Allegations of misconduct against Nationstar attorneys

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it.

Below is my statement of intent which was to clearly show that my claims had been obstructed and never fully heard due to the misconduct of my opponents.

The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence

Summary of 2/23/22 and 2/28/22 Bar complaints against Nationstar’s attorneys

Nationstar’s attorneys: Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP

Melanie Morgan (SBN 8215) Akerman LLP

2/28/22 Complaint to State Bar vs. Nationstar’s attorneys: Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP and

2/23/22 Complaint to Bar vs. Nationstar attorneys Melanie Morgan (SBN 8215) Akerman

Nationstar’s attorneys: Melanie Morgan, Managing Partner Akerman LLP and Wright Finlay Zak, LLP lied about Nationstar being owed a debt; lied about Nationstar having any standing to file a quiet title claim. Abused the HOA quiet title litigation process multiple times as a corrupt business model, representing different lenders who did not NRS 104.3301 standing to foreclose on the 1st deeds of trust they were lying about owning.

  1. The most critical material facts knowingly misrepresented by all of Nationstar’s attorneys related to the assignments and reconveyance of the 1st deed of trust that was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA sale:           7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust
  2. 4/12/12 ASSIGN MERS to BANA by BANA – could not transfer interest:
  3. 1) assignment to BANA was void as it was robo-signed days after BANA signed a 4/4/12 consent decree agreeing not to robo-sign documents to fake ownership of loans that basically had been securitized out of existence;
  4. 2) also void because there is no notary record of it (NRS 111.240);
  5. 3) also void because non-compliant with Nevada’s anti-foreclosure fraud law (AB 284 (2011)
  6. 9/9/14 ASSIGN BANA to Wells Fargo by BANA – could not transfer interest:
  7. 1) assignment is void as BANA’s 4/12/12 assignment to itself above was void;
  8. 2) assignment was recorded almost a month after the deed of trust was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA sale;
  9. 3) servicing banks BANA’s and Nationstar’s failure to record a notice of default on the 7/22/04 deed of trust constitutes a waiver of any right it may have to use the property as security for the Hansen promissory note;
  10. 4) servicers’ failure to record a notice of default was the direct and proximate cause of the HOA sale because an HOA is prohibited from foreclosing if a lender has recorded a notice of default on the 1st deed of trust (NRS 116.31162(6)(2013)
  11. 12/1/14 ASSIGN BANA to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest:
  12. 1) void because BANA had no interest to assign on 12/1/14;
  13. 2) void because it was actually a self-assignment executed without authority by Nationstar;
  14. 3) void because Nationstar did not record or disclose a properly executed power of attorney from BANA;
  15. 4) void because Nationstar rescinded it a week after the end of discovery in the 1st action
  16. 3/8/19 ASSIGN Wells Fargo to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest:
  17. 1) void because Wells Fargo had no interest to assign to Nationstar;
  18. 2) void because Nationstar’s robo-signer executed it without authority;
  19. 3) void because Nationstar recorded it after the end of discovery in the 1st action;
  20. 4) void because Nationstar prevailed in the 1st action by filing a non-meritorious joinder on 2/12/19 claiming to be BANA’s successor in interest and then two weeks later rescinding that claim and then after the end of discovery recording a new robo-signed claim to be Wells Fargo’s successor in interest;
  21. 5) Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that either it or Wells Fargo is the beneficiary due to its repeated conflicting claims regarding when and from whom it acquired its claimed interest;
  22. 6) Nationstar admitted i n discovery two days after this robo-signed assignment was executed on 2/25/19 that Nationstar was then, and always had been since 12/1/13, only the servicer, never the beneficiary.
  23. 3/8/19 RESCIND 12/1/14 BANA to Nationstar by Nationstar – could not transfer interest as it was rescinding a void assignment:
  24. 1) this rescission was done in bad faith a week after discovery ended after Nationstar learned that Tobin could prove that it was lying about being the beneficiary as BANA’s successor in interest; 2) this was executed by Nationstar robo-signer Mohamed Hammed posing as if he were the V-P of BANA;
  25. 3) In the months following this rescission, Nationstar persisted in its false claim that the sale was valid to extinguish Tobin’s interest by was void to extinguish the interest Nationstar was lying about owning as the successor of BANA
  26. 6/3/19 RECONVEY Hansen DOT to Joel Stokes – not to the borrower’s estate – by Nationstar
  27. 1) void because Nationstar did not have the legal authority to reconvey the deed of trust to anyone, let alone to a non-party two days before the quiet title trial in the 1st action;
  28. 2) void as Nationstar claimed to be both the trustee and the beneficiary when in fact it was neither and therefore had no legal authority to record a reconveyance (NRS 205.395);
  29. 3) Nationstar could not have been both the trustee and the beneficiary as NRS 107.028(2) prohibits it;
  30. 4)  void as it was a fraudulent transfer (NRS 111.175) to consummate the $355,000 devil’s pact between Nationstar and Jimijack recorded on 5/23/19;
  31. 5) underlying deal with Joel Stokes is void as the attorneys misrepresented it as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims to the court to gain its imprimatur fraudulently;
  32. 5) void as the Nationstar-Joel Stokes deal excluded Tobin as a necessary party (NRCP 19, NRS 30.130) as she was denied the opportunity to defend her 3/28/17 deed;
  33. 6) void as the lien was released as a quid pro quo to steal Tobin’s property by obstructing her claims from being heard on their merits;
  34. 7) void as this was recorded when Tobin as an individual and as the Hansen Trust trustee had pending quiet title claims against Jimijack to void the defective HOA sale subject to the deed of trust, i.e., Jimijack’s deed was defective and inadmissible as evidence of title (NRS 111.345) and so if Tobin’s claims had been heard on the merits, Jimijack would have lost. Nationstar knew that Tobin knew it did not have standing to foreclose on her if the title was unwound to put her and Nationstar back as if the sale had never happened. The ONLY way they could both win was to obstruct Tobin’s case from being heard and tell the court that they settled the title dispute out of court.
  35. 7) void as Nationstar never produced any evidence that it had any legal right to collect $355,000 in exchange for releasing a lien it did not own;
  36. 7) underlying deal with Joel Stokes is void as Nationstar dismissed all its quiet title claims without adjudication;
  37. 8) void as Nationstar essentially confiscated Tobin’s property without foreclosure and without adjudication, by lying about being the beneficiary and abusing the HOA quiet title litigation process to collect on a debt it was not owed.
  38. 9) void as Nationstar circumvented the restrictions of the PUD Rider Remedies (F) to turn the alleged payment of delinquent HOA assessments into a de facto foreclosure without notice of due process required by NRS 107.080.

