January 28, 2021 I complained to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline about Judge Kishner
Staff attorneys dismissed the complaint without investigation and the same thing happened again in 2023 with a different judge.
Summary of 1/28/21 video to NCJD
Nona Tobin is filing a complaint against Judge Joanna Kishner of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas.
Tobin’s complaint centers on Kishner’s alleged ex parte communication with opposing counsel, as well as her failure to properly adjudicate claims in consolidated cases under her jurisdiction.
Tobin also alleges that Kishner acted outside of her jurisdiction by allowing plaintiffs to prevail without being compliant with NRS 38.310 when Tobin was the only party compliant with NRS 38.310 which requires mediation prior to courts attaining jurisdiction in cases involving interpretation of HOA CC&Rs.
Tobin claims that Kishner met with opposing counsels ex parte at a hearing that Tobin was served notice was continued, and in her absence, they decided that Tobin had never been a party to the case, despite her filing the pleadings and other documents since 2016.
Tobin argues that the ex parte meeting affected the outcome of the trial, in which unfairly, no documentary evidence was allowed.
Tobin also alleges that Kishner never ruled on the standing of the other parties.
Tobin filed a complaint in a different district court, but the judge refused to hear the case on the grounds of claims preclusion.
Tobin has four appeals in front of the Nevada Supreme Court.
Tobin also alleges misconduct by opposing counsels, particularly Joseph Hong.
I have been in litigation since July 29, 2016 and no judge looked at my evidence ever.
NRS 40.110 requires an evidence-based adjudication of a title decision, but I have never got one. I never was allowed to file a claim for sanctions, fraud, conversion or racketeering because ALL my claims were precluded per res judicata.
NRS 40.110 requires an evidentiary hearing
NRS 40.110Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default; effect of final judgment.
1. When the summons has been served as provided in NRS 40.100 and the time for answering has expired, 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. The court, before proceeding to hear the case, must require proof to be made that the summons has been served and posted as hereinbefore directed and that the required notice of pendency of action has been filed.
In Nevada, the elements for a claim of quiet title are:
1. Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;2. Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;
3. Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;
4. Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;
5. Copy of the Summons must be posted on the property within 30 days after the summons is issued, and an affidavit of posting must be filed with the court. NRS 40.100-2;
6. Disclaimer must be filed. NRS 40.020;
7. Affidavit to unknown heirs must be filed. NRS 14.040(3);
8. Court must hold a hearing on the evidence in order to issue judgment. NRS 40.110(1)
9. Quiet title may not be obtained through default judgment. NRS 40.110(1); and
10. Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(0).
Foyner v. Bank of America Home Loans. Case No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ 2010 Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev.1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co . 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916) No. 2:09-CV-00567-RCJ-LRL, 2009 WL 5039495 (D. Nev. 2009); Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp. v. Tolman. 44 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1109-10 (D. Nev 1999); Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D. Nev. 1897); Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044, 1046 n. 1 (Nev. 2008); Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996); Sceirine v. Densmore. 87 Nev. 9, 12,479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause. 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev.1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co .. 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916)
Each party must prove good title for herself, but I have never been allowed to defend my title
Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154, 156 (Nev. 2019) (“We first hold that each party in a quiet title action has the burden of demonstrating superior title in himself or herself.”)
While the “burden of proof [in a quiet title action] rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself,” Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp ., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (1996), abrogated on other grounds byDelgado v. Am. Family Ins. Grp.,125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009), “a plaintiff’s right to relief [ultimately] … depends on superiority of title,” W. Sunset 2050 Tr. v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC , 134 Nev. ––––, ––––, 420 P.3d 1032, 1034 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). And because “[a] plea to quiet title does not require any particular elements, … each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question.” Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Natl Tr. Co.,129 Nev. 314, 318, 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Now in 2023 Judge Peterson is the 2nd judge who improper ex parte communications
SCA misrepresented the Red Rock foreclosure file to Judge Kishner as if it represented the true, accurate, and complete records of the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage, despite SCA attorneys knowing full well that the file was the debt collector’s unverified, uncorroborated version of revisionist history.
SCA attorneys were not representing the interests of the HOA when they disclosed Red Rock’s fraudulent documents. SCA attorneys presented to the court Red Rock’s fantasy version of reality that was explicitly contradicted by SCA’s official, verified records of the enforcement actions taken in secret by the HOA Board between 2012-2014.
