge makes a number of negative statements or implications about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that “Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint” (
The judge makes several negative statements about Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge says that Ms. Tobin is “wrong and… misunderstanding what the law is” (Line 103), that she “did not seek leave of this Court to do so as required” (Line 108), that she “is simply wrong” (Line 110), and that she “continues to file seriatim motions with this Court that are devoid of legal merit” (Line 116). Additionally, the judge refers to Ms. Tobin’s request for judicial notice as “inappropriate” and “legally devoid of merit” (Line 145).
The judge makes a few negative statements or references to Ms. Tobin throughout the transcript. For example, the judge refers to her motions as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious”
The judge references denying Tobin’s motions or precluding her claims in multiple places throughout the transcripts. On pages 3-4, the judge discusses dismissing Tobin’s claims, denying her motion to reconsider, and implying that all motions will be denied. On pages 8, 10, 11, and 13, the judge mentions that Tobin’s motions have been denied multiple times and that she may be declared a vexatious litigant. Finally, on pages 15-17, the judge discusses enjoining Tobin from filing complaints, denying her motion to reconsider, and declaring her a vexatious litigant.
The judge references dismissing Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion on line 121. Additionally, the judge discusses denying Tobin’s motion to reconsider on line 122. Finally, the judge states that she is advancing all motions to the current day and implies that they will all be denied on line 114.
The judge does not explicitly state that Tobin’s claims are precluded or that she has no claims, but the judge does mention multiple times that Tobin’s motions have been denied. Specifically, the judge says “once again denied Tobin’s claims” (Line 105), “the Court will have no other choice but to issue an order to show cause why Ms. Tobin should not be declared a vexatious litigant” (Line 116), “the Court was going to declare her a vexatious litigant” (Line 124), and “she filed another motion to reconsider on the same issues that have been denied over and over and over again” (Line 139).
The judge references denying Tobin’s motions or precluding her claims in several places. For example, the judge says “The Court is going to enjoin her from filing any complaints” (Line 101), “If Ms. Tobin’s complaint is meritless or if it fails to allege a cognizable, legal claim Ms. Tobin’s complaint shall be sent back to her unfiled” (Line 102), “Ms. Tobin is enjoined from filing anything other than a timely notice of appeal into this case” (Line 103), and “the Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies the motion to reconsider that is being advanced to today” (Line 115).
The judge explicitly states that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case on two separate occasions (pgs. 3, 9), and also makes reference to them in the context of the case on another occasion (pg. 19).
The judge states that “It is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint. Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge later says “They have interplead funds. That is the only thing that is at issue in this case.”
The judge states that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party in this case. They are the interpleader in this case. She filed cross-claims against them.”
While the judge does not explicitly state that Red Rock LLC is a party as a matter of law, the judge does mention Red Rock Financial Services several times, including instructing that they “shall turn over to Ms. Tobin the amount of blank” (Line 131) and that they are to be included in the order being prepared (Line 129).
Lines 113, pg. 18
The judge explicitly stated that the parties did not need to file an opposition to Tobin’s motions in line 113 (pg. 3), and also implied it in response to Mr. Scow’s question on page 18.
The judge stated that “I do not feel that it is necessary for them to file an opposition to the motion to reconsider that is set to be heard on the 8th or on the 28th. Nor do I find it necessary for them to file an opposition to the motions that are set for in chambers, for February the 8th” in
The judge does not explicitly state that the parties do not have to file a written opposition, but the implication is clear when the judge says “I advanced that to today, too” in response to Mr. Scow’s question about the hearing on the 8th being in chambers only.
The judge stated that the court had tried to call Tobin but she didn’t answer her phone on line 107 (pg. 2)
The judge states that “We just attempted to phone her and she did not answer the phone” on line 107.
The court was consistently displeased with Tobin’s allegations and motions, dismissing them as meritless and expressing frustration with her repeated filings (pgs. 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,14). The court ultimately declared her a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from filing any further complaints without review (pgs. 15,16,17).
The court seems to have largely dismissed Tobin’s allegations. The judge notes that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint,” and that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge criticizes Tobin for filing “seriatim motions that were devoid of legal or factual merit,” and argues that her attempt to withdraw those filings does not “cure” the issue.
The court repeatedly denies Tobin’s claims and motions, and expresses frustration with her repeated filings. The court ultimately considers declaring her a “vexatious litigant” in order to restrict her ability to file further motions.
The court was not pleased with Tobin’s allegations. The court enjoined her from filing any complaints until they are reviewed by the Chief Judge, and if they are found to be meritless, they will be returned to her unfiled. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant, citing her “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions.”
Procedural errors; meritless motions
The court provides a number of reasons for denying Tobin’s motions, including that she did not follow proper procedure (pgs. 9,11), did not justify her request for relief (pgs. 9,11), and misunderstood the nature of the complaint (pgs. 3,4,6,7). Additionally, the court argues that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that lack merit and has been warned about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 9,11,16,17).
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons. First, the court contends that Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint and that Red Rock Financial Services is indeed a party to the case. Second, the court argues that Tobin has continued to file “seriatim motions” that lack legal or factual merit, even after being warned not to do so. Finally, the court argues that Tobin’s request for judicial notice is not appropriate because the facts she wants the court to take notice of are subject to reasonable dispute.
The court provides several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. First, Tobin did not seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by EDCR 2.24(a). Second, she did not identify which of the six grounds for relief from a final order would justify relief or reconsideration. Third, the court argues that Tobin is incorrect in asserting that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to the case. Finally, the court notes that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that are devoid of legal merit, and has been warned that she risks being declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to do so.
The court cites several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. The court argues that Tobin’s motions are “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious,” and that she has been given ample opportunity to respond and argue her case. Additionally, the court notes that they had previously warned Tobin that if she continued to file motions that were “legally and factually devoid of merit,” they would declare her a “vexatious litigant.”
Claim preclusion; harassment
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion (pg. 4), and denied her motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court has repeatedly expressed frustration with Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” (pgs. 13-14, 16-17), which may have contributed to the decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice.
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion, as stated in line 121. Additionally, the court denied Tobin’s motion to reconsider this decision (line 122).
While the document does not directly address this question, it does mention that the court has repeatedly denied Tobin’s claims and motions, and that the court finds her filings to be “legally devoid of merit” and “doing nothing except for attempting to harass the attorneys that have been involved in this matter.”
While the document does not explicitly address the reasoning behind the dismissal of these claims, it does mention that Ms. Tobin has filed “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” and that she was warned about being declared a “vexatious litigant” if she continued to file motions “legally and factually devoid of merit.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin throughout the document. The Court criticizes her for not understanding the nature of a complaint (pgs. 3-7), for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14), and for not attending a hearing (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14). The Court also refers to her as a “vexatious litigant” on multiple occasions (pgs. 16,17,21).
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, the Court states that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” Additionally, the Court references Tobin’s “seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” and warns her that she may be declared a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court repeatedly refers to her filings as “devoid of legal merit,” “repetitive,” and “abusive.” The Court also notes that she did not attend a hearing and did not provide any notice that she would not be present. Finally, the Court discusses the possibility of declaring her a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111) and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113). Additionally, Mr. Scow notes that Tobin’s behavior has been “vexatious” for the Court as well (LINE:136).
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, there are a few places in the document that could be seen as favorable to them. The Court notes Mr. Scow’s caution and thoroughness (pgs. 5,7), criticizes Tobin for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,14), and expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s cooperation (pgs. 17,19,20,22).
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain some information that could be seen as favorable to them. For example, the Court notes that Mr. Scow submitted an amended order “in an abundance of caution” to reflect Tobin’s proposed changes, which suggests that he is being careful and thorough. Additionally, the Court repeatedly criticizes Tobin for filing motions that are “devoid of legal or factual merit,” which implies that her opponents may have stronger arguments.
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain several negative references to Tobin herself, which could be seen as indirectly positive for her opponents. For example, the document states that Tobin’s proposed changes are “legally incorrect,” that she is “wrong” and “misunderstanding what the law is,” and that she has filed motions that are “devoid of legal merit.”
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation to Mr. Scow for his suggestions and cooperation, saying “thank you” multiple times and noting that he is “happy to do” what the Court requests.
– The document is a transcript of a court proceeding involving Red Rock Financial Services and Nona Tobin.
– The proceeding took place on Thursday, February 2nd, 2023, before Judge Jessica K. Peterson.
– Steven B. Scow represented Red Rock Financial Services, while Vanessa M. Turley represented Nationstar.
– Nona Tobin did not appear in court, and did not answer when called.
– Several motions were on the docket, including requests for judicial notice of attorney misconduct.
– The judge advanced all motions to withdraw, and a motion to reconsider to the day of the proceeding despite Tobin’s absence.
– The judge clarified that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, despite Tobin’s arguments to the contrary.
– The judge referenced a previous hearing in which she warned Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and noted that Tobin had continued to do so.
– The judge ruled that she could not take judicial notice of attorney misconduct as requested by Tobin, as the facts were subject to dispute.