Summary of Bar Complaint against Melanie Morgan

  • 1. Met ex parte with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19 after serving notice on all parties through the court’s e-file Odyssey system on 4/15/19 and 4/22/19 that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19 (NCJC 2.9, NRPC 8.4 and ABA standard 6.31(b))
  • 2. As the managing partner over multiple subordinate attorneys, and as the successor of Nationstar’s and BANA’s prior attorneys, Wright, Finley, Zak, perpetrated fraud on the court
  • by misrepresenting to the court the material facts, (e.g., 1) that Nationstar was owed a debt from the 7/22/04 deed of trust that was extinguished by the disputed 8/15/14 HOA sale,
  • 2) that Nona Tobin had not been granted leave to intervene as an individual
  • 3) that Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed did not give her NRS 40.010 standing anyway
  • 4) that the HOA sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the lien),
  • 5) changed attorneys to create plausible deniability, e.g., removed Karen Whelan after Joe Coppedge asked Nationstar in 2018 to join Tobin in an MSJ to void the sale in its entirety
  • 6) in A-21-828840-C when Nationstar was going to have to respond to Tobin’s claim that it was judicially estopped from claiming to be owed a debt from the Hansen 7/22/04 deed of trust),
  • 7) concealed inculpatory evidence (e.g., all Equator records, communications between Nationstar and Tobin or Nationstar and Red Rock or Nationstar and Wells Fargo) on these dates: 5/15/18, 12/10/18, 2/7/19, 2/12/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/21/19, 2/21/19, 2/27/19, 2/28/19, 2/28/19, 3/7/19, 3/12/19, 3/12/19, 3/18/19, 3/21/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/12/19, 4/15/19, 4/19/19, 4/22/19, 4/23/19, 4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/3/19, 5/21/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 5/31/19, 6/24/19, 6/24/19, 6/25/19, 7/1/19, 7/22/19, 6/25/20, 8/11/20, 4/9/21, 4/26/21, 5/3/21, 5/5/21, 8/19/21, 11/9/21, 11/15/21, 11/16/21, 11/23/21, 11/30/21.
  • 3. In conspiracy with Joseph Hong, made a fraudulent side deal with Joel A. Stokes, that a) was mischaracterized to the court (5/21/19 transcript) status check-settlement documents) as a “Nationstar-Jimijack settlement of all claims” that was recorded on 5/23/19, and
  • b) which allowed Nationstar to be dismissed from the quiet title trial
  • c) so it did not have to produce any evidence to support its quiet title claim
  • and d) evaded either Nationstar or Jimijack having to refute Tobin’s quiet title claims on their merits.
  • 2/23/22 Bar complaint filed against Melanie Morgan Petitioner’s 84371 appendix volume 27 (22-08189) (pages 4045-4154) was supported by exhibits of multiple unadjudicated administrative claims against Nationstar and Akerman.
  • On 2/23/22, Tobin, as the President of Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., filed a complaint against Nationstar’s attorney, Wright, Finlay, Zak, LLP (“WFZ”) that initiated Nationstar’s meritless quiet title complaint. The bar complaint is filed concurrently as a Request for Judicial Notice because it their duplicitous filings are the corrupt foundation of this dispute. However, they ceased to be Nationstar’s attorneys on 4/10/18 when Akerman took over.
  • WFZ aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into this quiet title civil dispute statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence 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.
  • Assisting lenders to cheat homeowners is WFZ’s business model.
  • Movant requests the court determine if written findings against the WFZ attorneys separate from Nationstar are appropriate given that the four-year statute of limitations for complaints to be addressed by the Bar has passed, but the five-year statute of limitations for racketeering has not.