SCA attorneys withheld, concealed, and/or misrepresented the HOA’s official records related to this foreclosure and a dozen other foreclosures in the same time period.
3/6/19 SCA Reply to Tobin 3/5/19 OPPM See page 6, lines 26-27, where SCA 302 and SCA 276 (annotated) and SCA 277 (altered) were wrongly attributed to Craig Leidy, “requested the HOA waive thousands of dollars of the debt“
Steven Scow produced Red Rock foreclosure file in response to Tobin 2/4/19 subpoena
RRFS 001-425 Red Rock foreclosure file as Steven Scow produced it was not properly verified as being a true, accurate and complete record contemporaneously produced by a person in the normal course of her occupation.
Steven Scow provided RRFS 001-425 that was deceptive, inaccurate, and incomplete with the obvious mens rea and the specific intent to conceal the wrongdoing of his clients.Steve Scow withheld all documents requested in items 4,5, and 6. The proofs of service provided in response to item 2 did not include any proofs of service for any of the notices that Tobin disputes were sent.
Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure file
9/17/12 SCA 642 RRFS letter to 2664 OH SCA 643 to 2763 notice of intent to lien – Tobin has no recollection nor Proudfit any record of this. No proof of service though alleged to se sent certified. Demanded $617.94 when it is undisputed that the account was PIF on 6/30/14. See SCA 642 and SCA 643.
9/20/12 SCA 628 120920 SENDER’S copy of hearing notice SCA sent to 2664 Olivia Heights could not have been sent by Tobin to RRFS as alleged in 2/5/19 MSJ See SCA 628, SCA 635,
9/20/12 SCA 635 is duplicate of SCA 628 also alleged to be sent to 2664. No allegation that the notice was sent to 2763. No allegation that the hearing was actually ever held. See SCA 628, SCA 635,
10/18/12 See SCA 618 Payment Allocation Detail. Check 143 was applied to pay assessments from 7/1/12-9/30/12, but also called a “partial payment”
10/8/12 SCA 626 “CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED” SCA claimed the sender’s copy of the hearing notice was sent to RRFS by Tobin which is impossible.
SCA duplicated and misrepresented this document to falsely imply that SCA had complied with the notice requirements in SCA CC&Rs 7.4 prior to imposing the sanction of permanent revocation, rather than temporary suspension, of member benefits, for the alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments.
There was no hearing on 10/10/12 or any other date because check 143 cured the delinquency. Assessments were paid through 9/30/12. No other notice like this was ever sent and none of the other steps of due process required were ever provided. This “sender’s copy was NOT attached to Tobin’s 10/3/12 letter to the HOA that transmitted check 143.SCA misrepresented this letter to claim it was evidence that Tobin was not entitled to any relief because it meant that she had unclean hands.
11/5/12 11/5/12 SCA 620 “Correspondence Response to Homeowner“
Note that check 143 paid the assessments from 7/1/12-9/30/12.
See SCA 618 “Association Allocation Detail” and #13 on Page 4 of 4/17/19 order that states “payment was applied to the July 1, 2012 Quarterly Assessment and the Late Fee due on July 31, 2012.“
The foreclosure deed recitals are false because they state that the default began on 7/1/12. The association detail shows that Red Rock knew the proper way to account for payments according to NRS 116A.640(8), but simply chose to ignore the law and keep two sets of books.
Therefore, the Miles Bauer $825 tendered on 5/9/13 satisfied the debt of $825 assessment due and payable for the quarters from 10/1/12 to 6/30/13.
Nationstar relied on this to commit its fraud on the court. Nationstar was never Bank of America’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the disputed Hansen deed of trust. Nationstar rescinded that 12/1/14 fraudulent claim on 3/8/19. Further, Nationstar concealed SCA 302 which is clear proof of its specific intent to steal this property from Nona Tobin.5/10/13 rejection of the $825 tendered was sufficient to void the entire sale. RRFS covertly rejected this tender without legal authority. $825 was the exact amount of assessments that were then delinquent. The 5/16/13 entry implicates the attorneys as co-conspirators.