– The judge also referenced an order from a previous hearing that was not entered until January 2023 due to Tobin’s appeals to the Supreme Court.
Pages 8-14
– The Court denies all of Ms. Tobin’s proposed changes to an order, as they are legally incorrect or contain argument.
– Ms. Tobin files a motion to reconsider an order from January 16, 2023, as well as a renewed motion to strike Red Rock Financial Services’ filings.
– The Court explains that Ms. Tobin is misunderstanding the law, and denies her motion for reconsideration.
– The Court references rule 2.24 of the Eighth Judicial District Court rules and rule 60(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern motions to set aside a judgement or order.
– Ms. Tobin did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, nor did she identify grounds for relief.
– The Court finds that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, and that Ms. Tobin’s argument is incorrect.
– The Court references a previous order that warned Ms. Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and notes that she received notice of the order.
– The Court discusses the requirements for declaring someone a vexatious litigant, and finds that Ms. Tobin meets the criteria.
– The Court imposes a restrictive order on Ms. Tobin, barring her from filing new actions unless the Court reviews the filing and determines that it is not frivolous.
Pages 15-22
– Ms. Tobin is warned against filing complaints against individual attorneys involved in the case.
– The Court orders Ms. Tobin to submit any complaints to the Chief Judge of the District Court for review before filing.
– Ms. Tobin is only allowed to file three specific items: a notice of appeal, an objection to the Brunzell affidavit, or an objection to the amount received from the interplead funds.
– The Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies her motion to reconsider.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow prepare an order detailing the Court’s decision.
– The Court discusses the possibility of disposing of the entire case with this final order.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow leave blank spaces in the order for the amount of fees and the amount Ms. Tobin is entitled to from the interplead funds.
Identify how the court reacted to Tobin’s allegations.
The court was consistently displeased with Tobin’s allegations and motions, dismissing them as meritless and expressing frustration with her repeated filings (pgs. 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,13,14). The court ultimately declared her a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from filing any further complaints without review (pgs. 15,16,17).
The court seems to have largely dismissed Tobin’s allegations. The judge notes that Tobin “does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint,” and that “Red Rock Financial Services is a party to this case.” Additionally, the judge criticizes Tobin for filing “seriatim motions that were devoid of legal or factual merit,” and argues that her attempt to withdraw those filings does not “cure” the issue.
The court repeatedly denies Tobin’s claims and motions, and expresses frustration with her repeated filings. The court ultimately considers declaring her a “vexatious litigant” in order to restrict her ability to file further motions.
The court was not pleased with Tobin’s allegations. The court enjoined her from filing any complaints until they are reviewed by the Chief Judge, and if they are found to be meritless, they will be returned to her unfiled. The court also declared her a vexatious litigant, citing her “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions.”
Describe the court’s reasoning on why Tobin’s motions should be denied.
Procedural errors; meritless motions
The court provides a number of reasons for denying Tobin’s motions, including that she did not follow proper procedure (pgs. 9,11), did not justify her request for relief (pgs. 9,11), and misunderstood the nature of the complaint (pgs. 3,4,6,7). Additionally, the court argues that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that lack merit and has been warned about being declared a vexatious litigant (pgs. 9,11,16,17).
The court argues that Tobin’s motions should be denied for a few reasons. First, the court contends that Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint and that Red Rock Financial Services is indeed a party to the case. Second, the court argues that Tobin has continued to file “seriatim motions” that lack legal or factual merit, even after being warned not to do so. Finally, the court argues that Tobin’s request for judicial notice is not appropriate because the facts she wants the court to take notice of are subject to reasonable dispute.
The court provides several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. First, Tobin did not seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration, as required by EDCR 2.24(a). Second, she did not identify which of the six grounds for relief from a final order would justify relief or reconsideration. Third, the court argues that Tobin is incorrect in asserting that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to the case. Finally, the court notes that Tobin has repeatedly filed motions that are devoid of legal merit, and has been warned that she risks being declared a vexatious litigant if she continues to do so.
The court cites several reasons for denying Tobin’s motions. The court argues that Tobin’s motions are “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious,” and that she has been given ample opportunity to respond and argue her case. Additionally, the court notes that they had previously warned Tobin that if she continued to file motions that were “legally and factually devoid of merit,” they would declare her a “vexatious litigant.”
Describe the court’s reasoning on why all Tobin’s claims of Fraud, Racketeering, Conversion, and petitions for sanctions were dismissed with prejudice.
Claim preclusion; harassment
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion (pg. 4), and denied her motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court has repeatedly expressed frustration with Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” (pgs. 13-14, 16-17), which may have contributed to the decision to dismiss her claims with prejudice.
The court dismissed Tobin’s claims on the basis of claim preclusion, as stated in line 121. Additionally, the court denied Tobin’s motion to reconsider this decision (line 122).
While the document does not directly address this question, it does mention that the court has repeatedly denied Tobin’s claims and motions, and that the court finds her filings to be “legally devoid of merit” and “doing nothing except for attempting to harass the attorneys that have been involved in this matter.”
While the document does not explicitly address the reasoning behind the dismissal of these claims, it does mention that Ms. Tobin has filed “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” and that she was warned about being declared a “vexatious litigant” if she continued to file motions “legally and factually devoid of merit.”
Identify where in the transcripts the judge stated why she would not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested.
Multiple reasons
The judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, but there are a few potential explanations in the transcript. The judge mentions Tobin’s history of filing frivolous motions (pg. 16), her apparent misunderstanding of the case (pg. 3), and her inappropriate and meritless request for the court to take judicial notice of alleged attorney misconduct (pg. 14).
While the judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, she does mention that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” This suggests that the judge does not believe the evidentiary hearing is necessary or warranted given Tobin’s apparent misunderstanding of the case.
While the judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, she does mention that Tobin’s request for the court to take judicial notice of alleged attorney misconduct was “inappropriate” and “legally devoid of merit.”
The judge does not explicitly state why she will not conduct the evidentiary hearing Tobin requested, but she does mention that Tobin’s “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious motions” provide “a sufficient record to support a vexatious litigant filing.” This suggests that the judge is not inclined to grant Tobin’s requests because she has a history of filing frivolous motions.
Identify any negative reference to Tobin
There are multiple negative references to Tobin throughout the document. The Court criticizes her for not understanding the nature of a complaint (pgs. 3-7), for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14), and for not attending a hearing (pgs. 8,9,11,13,14). The Court also refers to her as a “vexatious litigant” on multiple occasions (pgs. 16,17,21).
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. For example, the Court states that Tobin “continues to argue that Red Rock Financial Services is not a party to this case” and that “it is very clear that Ms. Tobin does not understand the nature of an interpleader complaint.” Additionally, the Court references Tobin’s “seriatim motions that were without legal or factual merit” and warns her that she may be declared a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court repeatedly refers to her filings as “devoid of legal merit,” “repetitive,” and “abusive.” The Court also notes that she did not attend a hearing and did not provide any notice that she would not be present. Finally, the Court discusses the possibility of declaring her a “vexatious litigant.”
There are multiple negative references to Tobin in this document. The Court refers to her filings as “repetitious, rogue, harassing, and unmeritorious” (LINE:111) and declares her a “vexatious litigant” (LINE:113). Additionally, Mr. Scow notes that Tobin’s behavior has been “vexatious” for the Court as well (LINE:136).
Identify any positive reference to Tobin’s opponents
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, there are a few places in the document that could be seen as favorable to them. The Court notes Mr. Scow’s caution and thoroughness (pgs. 5,7), criticizes Tobin for filing motions without merit (pgs. 8,9,11,14), and expresses appreciation for Mr. Scow’s cooperation (pgs. 17,19,20,22).
While there is no explicit positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain some information that could be seen as favorable to them. For example, the Court notes that Mr. Scow submitted an amended order “in an abundance of caution” to reflect Tobin’s proposed changes, which suggests that he is being careful and thorough. Additionally, the Court repeatedly criticizes Tobin for filing motions that are “devoid of legal or factual merit,” which implies that her opponents may have stronger arguments.
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the document does contain several negative references to Tobin herself, which could be seen as indirectly positive for her opponents. For example, the document states that Tobin’s proposed changes are “legally incorrect,” that she is “wrong” and “misunderstanding what the law is,” and that she has filed motions that are “devoid of legal merit.”
While there is no direct positive reference to Tobin’s opponents, the Court does express appreciation to Mr. Scow for his suggestions and cooperation, saying “thank you” multiple times and noting that he is “happy to do” what the Court requests.
– The document is a transcript of a court proceeding involving Red Rock Financial Services and Nona Tobin.
– The proceeding took place on Thursday, February 2nd, 2023, before Judge Jessica K. Peterson.
– Steven B. Scow represented Red Rock Financial Services, while Vanessa M. Turley represented Nona Tobin.
– Nona Tobin did not appear in court, and did not answer when called.
– Several motions were on the docket, including requests for judicial notice of attorney misconduct, motions to withdraw, and a motion to reconsider.
– The judge advanced all motions to the day of the proceeding.
– The judge clarified that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, despite Tobin’s arguments to the contrary.