Allegations of misconduct against Red Rock Financial Services attorney

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it. Below is my statement of intent.

The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence

Summary of 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Red Rock attorney Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC

  1. Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC is the attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that conducted the disputed HOA foreclosure sale usurping the statutory authority of the HOA.
  2. Scow knew that this critical case-concluding phrase in the 4/18/19 order was false, “The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.
  3. Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Scow himself produced, Scow and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 6/23/20, 8/3/20, 8/11/20, 4/16/21, 4/27/21, 4/29/21, 5/11/21, 8/19/21, 10/22/21, 11/16/21, 12/28/21, 1/19/22, 5/25/22, 6/13/22.
  4. The 3/1/22 complaint overview to the Bar vs. Scow and table of contents of exhibits are quoted here:
  5. 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906) is quoted/summarized here:
  6. Steven Scow, the subject of this instant complaint, represents Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132), that secretly sold my late fiancé’s house allegedly at a properly noticed and conducted HOA sale.
  7. Steven Scow produced false evidence and concealed inculpatory evidence in response to my 2/4/19 subpoena that was relied on by the court to grant a meritless motion for summary judgment for quiet title by the HOA (even though the HOA had no interest in the title to protect). Upon information and belief, the HOA filed the motion for improper purposes, i.e., to cover up the fraudulent conduct of the sale and/or to retaliate against me for being a whistleblower.
  8. The HOA’s motion, and Nationstar’s equally meritless joinder, were granted by the order entered on 4/18/19 by the court’s relying solely on Steven Scow-produced Red Rock’s unverified, uncorroborated, and sometimes blatantly falsified, foreclosure record.
  9. Steven Scow’s and David Ochoa’s fraudulent misrepresentation to the court of the Red Rock unverified file as the HOA’s official records, is the proximate and direct cause of three more years of litigation for which I have accrued $317,532.76 in attorneys’ fees and much more in personal and financial cost.
  10. All subsequent orders in district court cases A-15-720032-C, A-19-799890-C, A-21-828840-C and in appeals 79295 and 82294 were the fruit of this poison tree of falsified documents used to inaccurately depict the HOA sale as compliant with all legal requirements in Nevada statutes and the HOA governing documents.
  11. My complaint against Steven Scow is much larger than my individual case. It also focuses on his refusal to distribute the excess proceeds from this sale (despite my repeated unheard civil and administrative claims), AND from a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 sales, AND from an unknown number of other sales conducted by Red Rock over the years.
  12. 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906was supported by the following exhibits that were rejected by the Assistant Bar Counsel without the investigation required by SCR 104(1)(a):
  13. Exhibit A Scow presented false evidence in response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena.
  14. Exhibit B Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained, to this day, the excess proceeds of Sun City Anthem HOA foreclosure sales after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
  15. Exhibit C Scow also unlawfully retained excess proceeds from foreclosures by other HOAs after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
  16. Exhibit D Scow did not produce subpoenaed documents that contained inculpatory evidence without claiming privilege.
  17. Exhibit E Steven Scow failed to identify the partners who are unfairly profiting by these statutorily non-compliant sales and Scow’s failure to distribute the excess proceeds.
  18. Exhibit F Steven Scow filed meritless claims, motions, and oppositions to evade judicial scrutiny of inculpatory evidence.
  19. Exhibit G-1 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws after being intentionally misinformed about the law by Scow’s clients.
  20. Exhibit G-2 Legal limits on closed HOA meetings in SCA governing documents were disregarded because Scow’s clients intentionally misinformed the SCA Board about them.
  21. Exhibit H-1 “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”
  22. Exhibit H-2 “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”
  23. Exhibit H-3 “The House that took over a Life”
  24. Exhibit H-4 Exhibit 5 of 3/8/21 Tobin’ A-21-828840-C Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-claims that shows that required notices for the sale were not provided, but the records were falsified to cover it up and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think”  Cost more
  25. Exhibit H-5 Call for an audit of the co-mingled, unaudited account(s) where Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained the excess proceeds he was instructed to remit to the court in 2014.
  26. Scow knew, but concealed that Red Rock unlawfully sold the property for $63,100 without notice on 8/15/14, three months after Nona Tobin had already been accepted the high bid of $367,500 on 5/8/14 from MZK Properties on, but that Nationstar would not let escrow close on a sale that was five times higher than the Red Rock sale.
  27. Pages 14 to 20 of the draft complaint against Scow list and describe the specific false evidence he entered into the court record in response to subpoena.
  28. False evidence (partial list) was entered into the court record via the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425).
  1. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf– the date was scrubbed, Red Rock misrepresented to the Board “As of today, RRFS is unaware of any buyer that is lined up…” when Red Rock was aware the property had already been sold on three months earlier and Nationstar had sent a notice that it would pay one year of assessments to close escrow on the 5/8/14 sale.
  2. RRFS 095 is SCA 277..png is a doctored combination of unrelated emails to misrepresent that no notice was actually sent to the owner in response to Nationstar’s 5/28/14 $1100 offer. Annotated version – (SCA 277)
  3. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a letter that was provably never sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14 as “no return to sender – deceased” was disclosed
  4. RRFS 123 DATE SCRUBBED RE 140515 SCHEDULED SALE.pdf– date was scrubbed
  5. RRFS 124 IS 140318 REQ 4 PAYOFF .pdf– on 3/18/14 Red Rock agent Christie Marling acknowledged Chicago Title’s request for payoff figures but asked to delay response until the Board reviewed a pending request for a waiver on 3/27/14. (RRFS 129)
  6. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf has scrubbed out the 3/18/14 Chicago Title request for payoff figures, the 3/27/14 Board approval of a $400 fee waiver, and the 3/28/14 Red Rock demand for $
  7. RRFS 128 IS SCA 315.pdf and SCA 315 misrepresented how the Board approved the sale. Board Resolution R005-120513 at the 12/5/13 meeting did not approve the sale of this property or any other SCA property.
  8. Red Rock concealed in discovery its 3/28/14 demand to Chicago Title that shows on page 6 that the board approved a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction on 3/27/14.
  9. Red Rock provided falsified accounts so that the Board’s approval of a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction did not show as an entry on 3/27/14 on future ledgers. (RRFS 076) and (SCA 255) and (SCA 303) and (RRFS 103)
  10. Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 debt collection contract that required Red Rock to indemnify Sun City Anthem and hold it harmless if any claims were brought alleging misconduct Red Rock’s part which caused a minimum of $150,000 in damages to the HOA.
  11. RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a falsified notice that was never sent to Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave. as alleged. Tobin has stated multiple times under oath that she received no notice whatsoever from Red Rock after the 2/12/14 notice of the 3/7/14 sale which was not held because the property was in escrow with a $340,000 cash offer pending lender approval.
  12. RRFS 189-190 RES TRAN NO PAGE NUMBERS.pdf scrubbed the sequentially-numbered page numbers 1335 and 1336 from the resident transaction report (Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage and Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights)
  13. RRFS 398-399 RES TRAN 376.21 121205.pdf scrubbed the sequentially numbered page numbers 1334 and 1335 from the resident transaction report
  14. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf scrubbed the sequentially-numbered page numbers 1334 – 1336 from the resident transaction report
  15. RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf Red Rock withheld in discovery all the financial transactions on resident transaction report pages 1336 – 1337 from 7/31/14 through 9/25/14, concealing thereby that the HOA has no record that 2763 White Sage was ever sold on 8/15/14, or any other date, and shows no entry in any ledger that confirms the alleged $63,100 was collected from a sale.
  16. Red Rock concealed page 1337 of the Resident Transaction Report that shows that Jimijack – not Opportunity Homes – became the second owner of the property on 9/25/14 and that there is no record of Opportunity Homes LLC or F. Bondurant LLC ever owning the property.
  17.  RRFS 305 – 311 shows that Red Rock responded to a payoff request from Ticor Title on 5/29/13 with a demand for $3,055.47 three weeks after Red Rock covertly rejected the Miles Bauer $825 tender when only $825 in assessments were then delinquent.