The only remaining debt at the time of the Miles Bauer tender were fines: $75 late fees authorized by the SCA Board as a fine for non-payment of installments within 30 days of their due date and whatever fines RRFS-added on their own initiative. An HOA cannot foreclose if the assessments are brought current and only fines, including collecting fees remain.
8/15/13 SCA 401 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “deceased”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 287 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board on 6/9/14 was denied.
8/15/13 SCA 403 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “Return to sender Not deliverable as addressed. Unable to forward.”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 278 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board in SCA 295 on 6/9/14 was denied.
10/16/13 10/16/13 SCA 450 “Followed Up POP“
10/16/13 SCA 468 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” to 10/16/13 does not show any BOD approval. See 468 is duplicated in annotated SCA 415-416 Homeowner Progress Report to 01/3/14.
1/3/14 1/03/14 SCA 407 Followed Up POP
1/3/14 SCA 406 “Permission for publication of foreclosure sale and authority to conduct foreclosure sale”, RRFS form letter signed by Dan Folgeron on 1/9/14. According to this form, RRFS had the ability to move the sale date without specific instruction from the BOD.
By RRFS being able to unilaterally move a sale date, RRFS can suppress bidding, particularly when this is compounded by RRFS giving the SCA BOD the false instruction that
“The Board of Directors agrees that in the event that the homeowner makes any claim regarding the loss of its property through this foreclosure action, the association shall have the exclusive duty to defend and to pay all defense costs of all such claims...”.
More importantly, it violated the 4/27/12 RRFS debt collection contract Indemnity clause on page 3, #7 of the RRFS-SCA contract signed on 4/27/12. Both RRFS and SCA refused to produce this contract in discovery. SCA deceptively disclosed the inapplicable 2007 contract that does not contain the provision that RRFS must indemnify SCA.
SCA homeowners have been forced to pay over $100,000 in costs that contractually were the responsibility of RedRock.
1/3/14 RRFS transmittal memo to SCA, dated 1/3/14, gave Permission for Publication packet to SCA BOD which contained the sentence. “If the Board does not want to proceed with the foreclosure sale please return the packet unsigned.” Note that there are multiple unsigned documents in SCA 176-643. Note also that there is no Board decision to proceed or not in any Board minutes.
1/3/14 SCA 415 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” from 9/13/12 -4/10/13
1/3/14 SCA 416 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” from 4/10/13 – 1/3/14. Note neither RRFS nor SCA disclosed this form for the period from 1/3/14 – 8/15/14 when RRFS sold the property without notice after the property had already been sold on auction.com on 5/8/14.
1/9/14 SCA 377 and SCA 407 Dan Folgeron signed RRFS form” Association Foreclosure sale Approval” for “Property Address” Dan wrote in “All twelve properties attached”. Neither SCA nor RRFS listed the properties nor was there any attachment.
NO SCA BOARD APPROVAL OF THE SALE IS ON ANY AGENDA.
1/9/14 SCA 407Dan Folgeron signed RRFS form” Association Foreclosure sale Approval” for “Property Address” Dan wrote in “All twelve properties attached”. Neither SCA nor RRFS listed the properties nor was there any attachment. This is a duplicate of SCA 377. According to the box checked RRFS was not given authority to postpone the sale without discussing with the Board.
1/10/14 1/10/14 SCA 405 “Board Approved POP” is contradicted by the HOA records that were concealed in discovery.
1/29/14 1/29/14 SCA 389 “Supporting Documents“
2/11/14 SCA 382- 384 disclosed the Resident Transaction Report from 1/1/6-2/11/14. SCA refused to disclose the Resident Transaction Report when requested in discovery. The part that shows the RTR does not include any indication that the property was foreclosed, that $63,100 was collected for the sale, or that there were any other owners between Hansen and Jimijack, shows in the time period after 2/11/14.
2/27/14 There is a 2/27/14 email on the bottom of SCA 332 that informs them that she received a request from the realtor for a reduction in fees because the owner is dead and there is no money left in the estate. See annotated SCA 332.
This was Craig Leidy’s only request. SCA and RRFS misrepresent this to cover up SCA 302 and SCA 295.
3/4/14 See SCA 324-325 email Leidy-RRFS Marling exchange where Leidy had asked for a copy of the fees and to speak to the Board about a fee reduction. Marling says she’ll let him know if they want him to attend.