– The judge referenced a previous hearing in which she warned Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and noted that Tobin had continued to do so.
– The judge ruled that she could not take judicial notice of attorney misconduct as requested by Tobin, as the facts were subject to dispute.
– The judge also referenced an order from a previous hearing that was not entered until January 2023 due to Tobin’s appeals to the Supreme Court.
Pages 8-14
– The Court denies all of Ms. Tobin’s proposed changes to an order, as they are legally incorrect or contain argument.
– Ms. Tobin files a motion to reconsider an order from January 16, 2023, as well as a renewed motion to strike Red Rock Financial Services’ filings.
– The Court explains that Ms. Tobin is misunderstanding the law, and denies her motion for reconsideration.
– The Court references rule 2.24 of the Eighth Judicial District Court rules and rule 60(b) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern motions to set aside a judgement or order.
– Ms. Tobin did not seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration, nor did she identify grounds for relief.
– The Court finds that Red Rock Financial Services is a party to the case, and that Ms. Tobin’s argument is incorrect.
– The Court references a previous order that warned Ms. Tobin against filing frivolous motions, and notes that she received notice of the order.
– The Court discusses the requirements for declaring someone a vexatious litigant, and finds that Ms. Tobin meets the criteria.
– The Court imposes a restrictive order on Ms. Tobin, barring her from filing new actions unless the Court reviews the filing and determines that it is not frivolous.
Pages 15-22
– Ms. Tobin is warned against filing complaints against individual attorneys involved in the case.
– The Court orders Ms. Tobin to submit any complaints to the Chief Judge of the District Court for review before filing.
– Ms. Tobin is only allowed to file three specific items: a notice of appeal, an objection to the Brunzell affidavit, or an objection to the amount received from the interplead funds.
– The Court declares Ms. Tobin a vexatious litigant and denies her motion to reconsider.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow prepare an order detailing the Court’s decision.
– The Court discusses the possibility of disposing of the entire case with this final order.
– The Court requests that Mr. Scow leave blank spaces in the order for the amount of fees and the amount Ms. Tobin is entitled to from the interplead funds.
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc ID# 28 Non-party Red Rock Financial Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaimant Nona Tobin’s Counterclaim and Petition for Sanctions (14)
29
Doc 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)
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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)
Doc 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)
Doc 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)
Doc 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)
Doc 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
Doc 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”
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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)
Doc 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
Doc 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.”
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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.”
Doc 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
[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
[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
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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)
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc 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.
1/3/23 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
01/09/2023 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
Doc 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
Doc 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.
Doc 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
Doc 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
Doc ID# 127 Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements Red Rock Financial Services’ Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements as Supplement to Declaration of Steven B. Scow
Order 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
NATIONSTAR FILED THE 2/12/19 JOINDER TO THE HOA’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE VS. THE HANSEN TRUST IN BAD FAITH
NSM never was beneficiary of the Hansen 7/22/04 1st Deed of Trust, but recorded false claims to confiscate Tobin’s property without foreclosing.
NSM was not BANA’s successor in interest and so even if Miles Bauer’s 5/9/13 tender of $825 preserved the security interest, NSM has no right to any benefit from the preservation of the security interest
Tobin/Hansen trust did not file any claims against NSM in the first proceedings because she was joining NSM in its bid to void the defective sale in its entirety.
NSM had no standing to claim that the sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the HOA’s lien because there was no sub-priority portion on 5/9/13, and NSM made that claim for the sole improper purpose of stealing the house from Tobin because NSM knew it had no standing to foreclose on Tobin if the sale were voided in its entirety.
The PUD rider remedies provision limits any lender’s recovery of delinquent assessments on behalf of the borrower to adding the amount paid to the outstanding balance of the loan plus interest at the note rate, and NSM’s attempt to get relief by confiscating Tobin’s property without meeting the foreclosure requirements of NRS 107.080, as amended by AB 284 (2011) is fraud.
NSM was not the servicing bank on behalf of Wells Fargo as it first claimed the hour before discovery ended, but whether it was or not, NSM did not protect the interest of the beneficiary by foreclosing on the Hansen deed of trust in 2012 after the owner died and payments stopped. should have protected t
NSM did not have a recorded power of attorney for its agent Mohamed Hameed to execute an assignment of the Hansen 1st DOT from Wells Fargo to itself, recorded on 3/8/19 and disclosed two weeks after the end of discovery.
it is not Wells Fargo’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the 1st DOT
NSM concealed its 5/28/14 $1100 super-priority offer so it cannot now claim that its rejection by Red Rock
it is judicially estopped by its false and inconsistent claims, concealing of evidence, and its unwarranted civil action, from claiming any of Tobin’s statements of fact are false.
Comes now, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin, an individual, in proper person, to hereby move for summary judgment vs. counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, and cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo and moves that relief be granted to Nona Tobin as requested, including punitive damages and sanctions, pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On 2/16/21 Red Rock served its complaint with one cause of action: interpleader to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage.
On 3/8/21 counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin filed NONA TOBIN’S (Herein “AACC’) 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 207.407(1), NRS 42.005. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
As there has been no timely responsive pleading from Red Rock, Nationstar, or Wells Fargo denying Tobin’s allegations, the court has the discretion to deem their silence as admission.
However, out of an abundance of caution, Tobin moves herein for summary judgment and sanctions to obtain relief instead of filing a notice of intent to take default.
Due to the seriousness of the allegations and the high level of declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages sought, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests a hearing to allow defendants an opportunity to reply and to show cause why the relief, sanctions and punitive damages requested should not be imposed.
“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”
Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963)
“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”
Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)
“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)
Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Counter-claimant/cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests the court judicially notice the Requests for Judicial Notice Tobin filed into this case on 3/15/21 (APN 191-13-811052 Clark County complete property record), 4/4/21 (unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims), 4/7/21 (relevant laws, regulations and HOA governing document provisions) and 4/9/21 (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record).
NRS 47.130(2) (b) permits courts to judicially notice facts “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, so that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute.”
Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”
Pursuant to NRS 47.160 “A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be noticed.”
Nona Tobin’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed into this case on 3/15/21, 4/4/21, 4/7/21 and 4/9/21, are proper for judicial notice because they were 1) recorded against the property and are part of the Clark County Recorder’s Office records, or 2) were filed at some point into the court records of prior proceedings, or 3) fit the definition of NRS 47.140 (matters of law), and 4) are timely pursuant to NRS 47.150. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud. Red Rock, Nationstar and Sun City Anthem withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
Defendants, acting alone or in conspiracy with others, covered up the fraud and successfully suppressed Tobin’s evidence so the courts acted on false evidence to rule against her and deny her access to the appellate courts.
On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
On 7/1/20 Sun City Anthem, Nationstar and Jimijack filed a joint respondents’ brief that was based on the false evidence from the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) and (SCA 176-643 ignoring SCA 168-175) in response to the Gordon B. Hansen 12/19/19 opening brief.
On 12/3/20 her A-19-799890-C complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata/non-mutual claims preclusion and three of her lis pendens (recorded on 8/7/14, 8/14/19, and 8/14/19) were expunged as if they had never been recorded.
Dismissal of her A-19-799890-C complaint occurred after two order imposing sanctions on her for filing a quiet title complaint as an individual, , had been entered on 10/8/20 and 11/17/20 ($3,455 to Joseph Hong pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) &/or (3) and $12,849 to Brittany Wood per NRS 18.010(2))
On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.
ANSWER
Tobin’s AACC ANSWER basically denied that Red Rock had any proper purpose for filing a claim for interpleader after holding the funds, without legal authority, all the while obstructing Tobin’s multiple efforts for over the six years to stake a claim.
Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA302)
Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation
COUNTER-CLAIMS
Tobin’s AACC had five causes of action in the counter-claim vs. RRFS: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering. See also published “Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services”.
First Cause of Action: Interpleader
The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale.
There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.
Using the Nevada legal rate of interest table, total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”
Alternatively, if the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount due to Tobin presently is $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the total undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.
Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.
No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.
Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.
Sun City Anthem disclosed the same unverified, uncorroborated Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643) and misrepresented it to the court as the HOA’s official records of the collection and foreclosure process.
Sun City Anthem concealed all the HOA’s records of what actually occurred, including but not limited to all the SCA Board agendas and minutes, un-doctored Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage, and all the HOA’s compliance and enforcement records for the foreclosures conducted by Red Rock under the HOA statutory authority.
See 4/9/21 Request for Judicial Notice (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record) which contains:
EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM
In addition to refusing to provide HOA records of probative value to Tobin’s case, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson required Nona Tobin, as an elected, sitting member of the HOA Board to recuse herself from all SCA collection matters, past or present, instead of relying on NRS 116.31084 (Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.) See 6/5/17 recusal acknowledgement.
Because Tobin was a party to this quiet title litigation, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson deemed her elected Board seat vacant “by operation of law” and removed her from her elected Board seat without an NRS 116.31036 removal election.
See 8/24/17 Clarkson letter that accused Nona Tobin of profiting from her elected seat on the Board by being party to this quiet title litigation.