What allegations of attorney misconduct were made against Sun City Anthem Attorneys

On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar against David Ochoa and Adam Clarkson that was accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice of a complaint filed with the State Bar.

The complaint had not been investigated by the State Bar as shown below. I had to get a court order with written findings before they would investigate these allegations.

Their actions prevented my quiet title case from being resolved fairly in 2017-2019.

They covered up the fraud of the HOA’s former agents by lying to the court and framing me.

  1. David Ochoa, Lipson Neilson P. C., under direction from Adam Clarkson, The Clarkson Law Group, were the lawyers for Sun City Anthem Community Association, Inc., party in the first action who presented the falsified Red Rock foreclosure files to the court and misrepresented them as if they were the HOA’s concealed official records SCA’s attorneys filed a meritless motion for summary judgment to quiet a title in which the HOA held no interest and supported it with the falsified Red Rock records. SCA’s attorneys defamed Tobin and unlawfully removed her from her elected position on the HOA Board for being a party to the quiet title litigation of a house she inherited and have pursued a relentless campaign of harassment and retaliation against her over the past five years both for being a litigant herein and for being a whistleblower about other unrelated HOA matters.
  2. SCA attorneys usurped the statutory authority of the HOA Board to enforce, and to impose fines and sanctions for alleged violations of, the HOA’s governing documents according to the terms of the Act (NRS 116). SCA attorneys obstructed Tobin’s access to Alternate Dispute Resolution (CC&Rs XVI, NRS 38.310) and then used abusive, potentially criminal (NRS 199.480(2)(c), NRS 199.210, NRS 193.130(d), NRS 199.145) litigation tactics to obstruct her ability to fully and fairly litigate her civil claims.
  3. SCA attorneys acted in bad faith and did not serve the interests of the HOA or the common good of the HOA membership at large. The attorneys acted for their own self-interest (Clarkson) or in the interest of other parties (Clarkson and Ochoa), e.g., Sandy Seddon, Red Rock or the HOA’s insurance carrier
  4. Defendant Ochoa made false statements to the court on at least these dates 3/28/17 RTRAN, 4/27/17 RTRAN, 5/23/17 RTRAN, 5/25/17 RTRAN, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 RTRAN,  9/10/19 video, 9/10/19 minutes, submitted a false document to the court on these dates: 3/22/17, 3/27/17, 3/31/17, 4/18/17, 9/20/17. 4/20/182/5/19, 3/6/19, 4/18/19, 5/2/19, 5/24/19, 5/31/19, 8/8/19, 8/9/19, 8/22/19, 11/22/19, 3/30/20, 7/1/20, or improperly withheld material information from the court on at least these dates: 5/31/18, 2/11/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/19, and caused serious injury to Tobin as an individual, and caused a significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.
  5. Ochoa knew that this phrase that he wrote into the 4/18/19 order was false,