3/4/14 SCA 332 (top) is a 3/4/14 email from RRFS to Gary Leopold, FSR employee serving as the SCA CAM, to state that she had received a request from the 3/7/14 sale was postponed to 4/8/14. There is a 2/27/14 email on the bottom of the page that informs them that she received a request from the realtor for a reduction in fees because the owner is dead and there is no money left in the estate. See annotated SCA 332.
3/18/14 SCA 310 contains two emails dated 3/18/14 which clearly indicate RRFS received a request for payoff figure on 3/18/14, but the SCA BOD was scheduled to review Leidy’s requests at the 3/27/14 meeting. Note RRFS and SCA both failed to disclose the 3/28/14 RRFS response to Chicago title in which the ledger shows that the SCA BOD approved a $400 fee waiver on Page 6. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail that allegedly was accurate and complete from 2/11/14-8/15/14.
This 3/28/14 RRFS payoff demand was concealed in discovery. Both SCA and RRFs produced the false evidence of doctored ledgers as shown below.
3/28/14 SCA 277 Undated email RRFS to Leidy “Please see response regarding the settlement request for $1000.00” (Note there was no settlement request for $1000. Leidy did not receive this. Not clear what was supposedly attached as it does not relate to the 6/5/14 email Leidy sent to RRFS to forward the NSM 5/28/14 offer.
5/6/14 5/6/14 “Supporting Documents“
5/13/14 5/13/14 “Sale Postponed“
5/15/14 SCA 307 is an unsigned approval form to conduct the sale on 5/15/14. Note there was no BOD approval in SCA 176-643 to conduct the sale on 5/15/14, the date that the Ombudsman received notice that the 5/15/14 sale was cancelled as the owner was retained.
5/15/14 SCA 308 is another email alleging final approval of the 5/15/14 sale from which the date has been scrubbed and there is no signature
5/28/14 5/28/14 SCA 302 NSM Equator message to Leidy “please be advised the max I will be able to pay the HOA is $1100”
Nationstar concealed this in discovery. RRFS was obviously complicit as can be seen by SCA’s fraudulently misrepresenting it to the SCA Board in SCA 295 as an owner request for waiver.
5/28/14 5/28/14 SCA 302 NSM Equator message to Leidy that was mischaracterized by SCA/RRFS as a non-existent new request from Leidy. See SCA 277. See also SCA 295 and SCA 276
6/5/14 SCA 277 Leidy forwarded NSM’s 5/28/14 offer (SCA 302)but SCA concealed it at the bottom of the page
SCA 277 and RRFS 095 are how this doctored evidence was produced.
6/9/14 SCA 275 “Request Sent to Board“
6/26/14 SCA 276 Jean Capillupo signed the 6/9/14RRFS waiver form from SCA 295. 6/26/14 SCA 276 (Signed 6/9/14 RRFS Form “Waiver or Reduction in Fees” found in SCA 295. Note no BOD response to SCA 302 was disclosed.
7/2/14 SCA 275 “7/2/14 Received Board response“
7/2/14 SCA 278 alleges RRFS sent a letter to 2763 stating the BOD “has denied your request for a settlement of $1,000.” SCA 279 is a blank owner request form. SCA 280-285 is a ledger. SCA/RRFS did not produce any proof of service. No RTS like in SCA 401-405. Tobin has said under oath she never received this. Tobin-Leidy emails never mention it.
RRFS lied about sending this letter and the one in SCA 286 to Tobin’s residence and there are many documents that prove the falsity of this claim beyond the fact that neither RRFS nor SCa disclosed any proofs of service.
See also SCA 286alleges RRFS sent a letter to 2664 OH stating the BOD “has denied your request for a settlement of $1,000.” Tobin has said under oath she never received this. Tobin-Leidy emails never mention it or the ledger in SCA 287-292. Obviously, she never signed the blank owner request form in SCA 287 and SCA 279.
7/2/14 SCA 280-285 RRFS allegedly sent this ledger to Tobin at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave and to the vacant property at 2763 White Sage. There are no proofs of service. There are no returns to sender like RRFS got when a notice was sent to the vacant property on 8/15/13 (See SCA 401 and 403. Notably, RRFS does not charge for any collection activity, any mailings, any sale guarantee, nothing after 2/11/14.