SCA attorney/debt collector has ruled without legal authority (NRS that Nona Tobin is ineligible to run for election or return to her elected Board seat as long as the quiet title litigation is in the appellate courts, even if Sun City Anthem is not a party. See Clarkson “notice(s) of ineligibility” dated 2/9/18, 2/12/19, 2/06/20, and 2/12/21. See also 11/9/20 Tobin email to the HOA Board to fill vacant Board seat with 2017-2020 timeline and links. See the published “No 2021 Board election”
SCA attorneys Adam Clarkson and David Ochoa published quarterly litigation reports that falsely claimed that Nona Tobin had been removed from her elected Board seat “for cause”.
Tobin’s AACC had three causes of action vs. cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.
Cross-defendant Nationstar’s fraudulent misrepresentations and presentation of false evidence to two district courts obstructed a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims in prior proceedings and before the Nevada Supreme Court.
Cross-defendant Nationstar’s ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19 damaged Nona Tobin and caused her pro se filings to be stricken unheard.
Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.
Cross-defendant Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that it ever was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. See Complaint against Melanie Morgan.
PRAYER
Nona Tobin’s AACC Prayer for relief is quoted here with links added to laws, regulations, documentary evidence or argument to support claims for relief and punitive damages. See the published “Nona Tobin’s, Red Rock’s & Nationstar’s prayers for relief”
This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct.
Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:
that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due“
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation“
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence, defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. Nationstar and its Akerman attorneys pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) (misrepresentations in court filings), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
To declare that Joel Stokes’ deed, recorded on 5/1/19, was void as Jimijack had no interest to convey and that this transfer prior to the 6/5/19 trial was for the corrupt purpose of deceiving the court into allowing Joel Stokes and Nationstar to perpetrate a fraud on the court;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
that attorneys pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(3) and/or NRS 18.010(2).
MSJ must be granted because counter and cross defendants didn’t file a responsive pleading to disput
The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion,” and can do so in either of two ways: by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. A ‘genuine issue’ of material fact arises if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n,322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Conversely, where the evidence could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue exists for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co.,391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).
The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods.,454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006). The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec.,475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987). The nonmoving party must instead set forth “significant probative evidence” in support of its position. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n,809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting First Nat’l,391 U.S. at 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575).Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv.,809 F.2d at 630–31. Accordingly, if “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment will be denied. Anderson,477 U.S. at 250–51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)
Comes now, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin, an individual, in proper person, to hereby move for summary judgment vs. counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, and cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo and moves that relief be granted to Nona Tobin as requested, including punitive damages and sanctions, pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
On 2/16/21 Red Rock served complaint with one cause of action: interpleader to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage.
On 3/8/21 counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin filed NONA TOBIN’S (Herein “AACC’) 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 207.407(1), NRS 42.005. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
As there has been no timely responsive pleading from Red Rock, Nationstar, or Wells Fargo denying Tobin’s allegations, the court has the discretion to deem their silence as admission.
(“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”)
Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963)
(“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”)
Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)
(“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)
Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)
However, out of an abundance of caution, Tobin moves herein for summary judgment and sanctions to obtain relief instead of filing a notice of intent to take default.
Due to the seriousness of the allegations and the high level of declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages sought, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests a hearing to allow defendants an opportunity to reply and to show cause why the relief, sanctions and punitive damages requested should not be imposed.
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Counter-claimant/cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests the court judicially notice the Requests for Judicial Notice Tobin filed into this case on 3/15/21 (APN 191-13-811052 Clark County complete property record), 4/4/21 (unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims), 4/7/21 (relevant laws, regulations and HOA governing document provisions) and 4/9/21 (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record).
NRS 47.130(2) (b) permits courts to judicially notice facts “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, so that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute.”
Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”
Pursuant to NRS 47.160 “A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be noticed.”
Nona Tobin’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed into this case on 3/15/21, 4/4/21, 4/7/21 and 4/9/21, are proper for judicial notice because they were 1) recorded against the property and are part of the Clark County Recorder’s Office records, or 2) were filed at some point into the court records of prior proceedings, or 3) fit the definition of NRS 47.140 (matters of law), and 4) are timely pursuant to NRS 47.150. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud. Red Rock, Nationstar and Sun City Anthem withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
Defendants, acting alone or in conspiracy with others, covered up the fraud and successfully suppressed Tobin’s evidence so the courts acted on false evidence to rule against her and deny her access to the appellate courts.
On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
On 7/1/20 Sun City Anthem, Nationstar and Jimijack filed a joint respondents’ brief that was based on the false evidence from the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) and (SCA 176-643 ignoring SCA 168-175) in response to the Gordon B. Hansen 12/19/19 opening brief.
On 12/3/20 her A-19-799890-C complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata/non-mutual claims preclusion and three of her lis pendens (recorded on 8/7/14, 8/14/19, and 8/14/19) were expunged as if they had never been recorded.
Dismissal of her A-19-799890-C complaint occurred after two order imposing sanctions on her for filing a quiet title complaint as an individual, , had been entered on 10/8/20 and 11/17/20 ($3,455 to Joseph Hong pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) &/or (3) and $12,849 to Brittany Wood per NRS 18.010(2))
On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.
Tobin’s AACC ANSWER basically denied that Red Rock had any proper purpose for filing a claim for interpleader after holding the funds, without legal authority, all the while obstructing Tobin’s multiple efforts for over the six years to stake a claim.
Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation
ANSWER
COUNTER-CLAIMS
Tobin’s AACC had five causes of action in the counter-claim vs. RRFS: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering. See also published “Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services”.
First Cause of Action: Interpleader
The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale.
There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.
Using the Nevada legal rate of interest table, total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”
Alternatively, if the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount due to Tobin presently is $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the total undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.
Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.
No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.
Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.
Sun City Anthem disclosed the same unverified, uncorroborated Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643) and misrepresented it to the court as the HOA’s official records of the collection and foreclosure process.
Sun City Anthem concealed all the HOA’s records of what actually occurred, including but not limited to all the SCA Board agendas and minutes, un-doctored Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage, and all the HOA’s compliance and enforcement records for the foreclosures conducted by Red Rock under the HOA statutory authority.
See 4/9/21 Request for Judicial Notice (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record) which contains:
EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM
In addition to refusing to provide HOA records of probative value to Tobin’s case, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson required Nona Tobin, as an elected, sitting member of the HOA Board to recuse herself from all SCA collection matters, past or present, instead of relying on NRS 116.31084 (Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.) See 6/5/17 recusal acknowledgement.
Because Tobin was a party to this quiet title litigation, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson deemed her elected Board seat vacant “by operation of law” and removed her from her elected Board seat without an NRS 116.31036 removal election.
See 8/24/17 Clarkson letter that accused Nona Tobin of profiting from her elected seat on the Board by being party to this quiet title litigation.
SCA attorney/debt collector has ruled without legal authority (NRS that Nona Tobin is ineligible to run for election or return to her elected Board seat as long as the quiet title litigation is in the appellate courts, even if Sun City Anthem is not a party. See Clarkson “notice(s) of ineligibility” dated 2/9/18, 2/12/19, 2/06/20, and 2/12/21. See also 11/9/20 Tobin email to the HOA Board to fill vacant Board seat with 2017-2020 timeline and links. See the published “No 2021 Board election”
SCA attorneys Adam Clarkson and David Ochoa published quarterly litigation reports that falsely claimed that Nona Tobin had been removed from her elected Board seat “for cause”.
Tobin’s AACC had three causes of action vs. cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.
Cross-defendant Nationstar’s fraudulent misrepresentations and presentation of false evidence to two district courts obstructed a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims in prior proceedings and before the Nevada Supreme Court.
Cross-defendant Nationstar’s ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19 damaged Nona Tobin and caused her pro se filings to be stricken unheard.
Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.
Cross-defendant Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that it ever was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. See Complaint against Melanie Morgan
PRAYER
Nona Tobin’s AACC Prayer for relief is quoted here with links added to laws, regulations, documentary evidence or argument to support claims for relief and punitive damages.
This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct.
Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct.
(Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:
that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due“
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation“
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence, defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. Nationstar and its Akerman attorneys pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) (misrepresentations in court filings), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
To declare that Joel Stokes’ deed, recorded on 5/1/19, was void as Jimijack had no interest to convey and that this transfer prior to the 6/5/19 trial was for the corrupt purpose of deceiving the court into allowing Joel Stokes and Nationstar to perpetrate a fraud on the court;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
that attorneys pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(3) and/or NRS 18.010(2)
MSJ must be granted because counter and cross defendants didn’t file a responsive pleading.
The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion,” and can do so in either of two ways: by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. A ‘genuine issue’ of material fact arises if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n,322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Conversely, where the evidence could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue exists for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co.,391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).
The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods.,454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006). The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec.,475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987). The nonmoving party must instead set forth “significant probative evidence” in support of its position. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n,809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting First Nat’l,391 U.S. at 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575).Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv.,809 F.2d at 630–31. Accordingly, if “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment will be denied. Anderson,477 U.S. at 250–51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)
4/7/21 Request for Judicial Notice of the relevant laws, regulations & HOA governing documents
Defendants’ presentation of false evidence to the courts damaged Nona Tobin and caused her to lose
The falsification of accounts, the charging of excessive, unauthorized fines, wrongly called “collection fees, the misappropriation of funds, and the related conspiracy are part of a pattern and practice of corrupt organizations.