“The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.

  • All documentary evidence, including declarations under penalty of perjury and sworn affidavits, put before the court on, inter alia, these dates: 9/23/16, 1/31/17, 3/3/17, 2/9/18, 5/31/18, 7/13/18, 12/5/18, 2/7/19, 2/12/19, 2/20/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/9, 2/27/19, 2/28/19. 2/28/19, 4/10/19, 4/12/19, 4/17/19, 4/24/19, 4/29/19, 5/23/19, 8/20/19, 8/26/19 – support the Tobin/Hansen Trust claims. However, the court relied solely on misrepresentations and false evidence by Ochoa and other opposing counsels, to adopt the erroneous orders entered on 4/18/19, 5/31/19 and 6/24/19.
  • Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Ochoa himself produced or the true evidence that he himself concealed and withheld, Ochoa and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 4/27/17 RTRAN, 5/23/17 RTRAN, 5/25/17 RTRAN, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 RTRAN,  9/10/19 video, 9/10/19 minutes, 3/22/17, 3/27/17, 3/31/17, 4/18/17, 9/20/17. 4/20/182/5/19, 5/31/18, 2/11/19, 2/26/19, 2/26/19,
  • The order, authored by Ochoa, entered on 5/31/19, contains the false statements, completely unsupported by any verified evidence, (See EXHIBIT C of 3/6/22 Bar complaint.) that:

“The substantial exhibits that have been submitted in this case demonstrate that Nona Tobin as Trustee of the Trust was aware of the foreclosure and did nothing to stop the foreclosure. The May 2, 2019 (sic) Order, without addressing superpriority, establishes the HOA had a valid lien and properly noticed the foreclosure sale.”

  • Pages 48 to 55 of the draft complaint against Ochoa and Clarkson delineate the false evidence they entered into the court record primarily via records obtained from Steven Scow.
  • Exhibit A: Ochoa Obstructed Settlement
  • Exhibit C: Misrepresented and Suppressed Evidence
  • Exhibit D: Concealed Evidence
  • Exhibit E: Disclosed false & falsified evidence
  • Exhibit E-1 Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure file in SCA 176 – 643
  • Exhibit E-2 Examples of false evidence
  • Exhibit E-3 Red Rock Foreclosure file is false, falsified and disclosed as SCA 176-643
  • Exhibit F: Filed non-meritorious claims
  • Exhibit G: Concealed there were no Valid Board Actions
  • Exhibit G-1 Limits on closed HOA Board meetings
  • EXHIBIT G-2: SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws
  • EXHIBIT G-3: SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014
  • EXHIBIT G-4 SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures conducted by Red Rock Financial Services in SCA 2012-2014 agendas and minutes excerpted for items related to foreclosure or debt
  • Exhibit G-5 is 5/23/19 Exhibit 5 “No valid board authorization for the sale” was misrepresented by David Ochoa and ignored by the court
  • Exhibit H – More disputed facts in the order (NEO 4/18/19) that granted the HOA MSJ and Nationstar joinder

Clarkson unlawfully removed me from my elected seat on the SCA Board in 2017 and has obstructed my running every year since

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRCP Rule 10. Form of Pleadings

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

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

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

A court does not have jurisdiction over non-parties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 7, 2022 hearing

On 7/7/22, Judge Peterson heard Nona Tobin’s 2nd motion to distribute the interpleaded proceeds to her as the sole claimant with interest and penalties, -1½ years after she failed to hear Tobin’s 1st motion and a year after she granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s Tobin to dismiss Tobin’s unheard, unopposed claims of Conversion, Racketeering, and Fraud with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata.

Judge Peterson also heard Tobin’s motion to correct three prior orders to accurately identify the names of the parties and to attach Tobin’s opposition to factual inaccuracies in the orders.

The judge also accepted and granted the rogue motion of non-party Red Rock LLC’s for attorney fees, and granted the improper renewed motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against Tobin.

Judge Peterson granted non-party Red Rock LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees, denied Tobin’s unopposed motions.