See annotated SCA 275- SCA 293.There is no document that shows how NSM was informed that SCA 302 was rejected.
Also, see on SCA 285 RRFS did not charge $150 to produce pay off figures requested by Chicago Title on 3/18/14 (SCA 310). RRFS and SCA both concealed that RRFS demanded $3,055.47 in a letter to Chicago Title, dated 3/28/14. SCA 285 does not include the $400 fee waiver requested by Leidy and authorized by the SCA Board on 3/27/14 that is accounted for on pg 6 of the 3/28/14 demand.
8/1/14 8/1/14 Emails
8/5/14 SCA 271 Jean Capillupo signed to approve the sale of 2763 White sage subject to the conditions set forth in the permission for Publication of foreclosure Sale and Authority to conduct foreclosure sale. No record of any BOD action to authorize her signing this.
8/6/14 8/6/14 “Supporting Documents“
8/15/14 SCA 242 Sent at 10:12 AM to report to Christie Marling, RRFS, that the property had been sold at an auction conducted at 10:11 AM at which three people allegedly bid and 45 people were in attendance
8/21/14 SCA 217 and SCA 224 $57,282.32 check #49909, made out to Clark County District Court on Red Rock Financial Services Trust Account 4775 W. Teco Ave suite 140 #121201694 153751166148. USBank 94-0169/1212
Steven Scow had no legal authority to retain the proceeds of the sale after Christie marling instructed him to interplead them. If not distributed according to NRS 116.31164(3)(2013), they should have been given to the HOA Board for distribution. SCA bylaws prohibit the HOA Board from delegating proprietary control of these funds to Red rock or to Scow.
Steven Scow failed to distribute the proceeds of many sales. This is an example of a Spanish Trail foreclosure that was litigated in case A-14-710161-C. The proceeds wee not distributed until after the owner died, and it only happened then after five years of litigation.
Links to Other Documents Disputing RRFS file disclosed as SCA 176-643 and RRFS 001-425.
RRFS concealed that notice was given to the Ombudsman that the sale postponed to 5/1514 was cancelled. RRFS never provided a deed to the Ombudsman within 30 days after the sale as required by NRS 116.31164 (3)(b) (2013). This was not an innocent error. It allowed the enforcement officials to be duped as there was no record that the 8/15/14 sale occurred without a published notice of sale in effect.
4/20/19 Tobin DECL in support of motion to reconsider (23 pages not filed vs 12 pages in attachment to 4/29/19)
This ledger was concealed in discovery and SCA 255 below shows why.SCA 255 was also produced as RRFS 076. They both show that RRFS or Steven Scow falsified the accounts. See NRS 205.405 Falsifying accounts.
10/14/14 email excerpt re proceeds and lack of notice for the sale
8/13/14 Notice of Sanction was the only notice Tobin received related to 2763 White Sage after the 2/12/14 notice of sale was cancelled.
SCA concealed this and all other compliance documents related to 2763 White Sage.
See 9/14/16 email exchange where the HOA manager said a court order was required to provide any documents.
NRS 116.31164(3) (2013) defines ministerial duties mandated on a debt collector after conducting an HOA foreclosure sale. Red Rock did not comply with 3(b) or 3(c ) after Red Rock sold 2763 White Sage without statutorily required notice to Nona Tobin on 8/15/14.
Rule 22. Interpleader
(a) Grounds.
(1) By a Plaintiff. Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though:
(A) the claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or
(B) the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
(2) By a Defendant. A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim.
(b) Relation to Other Rules and Statutes. This rule supplements — and does not limit — the joinder of parties allowed by Rule 20. The remedy this rule provides is in addition to — and does not supersede or limit — the remedy provided by any Nevada statute authorizing interpleader. These rules apply to any action brought under statutory interpleader provisions, except as otherwise provided by Rule 81.
NRCP 22
Why interpleader was an abuse of process
NRCP 22 was corruptly utilized by Plaintiff Red Rock after unlawfully holding the sale proceeds for more than six years. Red Rock had no legitimate grounds for filing the interpleader action. Red Rock was not exposed to any liability as there were no recorded claims for those proceeds other than Nona Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed. Red Rock filed the interpleader complaint for improper purposes, including, but not limited to, the obstruction of the fair, evidence-based adjudication of Nona Tobin’s claims for quiet title and equitable relief.