Nona Tobin is entitled to damages that occurred to her as a direct result of racketeering and fraud on the part of counter-defendant Red Rock and cross-defendant Nationstar:
(“Like their federal counterparts, Nevada’s anti-racketeering statutes provide for a civil cause of action for injuries resulting from racketeering activities under which a plaintiff may recover treble damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs.”)
Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 0 (Nev. 1988)
(“Pursuant to NRS 207.470 and NRS 207.400, a civil RICO cause of action may be based upon proof that the defendant engaged in at least two crimes related to racketeering that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents….
Demarigny v. McCormick (In re Receivership of Sw. Exch., Inc.), 381 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2012)
NRS 207.360 (30) defines “offering false evidence” as a crime related to racketeering.
A partial list of the Counter-Defendants’, Cross-defendants’ and third-party defendants’ Predicate Acts show a pattern of corrupt business practices under the definition of NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation;
Violations of NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation are defined as racketeering under NRS 207.360 (35)
Nationstar LLC and/or Nationstar LLC dba Mr. Cooper recorded false claims
Attorneys aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud
of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into these quiet title civil actions statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence Edgar Smith (NV bar #5506)on 1/11/16, 4/12/16, DECL, 4/12/16, 5/10/16, 6/2/16, 6/3/16, 6/10/16, 3/27/17 DECL , 3/27/17, 11/9/17, 2/9/18, (Dana Johnson Nitz NV Bar #0050, Michael Kelly NV Bar #10101).
See the published “Complaint Against Melanie Morgan” is Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury regarding Nationstar’s fraudulent claims to be owed the debt from the Hansen deed of trust and the fraudulent side-deal between Nationstar and Joel Stokes that was brokered by Morgan and Hong to steal Tobin’s property.
1. Over the last five years of litigation I was forced into…I have been attempting regain title to a house that was wrongly foreclosed and secretly sold in 2014 by Red Rock Financial Services.
This complaint, and the multiple other new and pending complaints to the discipline panel, I have and will be filing, stem from my personal horrifying litigation experience.
I, Nona Tobin, am filing this complaint to the Nevada State Bar Ethics & Discipline Panel as the President of the newly-formed Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc. I make all statements herein based on my personal knowledge under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada. I am filing this complaint without representation, but I am seeking counsel to represent me, and Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., on complaints to the Nevada State Bar, the Nevada Attorney General, the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division, the American Bar Association Ethics & Discipline Panel, the Nevada Real Estate Division Commission for Common-Interest Communities.
Over the last five years, every opposing counsel lied to the court presented false evidence, concealed and misrepresented material facts, and obstructed a fair adjudication of my claims on their merits.
The consequences of this successful fraud were perpetrated primarily by attorneys:
the title to a $500,000 house was taken from me by a fraudulently conducted-unnoticed foreclosure sale,
Nationstar stole from me the $389,000 outstanding Western Thrift & Loan debt of deceased borrower Gordon Hansen that I did not owe and was not owed to Nationstar.
Joel and Sandra Stokes kept $100,000+ in rental profits that belong to me,
Red Rock attorneys Koch & Scow retained $60,000 that they refused to distribute to me in 2014 and has now accrued plus six years of interest and costs to pursue my claim against massive obstruction
I have been forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars on litigation costs and thousands of hours of personal time to attempt to recover what was stolen from me.
The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud.
Defendants withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
The PUD Rider Remedies (F)
Nationstar disclosed the disputed Hansen deed of trust as NSM 145-161. NSM 159-161 is the PUD Rider which includes the Remedies section (F) on NSM 160.
Nationstar has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the adjudication of my claim that the PUD Rider gives lenders only the option to add any delinquent HOA fees they pay on behalf of the borrower to the outstanding balance with interest and does not allow the lender’s payment to become a de facto foreclosure without complying with the foreclosure requirements of NRS Chapter 107.
Neither Bank of America nor Nationstar ever recorded a notice of default on the Hansen deed of trust and instead chose to duplicitously tender the super-priority portion of the HOA’s lien while obstructing the HOA assessments from being paid out of the escrow of fair market, arms-length sales.
RRFS did not inform the SCA Board of the NSN 5/28/14 offer of $1100, one year of assessments, to close escrow on the 5/8/14 $367,500 sale to high bidder MZK.
RRFS misrepresented this unlawful rejection as an owner request for waiver and presented many false documents into evidence to create the deception that Nona Tobin had unclean hands and was barred from relief. See SCA 2/5/19 MSJ and Tobin analysis of Red Rock/SCA false evidence, and SCA 275-293.
This is a rejection of a second super-priority tender that would have voided the sale, but Nationstar concealed it and falsely claimed, without evidence, that the sale was valid to extinguish Tobin’s rights but not to extinguish Nationstar’s baseless claims.
Because both Red Rock and Nationstar concealed Red Rock’s covert rejection of Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s offer, Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder, based on false evidence and misrepresentation of the facts and the law, succeeded.
See also Nationstar’s 3/21/19 MSJ vs. Jimijack where the misrepresentations are repeated despite the fact that on 3/8/19 Nationstar rescinded its recorded claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
RRFS did not inform the SCA Board of the NSN 5/28/14 offer of $1100, one year of assessments, to close escrow on the 5/8/14 $367,500 sale to high bidder MZK. This is a rejection of a second super-priority tender that would have voided the sale that Nationstar also concealed
Because both Red Rock and Nationstar concealed Red Rock’s covert rejection of Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s offer, Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder, based on false evidence and misrepresentation of the facts and the law, succeeded.
CONCLUSION
Red Rock Financial Services secretly sold 2763 White Sage for $63,100 three months after Nona Tobin had sold it on auction.com for $367,500. Red Rock kept $60,398.96 without any legal authority for over six years while actively obstructing Nona Tobin’s ability to claim it.
Defendants egregious conduct in this case is indicative of a pattern and practice of corrupt business practices of debt collectors, attorneys, and banks that have damaged many, many homeowners and Homeowners Associations in Nevada and other states in the nation. See “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”
Red Rock’s deceit was aided and abetted by multiple parties, including cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo, as well as multiple attorneys who are named in her not-yet-served 3/22/21 third-party complaint against attorneys who failed in their duties under the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.
Defendant Nona Tobin respectfully moves the court to grant her motion for summary judgment against Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo,
Tobin prays for the relief punitive damages and sanctions requested and for any and all further relief as the court deems appropriate.
3/15/21 RFJN request judicial notice of property record identifying recorded false claims to title
3/22/21 TPC third party complaint (not yet served) vs. attorneys for abuse of process, racketeering, fraud, civil conspiracy and prayer for declaratory relief, restitution, punitive damages, and sanctions
4/4/21 RFJN unadjudicated claims by Tobin and Nationstar
4/15/21 CONFILE Tobin 4/12/21 motion to distribute corrected re-filed
4/16/21 CNNDCA clerks’ notice of curative action to nonconforming document
4/16/21 MDSM Red Rock motion to dismiss Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC per NRCP 12(5), claims preclusion, failure to state a claim, failure to plead fraud and racketeering with particularity
4/16/21 CNOH CLERK’s notice of hearing Tobin motion for an order to distribute on 5/18/21
4/16/21 CNOH CLERK’s notice of hearing Red Rock motion to dismiss
Back story of this David vs. Goliath fight
“How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen? ”
How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen? was first published on 10/9/20 when Nona started trying (unsuccessfully) to use technology to level the playing field by naming and shaming.
“What happened after Sun City Anthem refused Nona’s 2017 offer to settle?”
“What happened after Sun City Anthem refused Nona’s 2017 offer to settle?” was published on 11/9/20 after Nona was subjected to four years of unwarranted, financially draining, and emotionally taxing litigation.
“The house that took over a life” was first published on SCAStrong.com on 1/14/18. Things have gotten considerably worse after three more years of grueling litigation.
Case Detail A-21-828840-C as of 4/10/21
Register of Actions as of 4/10/21 includes Red Rock’s complaint served on five defendants on 2/16/21; Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 answer and counterclaim and crossclaim; four Tobin requests for judicial notice. On 4/9/21 Melanie Morgan filed an untimely answer for both Nationstar and Wells Fargo, but filed no counter-claims against Red Rock. Morgan did not answer Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 cross-claim against her clients.
The instant case: Red Rock Financial Services filed an unwarranted interpleader complaint after unlawfully retaining the proceeds of the disputed HOA sale for over six years.
Red Rock did not face any liability, let alone liability for an amount that exceeded the proceeds unlawfully retained. Red Rock filed this complaint for the improper purpose of obstructing justice, i.e., trying to moot appeal case 82294 and to cover up the unlawful failure to distribute the proceeds of the sale in 2014 as mandated by statute. Five defendants were named when only one, Nona Tobin as an individual, has a current recorded claim for the undistributed proceeds.