Judge Peterson told Tobin that nothing Tobin said (in her unopposed proposed order has any merit by misconstruing the 6/30/22 appellate court ruling of the prior action in this dispute where the dismissal with prejudice of Tobin’s 2nd civil claim for these proceeds was affirmed on the grounds of res judicata and privity, bound this court to preclude all Tobin’s claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering). The court decided Tobin has no claims except for the interpleaded funds, had no right to interest or penalties, and that Steven Scow did nothing wrong by withholding her money for 8+years and because he held it in trust so it was harmless error.

Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification

Violation of NCJC 2.6 as grounds for disqualification

I contend that Judge Peterson violated NCJC 2.6 by

  • refusing to conduct the evidentiary hearing that was ordered for 8/18/21,
  • denying my 12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes about the findings in the 9/10/21 and 11/30/21 orders that I allege covered up the criminal actions of my oppoenents vis-a-vis their abuse of the HOA quiet title litigation process to steal from many victims,
  • dismissing my unanswered 3/8/21 claims of Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and my petitions for sanctions vs. Red Rock and Nationstar with prejudice without making my opponents meet their burden of proof
  • exempting my opponents from timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B)) filing a responsive pleading to my claims and granting an untimely, rogue motion to dismiss from a non-party.

Legal authorities supporting the proposition that a judge must allow a party to present evidence to support her case

Fact finding is the “basic responsibility” of trial courts “rather than appellate courts.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291 (1982) (quoting DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449, 450 n.22 (1974)); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123 (1969) (“appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues”).

Myers v. Haskins, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 51, 8-9 (Nev. App. 2022) (“evidentiary hearings are designed with this purpose in mind: to resolve disputed questions of fact. See DCR 13(6) (recognizing that disputed factual points may be resolved at evidentiary hearings); EDCR 5.205(g) (providing that exhibits attached to motions do not constitute substantive evidence unless admitted); cf. Nev. Power Co. v. Fluor III., 108 Nev. 638, 644-45837 P.2d 1354, 1359 (1992) (recognizing that conducting an evidentiary hearing is the only way to properly resolve questions of fact concerning whether to dismiss a party’s suit as a discovery sanction)”)

An evidentiary hearing is required to establish fraud upon the court (NRCP 60(d)(3))

Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, 381 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2012) (“NC–DSH, Inc. v. Garner,125 Nev. 647, 657218 P.3d 853, 860–61 (2009)(providing that “[i]t is only after a proper hearing in which the fraud [upon the court] has been established by clear and convincing evidence that relief can be granted.” (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted));”)

List of filings I made that contained evidence that Judge Peterson refused to admit or consider

The list is long because, I believe, Judge Peterson unfairly refused to allow me to assert my actual claims. She kept insisting that all my claims were precluded and nothing was before her but the question of who the interpleaded funds belonged to.

I say that Steven Scow filed the interpleader action in bad faith, knowing that it was meritless and unwarranted and that neither Plaintiff Red Rock nor non-party Red Rock LLC had standing to either pursue and interpleader action nor oppose the court ordering interpleaded funds being distributed to me with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld for 8+ years.

My claims for Conversion, Fraud, and Racketeering and petitions for sanctions were compulsory counter-claims that should have been granted as unopposed because Red Rock did not file any timely responsive pleading and non-party Red Rck LLC’s motion to dismiss was rogue, untimely, and contained exhibits which the court would have to have considered to make a claims preclusion ruling which would have nessecarily converted it to an MSJ, meaning the factual disputes would have had to have been resolved on a NRCP 56 standard and it could not have been granted as a NRCP 12(b)(5). Further, she refused my motion to amend one time under NRCP 15 for no good reason and didn’t sua spinte move for a more definitive statement if she thought it wasn’t pled to 9(b) standard. She just obviously wanted to be rid of it and me.

3/8/21 unanswered counter- & cross-claims and four requests for judicial notice of the property record, my unadjudicated claims, relevant laws and Sun City Anthem governing documents, and disputed facts in the prior court record (false evidence filed and recorded by my opponents to get the prior courts to bless the theft of my property)

Doc ID# 14 Nona Tobin’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Answer 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

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# 18 Nona Tobin’s Request for Judicial Notice of Relevant Unadjudicated Civil Claims and Administrative Complaints

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 /Subpoena Responses from Discovery in Case A-15-720032-C and Disputed Facts in the Court Record
12/14/21 motion for an evidentiary hearing and replies to Nationstar’s and non-party Red Rock LLC’s opposition and their improper counter-motin for abuse of process and for an unwarranted vexatious litigant restrictive order against me
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# 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# 81 Nona Tobin’s Reply To Nationstar’s And Wells Fargo’s Joinder And Countermotions For Attorney Fees And A Vexatious Litigant Order

12/19/22 motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary action

Doc ID# 103 Tobin Motion for An Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not Be Forwarded To The State Bar of Nevada

Doc ID# 108 Corrected Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Written Findings of Attorney Misconduct Should Not be Forwarded to the State Bar

Doc ID# 102 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaints of Attorney Misconduct filed with the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood

Doc ID# 104 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed with The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Steven Scow

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# 106 Request for Judicial Notice Verified Complaint of Attorney Misconduct Filed With The State Bar of Nevada Vs. Joseph Y. Hong

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.