What do HOA bylaws have to do with it?
NRS Chapter 116 is the chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes that governs homeowners associations AKA “common-interest communities”.
NRS 116.3106 defines mandatory provisions that must be included in an HOA’s bylaws.
NRS 116.3106(1)(d) requires that an HOA’s bylaws define what an HOA Board of Directors can delegate
NRS 116.3106Bylaws.
1. The bylaws of the association must:
(d) Specify the powers the executive board or the officers of the association may delegate to other persons or to a community manager;
NRS 116.3106(1)(d)
Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.20/3.18 prohibit delegation of these duties:
Relevance to Red Rock’s misappropriation of the proceeds of the sale
Bylaws 3.18(b) levying and collecting assessments
SCA bylaws 3.18 (b) prohibited the Sun City Anthem Board from delegating policy control over “levying and collecting assessments”, but handled control of the debt collection and foreclosure function over to Red Rock based on the advice of its managing agent, FirstService Residential (FSR) who unjustly profited by misinforming the volunteer members of the HOA Board about their fiduciary duty to the HOA and to the common good of the membership at large.
Over-delegation caused by undisclosed conflict of interest
FirstService Residential (FSR) was both on contract with Sun City Anthem to be the managing agent and held the NRS 649 debt collection license doing business as Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132)
Link to RMI-SCA 1/1/10 management agreement is relevant only insofar as the HOA signed the contract with FSR after its agent RMI management, LLC was purchased by, or merged with, or somehow or another, morphed into FSR.
Secondly, this financial conflict of interest is relevant in that it allowed the agents to control all the records in a manner that allowed them to cover up the misappropriation of funds as well as the wrongful foreclosure of a dozen Sun City Anthem homes in 2014 when the transfer of managing agents occurred.
Bylaws 3.18(e) depositing funds in an approved bank and using funds to operate the HOA
Red Rock did not deposit the funds collected anywhere that they were used for the operation of the HOA.
The funds should have been placed in a Sun City Anthem Trust Account and certainly not in a Red Rock Financial Services Trust Account.
Bylaws 3.18(g) opening bank accounts and designating signatories required
Red Rock did not comply with these SCA bylaws restrictions on the proper depositing of these funds into an account where the Sun City Anthem Board controls the signatories.
The Sun City Anthem Board is ultimately accountable for the funds collected on behalf of the HOA under the HOA’s statutory authority. The bylaws provision was obviously required in order to prevent the very type of conversion that FSR dba Red Rock perpetrated here.
By not complying with the bylaws, the proceeds of this sale and at least a dozen other Sun City Anthem foreclosures were retained in an unaudited, unsupervised account, misnamed as an “attorney trust account”. None of these funds were under the proper control of the HOA Board. These funds, belonging to Sun City Anthem, were wrongly under the proprietary control of a partnership with undisclosed partners, Red Rock Financial Services EIN 88-0358132 and/or Steven Scow, an individual, and/or Koch & Scow LLC.
Red Rock agent/employee Christie Marling instructed Steven Scow to deposit the “excess” proceeds of the sale with the court for interpleader on 8/28/14. Steven Scow did not do it.
Bylaws 3.18(i) enforcing the governing documents, bringing legal proceedings, providing due process guaranteed by CC&Rs 7.4
Neither the Sun City Anthem Board nor the SCA managing agent FSR nor the SCA debt collector FSR dba Red Rock complied with CC&Rs 7.4 when they imposed the sanction of foreclosure on the alleged violation of delinquent assessments.
None of the notice and due process required by the HOA’s CC&Rs were provided prior to selling 2763 White Sage as the sanction for an alleged violation of $2,200 delinquent assessments.
Further, the assessments were only delinquent due to the malicious misconduct of the HOA’s agents, FSR and FSR dba Red Rock, who THREE TIMES misapplied or rejected payments of assessments prior to the sale, and then lied and falsified documents to cover up their crime.
Red Rock and HOA attorneys conspired to defraud the HOA homeowners regarding multiple secret Sun City Anthem foreclosures