2013 Nevada law governing the distribution of proceeds after an HOA foreclosure sale was NRS 116.31164(3)
NRS-116.31164-3-2013. Red Rock and/or Steven Scow unlawfully retained the proceeds for over six years from this and many other foreclosures. There is nothing in Nevada law that allows Red Rock to collect attorney fees or costs for filing interpleader. There are also provisions in the HOA bylaws that prohibit any funds collected on behalf of Sun City Anthem from being under the proprietary control of anyone other than the HOA Board of Directors. Steven Scow’s retention of proceeds after being instructed by Red Rock in 2014 to interplead them should be investigated as possible attorney trust fund violations.
Red Rock asked Steven Scow to interplead the proceeds in 2014
Steven Scow for Red Rock’s interpleader prayer for relief
Red Rock’s interpleader prayer for relief is duplicitous as Red Rock conducted a fraudulent sale, and with no legal authority, Steven Scow and/or Red Rock kept virtually all the money for years.
2/3/21 Red Rock’s Complaint has 1 cause of action: interpleader
2/16/21 Red Rock Complaint was served on 5 defendants
Within 24 hours of service on Republic Services’ commercial agent in Carson City, an attorney in Las Vegas filed a Republic Services’ disclaimer of interest. According to the statute, Red Rock was required to distribute the sale proceeds to junior lien holders in 2014. Red Rock did not distribute the proceeds and so the three-year statute of limitations on statutory liens, Republic Services had already released its two liens in 2017. Given how very, very many times Red Rock has pulled this stunt, one would think Republic Services would have at least a little reluctant to disclaiming interest.
Nona Tobin’s answer, affirmative defenses, counter-claims and cross-claims
No defendant timely answered Red Rock or filed any counter-claims or cross-claims except Nona Tobin as an individual
Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 counter-claim against Red Rock has five causes of action: 1) distribution of the proceeds to Tobin plus interest & penalties; 2) unjust enrichment/conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter ego -piercing the corporate veil; 5) Racketeering.
Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 cross-claim against Nationstar and Wells Fargo includes three causes of action: 1) Racketeering, 2) Unjust enrichment/conversion; and 3) Fraud.
As of 4/11/21, no counter-defendant nor cross-defendant has filed a responsive pleading to refute Tobin’s claims against them.
Counter-claimant and cross-claimant Nona Tobin’s Prayer for relief
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein.
This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct.
Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:
that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title;
that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005.
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3):
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected;
Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence, defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its misappropriation of funds, covert rejection of assessments, falsification of records that allowed the unjust enrichment of undisclosed partners and co-conspirators;
that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages for the fraudulent confiscation of the subject property, valued on 12/27/19 at $505,000 property pursuant to NRS 207.470(1) as RRFS’s actions on the dozen 2014 unnoticed foreclosures constitute racketeering;
that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345;
that the Joel Stokes-Civic Financial Services “agreement”, recorded on 5/23/19, and misrepresented to Judge Kishner on 5/21/19 as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement was fraud on the court and sanctionable conduct pursuant to ;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. Nationstar and its Akerman attorneys pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) (misrepresentations in court filings), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
To declare that Joel Stokes’ deed, recorded on 5/1/19, was void as Jimijack had no interest to convey and that this transfer prior to the 6/5/19 trial was for the corrupt purpose of deceiving the court into allowing Joel Stokes and Nationstar to perpetrate a fraud on the court;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
That Nona Tobin is entitled to is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480;
that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and
that attorneys pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(3) and/or NRS 18.010(2)
Exhibits to Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 counter-claims and cross-claims
Four causes of action and claims for relief, damages and sanctions were filed against attorneys as individuals rather than against their clients. The causes of action were 1) abuse of process; 2) Fraud; 3) Civil Conspiracy; 4) Racketeering.
Nona Tobin’s 3rd party complaint prayer for relief
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants engaged in abuse of the HOA quiet title civil litigation process to steal Nona Tobin’s property;
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants acted alone and/or in concerted action and/or in civil conspiracy to misrepresent material facts to the court in order to defraud the court and to steal Nona Tobin’s property;
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants knew, or had reasonable cause to know that their actions violated many Nevada laws and that their actions would cause damage to innocent persons;
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants concealed the unethical and/or criminal actions of co-conspirators and others;
that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s nor its successor trustee’s rights to title;
that Plaintiff is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale;
that Plaintiff’s 3/28/17 deed as an individual is valid and superior to the Jimijack’s defective, inadmissible 6/9/15 deed and the 5/1/19 deed of Jimijack’s successor Joel Stokes; that Plaintiff is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false;
that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of all prior litigation and appeals, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants, attorneys as well as the principals, in all related litigation pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as well as exemplary and punitive damages to the maximum allowed by NRS 42.005;
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants, attorneys as well as the principals, in all related litigation pay restitution and punitive damages for their RACKETEERING pursuant to NRS 207.360(9)(18)(29)(30)(35); NRS 207.390, NRS 207.400(1)(2) and FRAUD pursuant to NRS 205.330, NRS 205.360, NRS 205.372, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.395, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175, and/or for their aiding and abetting said unlawful RICO acts;
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants, attorneys as well as the principals, pay EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO NRS 42.005 and NRS 207.470(1)&(4).
that the Court provide findings of fact to the Nevada Bar Counsel for the Ethics & Disciplinary Panel to impose appropriate attorney sanctions as the court may find are justified given their misconduct 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.
Order to expunge 8/8/19 LISP, 8/14/19 LISP & 8/14/19 LISP Tobin LIS pendens and to dismiss Tobin’s claims with prejudice recorded by quicken attorney maurice wood while appeals 82094, 82234, 82294 and 79295 are pending.
reconveyance of Joel Stokes’s $355,000 5/23/19 dot that masqueraded as Nationstar-Jimijack deal.
5/21/19 transcript Nationstar-Jimijack settlement docs status check.
T Dixon v-p 1st American Title executed reconveyance 2/5/20, > 1 month after quicken recorded 12/27/19 $353,500 loan 2 Chiesi and Driggs title allegedly insured the Chiesi title.
DEED grant, sale bargain (not quit claim) Joel Stokes, an individual, alleged he had a valid title to transfer to Brian & Debora Chiesi. Joel Stokes did not have a valid title as Jimijack had no valid title to transfer to Joel Stokes on 5/1/19.
Driggs title agency, INC. 7900 w sahara #100 lv 89117-7920. Escrow #19-11-120779jh DECLaration of value
On 12/3/19 Hong recorded notice of 11/22/19 a-15-720032-c order that erroneously expunged Tobin 8/8/14 LIS pendens re a-19-799890-c 8/7/19 complaint and 7/23/19 appeal and 7/24/19 appeal into 79295
8/8/19 sca motion to strike Tobin’s pro se 8/7/19 nolp was granted on 9/3/19 rtran, but sua sponte 11/22/19 order was wrongly written to both expunge 8/8/19 LISP (outside judge kishner’s jurisdiction) and to strike 8/7/19 nolp from the a-15-720032-c court record 11/22/19 order, recorded 12/3/19, was unappealable per order 20-13346 wherein the nv supreme court claimed 11/22/19 order was outside its jurisdiction.
9/10/19 nv supreme court order 19-37846 denied Nona Tobin all rights to appeal any decision made by judge kishner.
Judgment Hong recorded 6/24/19 order vs GBH trust on 7/24/19 after he received notice of two appeals filed on 7/23/19 and 7/24/19.
6/24/19 order expunged 56/19 LIS pendens which related to the claims of both Nona Tobin, an individual, and the Hansen trust , but Nona Tobin, an individual, ws excluded from the trial and removed as a party unfairly due to the misrepresentations joseph Hong made to judge kishner at a 4/23/19 hearing held ex parte due to Hong serving notice that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19.
Akerman recorded (cover sheet) release of Nationstar’s 1/13/16 LISP re NSM vs op homes (ROLP page 2). Akerman did not serve any notice of the release into a-16-730078-c where my 4/24/19 motion to vacate the HOA’s MSJ and NSM’s joinder (per NRCP 60(b)(3) fraud) and motion for summary judgment vs all parties was still unheard.
DEED Joel a. Stokes & Sandra f. Stokes, as trustees of Jimijack irrevocable trust to Joel a. Stokes, individual.
The Joel Stokes’ DEED was recorded five weeks before the 6/5/19 trial.
The 6/6/19 trial allegedly adjudicated GBHt trustee Nona Tobin’s 2/1/17 counterclaim vs Jimijack for quiet title & equitable relief, fraudulent reconveyance (Jimijack’s DEED was inadmissible per NRS 111.345), unjust enrichment (collecting rent from 9/25/14, not 6/9/15 as Jimijack DEED claimed, after a fraudulent sale), civil conspiracy (bid suppression, selective notice of sale to speculators) and preliminary/permanent injunctions (prevent sale or transfer during pendency of proceedings).
The 6/6/19 trial also allegedly adjudicated 2/1/17 cross claim vs. Yuen k. Lee dba f. Bondurant LLC.