Legal research question

Is a final judgment order unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition given that appellate courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact ?

Nevada courts generally defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. However, a final judgment order may be unfairly entered if the court does not allow one side to present its opposition, misapplies the law, or makes findings not supported by evidence.

Several of the cases I found emphasize the importance of allowing both sides to present their cases in order to ensure a fair trial. For example, in Milam v. Stealth Holdings, LLC, the court discusses the requirement that parties be “fully heard” on an issue before a district court can grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Similarly, in Solinger v. Solinger, the court reiterates that a district court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly erroneous, and that substantial evidence is required to sustain a judgment. Other cases I found highlight the importance of correctly applying the law in order to avoid an unfair judgment. For example, in Long Valley L. D. Co. v. Hunt, the court held that a judgment must be reversed when the court misapplies a rule of law or erroneously places the burden of proof on the losing party. In KY Invs. NV v. King of Condos, Inc., the court discusses the importance of a district court providing a statement of reasons when granting summary judgment, in order to allow for meaningful appellate review.

Finally, a few cases I found emphasize the deference given to district court findings of fact on appeal. For example, in Pickens v. McCarran Mansion, LLC, the court notes that appellate courts are bound by the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Similarly, in Bonnell v. Lawrence, the court reiterates that the remedy for legal error is by timely motion or appeal, not by independent action for relief from judgment.

My opponents’ first improper attempt for a vexatious litigant restrictive order failed.

January 19, 2022 court hearing

Link to Transcript

First attempt for a vexatious litigant restrictive order was to dstrict the court from having an evidentiary hearing.

My motive for requesting a ruling based on evidence was proper.

In December 2021 I filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing because I had been in litigation since July 2016 and no judge had looked at the evidence yet.

Screenshot of my motion’s introduction shows my good faith intention.

Non-party Red Rock LLC filing an opposition to my motion was improper and outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Red Rock Financial Services LLC is not the Plaintiff, did not file the complaint, did not ever have a contract with Sun City Anthe, did not conduct the disputed forecloure sale, did not legally ever possess the interpleaded funds that Plaintiff Red Rcok was lawfully required to distribute to me as the sole claimant in 2014, but has obstructed giving to me through three court cases for 8+ years.

Screenshot of Red Rock LLC’s motion’s preliminary statement shows irrelevant personal attack and lack of substance.

Note that I brought claims as an individual in the 1st action as well as the trustee of the Hansen Trust. The last line of this scrennshot, that i brought claims solely as a trustee, is one of the big lies that have made this dispute so hard to resolve as that lie is used to preclude my claims from being heard on the merits.

The hearing was scheduled for 1/18/22 to hear my motion for an evidentiary hearing until a counter-motion changed the purpose and the date of the hearing

A hearing was held on January 19, 2022 to decide my motion for an evidentiary hearing to set aside previous orders on the grounds that the orders had been obtained by fraud, false evidence, attorney and judicial misconduct.

A rogue counter-motion made by a non-party, Red Rock Financial Services LLC, to issue a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me was filed, and the date and purpose of the hearing changed so no evidentiary hearing was held (again).

The same date change and the same failure to hold an evidentiary hearing happened for the 8/19/21 hearing that had the date changed inexlicably from 8/18/21 to 8/19/21.

We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case

I am requesting your help to get some investigative assistance, and meaningful access to Nevada’s formal complaint procedures, to address this problem of HOA debt collectors and banks ripping us all off.

Tobin’s 2/14/19 email to investigative reporters & state legislators requesting help

Specifically, the two issues I am raising I also raised in a letter to the R-J “HOAs, foreclosures, and property rights” published on 9/18/16.

1. HOA debt collectors use abusive debt collection practices to foreclose for trivial delinquent assessments, and then unlawfully retain the proceeds of the sales.

2. Banks lie to the court in HOA foreclosure litigation for quiet title so they can foreclose on deeds of trust/mortgages that they don’t actually own.

Can you assist in ensuring that these possibly criminal complaints are addressed by the proper enforcement authorities?

The NV Real Estate Division and CICC Ombudsman should ensure that HOA foreclosures are compliant with state law, but they have failed. Enforcement officials have been cowed, co-opted, or corrupted into being completely ineffective at any enforcement of NRS116, NRS116A, or NAC116, or NAC 116A.

Link to outline of the corruption “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”

This systemic problem can’t be effectively incorporated in my individual civil action, but must be addressed statewide.

This email describes a pattern of unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment that (I have been told) cannot be addressed in the quiet title litigation I have over my late fiance’s house (also described herein) because my case is not a class action.

This fraud is larger than last big HOA corruption case where more than 40 were indicted and four died suspiciously.

This problem involves so much more money than the last HOA corruption scam by Benzar and Nancy Quon manipulating HOA board elections and channeling construction defect cases to themselves that it should not be ignored by authorities.

I need to know how to get the appropriate enforcement agency staff to talk to me personally and to prioritize reviewing the investigative research already done.

The scale of this fraud is astounding, but it is so big because it is one way banks are trying to dodge accountability for creating worthless securities that exist in the aftermath of the 2008 collapse of the mortgage securities market.