Jimijack did not have an admisible DEED.
No Jimijack irrevocable trust instrument was ever disclosed so there is no reason to believe there was any legal authority for trustees to revoke a title from an irrevocable trust and put it in the name of Joel a. Stokes, one of the trustees.
Assignment Wells Fargo 2 Nationstar by Nationstar Mohamed Hameed executed as v-p of Wells Fargo On 3/12/19, two weeks after the end of discovery, akerman disclosed the rescission as NSM 409-NSM 411.
3/8/19 NSM rescinded the 12/1/14 assignment of the Hansen DEED of trust from Bank of American 2 NSM by NSM. Mohamed Hameed executed it as v-p of Bank of American. No recorded power of attorney On 3/12/19, two weeks after the end of discovery, Akerman disclosed the rescission as NSM 412-NSM 413
Judgment of default vs Bank of American 10/23/15 JDDF.
No notice of entry of the default judgment was served.
Instead, Joseph Hong recorded the 10/23/15 unnoticed default judgment.
Joseph Hong who knew, or should have known, that NRS 40.110 “Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default” “the court shall proceed to hear the case as in other cases and shall have jurisdiction to examine into and determine the legality of plaintiff’s title and of the title and claim of all the defendants and of all unknown persons, and to that end must not enter any judgment by default, but must in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and possession and receive such legal evidence as may be offered respecting the claims and title of any of the defendants and must thereafter direct judgment to be entered in accordance with the evidence and the law.”
Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust did not have an admissible DEED per NRS 111.345 and therefore had no standing to assert a quiet title claim against any lender.
Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that two other lenders, Wells Fargo (9/9/14) and Nationstar (12/1/14), held recorded claims to be the beneficiaries of the 7/22/04 Hansen DEED of trust as Bank of America’s sole successor-in-interest.
Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that Bank of America did not hold any recorded claim to the Hansen DEED of trust after 9/9/14 and that Hong’s naming BANA as a defendant was for the corrupt purpose of getting a default by a lender who had no claim.
Nationstar NSM 192-194, but NSM denied knowing in 1/22/15 req notice, 4/12/15 AFFD, 4/12/16 mot
DEED F. Bondurant LLC to Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust Inadmissible per NRS 111.345.
1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary violations and exhibits re notary CluAynne M. Corwin’s involvement with several other questionable subsequent transfers of HOA foreclosures involving Joseph Hong, Joel Stokes, Pam at Linear Title, and Peter Mortenson
No legal capacity to transfer title to Jimijack as notary CluAynne M. Corwin “witnessed” Yuen K. Lee’s signature but used her notary stamp to affirm that Thomas Lucas, manager of Opportunity Homes No notary record that CluAynne M. Corwin witnessed any deed executed on 6/8/15. No purchase agreement was disclosed to show how, when, from whom or for how much Joel and Sandra Stokes acquired the property. NRS 240.120, NRS 240.155, NRS 240.075 violations. Incompetent acknowledgment per NRS 111.125.
Jimijack had no DEED with legal capacity to hold or transfer title, but transferred to Joel Stokes, an individual on 5/1/19. Jimijack’s defective deed was disclosed as NSM 189-191. Nationstar knew that the two deeds recorded on 6/9/15 alleged title claims that replaced Opportunity Homes LLC as an interested party.
For unknown reasons, Nationstar chose not to name either F. Bondurant LLC or Jimijack, who both had recorded deeds on 6/9/15, when Nationstar sued disinterested Opportunity Homes in its 1/11/16 complaint in A-16-730078-C.
Nationstar voluntarily dismissed its 1/11/16 claims against Opportunity Homes and its non-existent claims vs. F. Bondurant LLC by a stipulation and order entered on 2/20/19. Neither evidence nor trial were required to prevail.
Nationstar never produced any evidence to support its filed claims against Jimijack and was excused from the 6/6/19 trial at the 4/25/19 pre-trial conference after Nationstar withdrew its 3/21/19 motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack.
Nationstar’s claims against Jimijack were dismissed by stipulation and order entered on 5/31/19. Again, neither evidence nor trial were required to prevail.
DEED, from Opportunity Homes to F. Bondurant LLC, a sham entity controlled by Joseph Hong, was executed on 6/4/19, and witnessed by Joseph Hong’s employee, Debra Batsel.
Batesel witnessed at the same time Thomas Lucas and some unknown party execute a purchase agreement to transfer title from Opportunity Homes.
Joseph Hong did not participate in discovery and entered no evidence into the record at any time from 6/16/15. To the present to support any of his clients’ claims, but still won quiet title at the 6/6/19 trial from which all documentary evidence was excluded due to Hong’s misconduct.
Nationstar’s assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust from Bank of America to Nationstar, was recorded three months after BANA had no interest to assign on 12/1/14.
Nationstar refused to respond in good faith to Tobin’s interrogatories and requests for documents
12/1/14 was executed by Nationstar’s robo-signer in Nebraska and was rescinded by Nationstar’s robo-signer in Texas on 2/25/19, and recorded on 3/8/19. Nationstar disclosed the rescission two weeks after the end of discovery on 3/12/19.
Because the sale was void by reasons of fraud, unfairness and oppression, neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale.
However, 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
On 9/9/14, Bank of American recorded that it had assigned its interest in the Hansen deed of trust, if any, to Wells Fargo, effective 8/21/14, the day before the foreclosure deed was recorded.
DEED Gordon Hansen B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, was recorded when the GBH Trust was created.
Title was extinguished by the 8/22/14 recording of a foreclosure deed as was the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust.
Neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale. The 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
Sub trustee/reconveyance of paid in full 7/31/03 DEED of trust Gordon & Marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot assigned 2 Washington Mutual by City First Mortgage
Nationstar disclosed the Hansen deed of trust and the Planned Unit Development Rider as NSM 141-162 $436,000 loaned on 7/15/04 Due in full on 8/1/2034 Borrower: Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man Lender: Western Thrift & loan Trustee: Joan H. Anderson PUD rider remedies f. that lenders are contractually authorized only to add delinquent HOA assessments to the outstanding loan balance and add interest at the note rate (here 6.25%). Lenders are prohibited from using the tender of delinquent assessments, rejected or not, as a de facto foreclosure without due process.
Nationstar disclosed the PUD Rider Remedies section was disclosed as NSM 160 so ignorance cannot be an excuse.
Nationstar disclosed that it does not hold the origInal note by disclosing a copy as NSM 158-160.
NSM’s copy of the note shows Nationstar, Wells Fargo and bank of Amercia are not in the chain of title of endorsements.
All recorded assignments of the Hansen DEED of trust that culminated in Nationstar reconveying the Hansen DEED of trust to Joel stoke, an individual, on 6/3/19, were false claims to title in the meaning of NRS 205.395.
National banking associations’ corrupt business practices were revealed in 12/7/20 national settlement agreement and consent order, its 8/17/18 settlement and release, the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Bank of America, the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Wells Fargo.
Violations of NRS 205.395, NRS 207.360, and other statutes in this particular case are documented in 11/10/20 complaint to the Nevada Attorney General (See TOC of AG exhibits), 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Servicing Division (See TOC 12/16/20 complaint), NCJD 2021-026,
“limited to executing loan documents for purchase of home located at 2763 white sage…power of attorney is null & void after execution.”
Marilyn 2 Gordon Hansen Power of Attorney is the only recorded power of attorney in this property record from 2003 to the present. Nationstar did not record Power of Attorneys for the claims NSM recorded as “attorney-in-fact” on 12/1/14 (Bank of American), 8/17/15 (Wells Fargo), 3/8/19 (Bank of American), 3/8/19 (Wells Fargo) or 6/3/19 (American trustee servicing solutions)
Nona Tobin’s pending appeals before the Nevada Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals
79295 Gordon B. Hansen Trust vs. Jimijack, Nationstar, Sun City Anthem, Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC
82094 Nona Tobin vs. Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual
82234 Nona Tobin vs. Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
82294 Nona Tobin vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual, Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
Joseph Hong filed no NRCP 16.1 disclosures for any of his clients. Joseph Hong’s 12/5/18 response to Tobin’s interrogatories was allegedly verified by his client. Joseph Hong never entered any evidence into the record to support Jimijack’s title claims. Joseph Hong never refuted Nona Tobin’s claim that Jimijack’s only recorded deed was inadmissible pursuant to NRS 111.345. Interrogatories to Jimijack were not included in Hong’s response.
Exhibit 2: ENTERED BY MELANIE MORGAN (NV BAR #8215) NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
4/9/21 Nationstar & Wells Fargo filed an answer to Red Rock’s 2/16/21 complaint
Nationstar and Wells Fargo deceptively failed to admit that neither of them have a recorded claim for the proceeds. Nationstar and Wells Fargo failed to file a disclaimer of interest so the proceeds could go properly to Nona Tobin for the improper purpose of covering up Nationstar’s fraudulent conduct in relation to the Hansen deed of trust.Melanie Morgan knows that the proceeds must be distributed ONLY to Nona Tobin because Wells Fargo’s liens were released on 3/30/17 and Nationstar as part of a fraudulent deal with Joel Stokes, released the lien of the Hansen deed of trust on 6/3/19.
Nona Tobin’s Pending Appeals of cases A-15-720032-C and A-19-799890-C
The complaint was filed on 8/7/19 by Nona Tobin, Pro Se, in order to beat the 8/14/19 five-year statute of limitations. Causes of action: Quiet title & equitable relief (against all defendants), Cancellation of instruments; Unjust enrichment (against. Red Rock, Koch & Scow, Joel Stokes & Nationstar); Abuse of process (against Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, and David Ochoa)
Tobin hired an attorney who amended the complaint to narrow the issues to three claims for relief: Quiet Title (against all defendants); Unjust Enrichment (against Brian & Debora Chiesi, Joel Stokes, Jimijack irrevocable Trust, Red Rock Financial Services & Nationstar); Declaratory Relief (as to all defendants)
The abuse of process cause of action against the attorneys whose fraud on the court prevented adjudication of Tobin’s claims in the prior proceedings was bifurcated, on the advice of counsel, since it judges don’t like it when the attorneys are named as the culpable party vs. their clients.
Order granted attorneys fes and costs pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) on the grounds that Nona Tobin’s filing this quiet title complaint was unwarranted and “was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party.”
Red Rock’s motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) failure to state a claim by the legal doctrines of non-mutual claims preclusion and res judicata) and NRCP 12(b)(6) failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its alleged interest in the undistributed proceeds of the 2014 HOA sale. Judge Johnson granted the joinders of all other defendants, regardless of whether or not they were parties to the prior proceedings or when they recorded adverse claims to Nona Tobin. Link to 10-page case summaryLink to 10-page case summary
Links to exhibits to 2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General
12/1/14 Assignment Nationstar – no power of attorney – executed B of A to Nationstar assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
NSM 258-260 Nationstar disclosed it did not have the original Hansen promissory note, and the copy of the note it had was not endorsed to Nationstar
2/20/19 SODWOP Nationstar dropped all its quiet title claims against all parties except Jimijack (1/11/16 COMP in A-16-730078-C) without adjudication or any judicial scrutiny of evidence.
2/2819 RESP Pg 6 Nationstar admitted in response to interrogatories that it was not the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust; it was just the servicing bank for non-party Wells Fargo who has never claimed to be the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. On page 7, the verification only included that Nationstar was the servicer and was signed by a previously unknown person of unknown authority.
3/8/19 Rescission Nationstar – no power of attorney – rescinded 12/1/14 B of A to Nationstar assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust which means that Nationstar had no recorded claim to give it standing to be in either cases A-15-720032-C or A-16-730078-C and is judicially estopped from claiming that it was the owner of the Hansen deed of trust during all relevant times or ever.
3/8/19 Assignment Nationstar – no power of attorney – executed Wells Fargo to Nationstar assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
3/14/19 AG 2-2019 Complaint to the AG that was allegedly served on Melanie Morgan
3/18/19 NITD Nationstar three-day notice to take default against Jimijack since Jimijack did not answer the 6/2/16 AACC
3/21/19 MSJ Nationstar filed an MSJ against Jimijack and not against Nona Tobin, the HOA or the Gordon B Hansen Trust
4/10/19 OPP/MSJ Tobin opposition to Nationstar’s MSJ as Nationstar did not own the beneficial interest of the Hansen deed of trust; and the HOA sale was void in its entirety so foreclosure would have to have been against Tobin for any lender; plus Jimijack’s deed was void per NRS 111.345.
4/9/19 NRS 38.310(2) Notice of completion of mediation by Tobin/Hansen Trust when neither Jimijack nor Nationstar had complied with NRS 38.310 so the court lacked jurisdiction to grant them relief sought.
4/12/19 NS Jimijack (who didn’t have a valid deed never filed any claims against Nationstar or against Tobin or the Hansen Trust) prevailed in the quiet title case by “settling” out of court with Nationstar in a fraudulent deal that excluded Tobin and the Hansen Trust. Judge Kishner never examined any evidence to support their claims (Judge Kishner held 42 hearings, but never examined any evidence.)
4/19/19 RESP Nationstar convinced the court that it was ok for Nationstar and Jimijack to settle the quiet title dispute without the court examining any evidence because Nationstar and Tobin/ Hansen trust weren’t really opposing parties.
4/23/19 NWM Nationstar dropped its motion for summary judgment against Jimijack without Jimijack filing an opposition (that Judge Kishner required to be filed by 4/26/19 on her 4/12/19 order continuing the hearing to 5/7/19and convinced Judge Kishner that was the end of the case because she had granted the HOA’s motion for summary judgment (based on no evidence) and Nationstar’s limited joinder (based on no evidence and explicitly contrary to the Hansen deed of trust PUD rider Remedies (f) (NSM 160) that prohibits the use of tender of delinquent HOA assessments as a de facto foreclosure.
4/23/19 Transcript Nationstar & Jimijack’s attorneys, Melanie Morgan & Joseph Hong met with Judge Kishner ex-parte after serving notice that the hearing was continued on 4/15/19 (SAO) and 4/22/19 (NTSO) in order to get Nona’s pro se motions and notices stricken unheard from the record to make a fraudulent “settlement”.
5/23/19 DOT annotated Neither Nationstar nor Jimijack are parties to $355,000 deed of trust executed & recorded on 5/23/19 by nonparties Joel A Stokes & Civic Financial Services
5/1/19 DEED Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack dumped Jimijack’s deed by transferring the title into Joel’s name as an individual. Judge Kishner never ruled on Jimijack’s deed that Nona Tobin claimed was inadmissible per NRS 111.345 in her 2/1/17 AACC vs Jimijack and in two declarations under penalty of perjury.
5/21/19 Transcript Nationstar attorneys characterize as a settlement agreement between parties Jimijack & Nationstar that excluded parties Nona Tobin & the Gordon B. Hansen Trust from the title fight without the court examining any evidence including not examining the alleged settlement documents.
5/31/19 NESO Nationstar stipulates that it drops its remaining quiet title claim against Jimijack with prejudice so they both win without the judge ever looking at the evidence or hearing Nona Tobin’s claims against Nationstar & Jimijack.
6/3/19 Reconvey Nationstar dba Mr. Cooper falsely claimed to be both the beneficiary and the trustee of the Hansen deed of trust and reconveyed without legal authority the property to Joel A Stokes two days before the quiet title trial (A-15-720032-C) that allegedly was held to determine the title rights between the Gordon B. Hansen Trust and the Jimijack Irrevocable Trust.
Supreme Court case 79295 Online case management system – see how opposing parties were successful in getting me removed as a party by saying I was not aggrieved. See orders SC 19-37846 and SC 20-016346.
Judicial Jiu-jitsu Youtube channel contains closed-caption videos of all the A-15-720032-C court hearings from 2016-2019 and all the A-19-798990-C court hearings held in 2020 as well as brief videos explaining the trickery employed by the opposing attorneys to suppress Nona Tobin’s evidence and obstruct her access to a fair adjudication of her claims on their merits by an impartial tribunal.
The P.U.D. RIDER must be enforced to protect HOA homeowners from corporate corruption.
The banks deceived the Courts about the “F. Remedies” contract term in the Planned Unit Development Rider.
This scheme isn’t just how Nationstar stole a house from me.
This is the same ploy that many, many banks have used to steal many, many houses from HOA homeowners.
It works because the HOA debt collectors conspired with the corrupt attorneys/lenders to conceal the existence of the PUUD Rider Remedies from the owners and from the courts.
Nationstar knew the PUD Rider remedy limits, but misrepresented it.
Nationstar disclosed the Hansen deed OF TRUST as NSM 141-162.
The Planned Unit Development Rider Remedies F was disclosed as NSM 160. In the 2004 Recorded documents, it is numbered 2004 021 RECORDED.
it is the featured image of this blog and it is pictured again below.
If a lender pays late HOA dues, the ONLY recovery is the amount paid with interest charged at the note rate.
PUD rider remedies f. provides that lenders are contractually authorized only to add delinquent HOA assessments to the outstanding loan balance and add interest at the note rate (here 6.25%).
Lenders are prohibited from using the tender, offer or payment of delinquent assessments, rejected or not, as a de facto foreclosure to confiscate an owner’s property without due process.
Nationstar disclosed the PUD Rider Remedies section so ignorance cannot be an excuse when Nationstar filed its duplicitous 2/12/19 joinder in order to get rid of the owner without foreclosing.
Nationstar was not ever owed Hansen’s debt
Nationstar disclosed that it does not hold the origInal note by disclosing a copy as NSM 158-160.
NSM’s copy of the note shows Nationstar, Wells Fargo and bank of Amercia are not in the chain of title of endorsements.
Criminal penalties must be applied.
All recorded assignments of the Hansen DEED OF TRUST that culminated in Nationstar reconveying the Hansen DEED OF TRUST to Joel Stokes, an individual, on 6/3/19, were false claims to title in the meaning of NRS 205.395.
Evidence in this case has been submitted to administrative enforcement agencies