A lingering consequence of the market crash

Taxpayers bailed out the banks after the crash. The TARP program made banks virtually whole despite their misdeeds. None of the investment banker perpetrators went to jail for bringing down the world economy.

A new twist

The specific situation here is a new twist on the mortgage servicing fraud, robo-signing problem that led to Nevada’s 2011 anti-foreclosure fraud law AB 284 and the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. Here, the un-indicted co-conspiritors that destroyed the entire housing market a decade ago are trying to cut their losses by getting title to HOA-foreclosed houses even though they don’t actually own the mortgages.

A bank pretends a debt is owed to it. Actually, the debtor’s IOU is to a different bank, perhaps now defunct, and there is no paper trail to the bank making the false claims.

It is very common for houses foreclosed by HOAs – in Nevada and nationwide – to have mortgages/deeds of trust that were securitized out of existence – broken up into synthetic derivatives, collateral debt swaps and tranched instruments, so esoteric and exotic that the ownership of the note is nearly impossible to accurately ascertain.

Any unscrupulous bank can step into the void and anoint itself the owner of a debt that belongs to someone else or belongs no one. And step in, they do!

Banks’ attorneys’ legal sleight of hand – razzle, dazzle ’em!

The banks, and their extremely high paid and competent, albeit ethically-challenged attorneys, have figured out one way to foreclose when they had no legal right to do so and have no legal way of proving who owns the mortgage. Getting quiet title after an HOA foreclosure is one way they pull this magic trick off.

Banks treat owner protections as optional, not mandatory

They (meaning either the banks or the banks’ attorneys on their own initiative, hard to say given all the smoke and mirrors) record false affidavits against the title (banned by AB284 in 2011) claiming that the owner of the home owes it a debt. Further, the bank’s Constitutional protections are abridged if the bank loses the owner’s home as security for a debt owed to someone, but the owner’s property rights and protections against seizure without due process can be abridged with impunity.

Silence means compliance – or acquiescence

Then, probably no one challenges the banks’ claim (the owner that lost the house for a trivial debt is usually either dead or devastated by debt).

The bank then is free to sue the purchaser at the HOA for quiet title. The bank blithely lies to the court, claiming falsely that it holds the debtor’s IOU, i.e., the original note where the debtor promised to pay back the mortgage to the originating lender.

Rabbit out of the hat

The court will probably buy the bank’s story because the documents produced seem very official and incomprehensible.

Brilliant, unscrupulous bank! The fraud is not obvious to the naked eye. A forensic examination is needed to discern it. Further, nobody is around to contradict the bank that’s pretending to be owed a debt.The bank can then foreclose on the property with impunity without ever having to prove that the debt was ever really owed to it.

Meanwhile…nobody knows what escheat means

The HOA debt collectors are rewarded by nobody noticing that they unlawfully keep nearly all of many HOA sale proceeds for years.

No worries.

The bank can’t make a claim for the proceeds if the HOA sale extinguishes the security instrument.

And, it’s really easy for the debt collector block owners who attempt to make a claim for a portion of the proceeds — as has been amply demonstrated iboth n my case and in the Spanish Trail case in the forwarded email below.

The scam works for HOA foreclosures between 2011-2015 before the 2015 law changes.

Who wins when an HOA forecloses on a minuscule debt    – speculators, debt collectors, and fraudulent banks and attorneys

Speculators-in-the-know have bought almost all of Nevada’s HOA foreclosures. These clever guys have gotten huge windfalls by buying HOA liens for pennies on the dollar virtually without competition from bona fide, arms-length purchasers. The vulture investor rents the properties they got free and clear for years while the wrongful foreclosure is litigated.

Why doesn’t the HOA get the profits? Or the HOA membership at large?

Note: the HOA debt collectors unlawfully get approval for these sales from the HOA Boards in secret meetings so the HOA homeowners can’t buy houses in their own HOA by paying a few bucks to cover delinquent dues. These great deals are reserved for speculators. All SCA foreclosures have gone to parties who own multiple HOA foreclosures from two to over 600 house. For example, two Sun City Anthem properties sold in 2014 for under $8,000, and 11 of 12 SCA foreclosures that year sold for under $100,000. I estimate this averages at less than one-third market value.

Due process for the owner takes a back seat to the HOA debt collectors drive to high-profit foreclosure.

Real estate speculators bought HOA liens for delinquent assessments in the thousands after the market crash when the baks wouldn’t protect the properties from deterioration causing whole neighborhoods to be blighted. These cognoscenti bought often, sometimes in bulk, either directly from the HOA debt collector or at some poorly noticed “public” foreclosure sale. See Irma Mendez affidavit regarding Joel Just, former-President of red rock.

Link to one 2012 speculator’s description of how he did it.

Link to UNLV Lied Institute for Real Estate 2017 study , commissioned by Nevada Association of Realtors, documenting 611 HOA foreclosures and the super-priority lien, that shows a cost to the Nevada real estate market exceeding over $1 billion between 2011-2015.

Failure to distribute the proceeds of MANY HOA foreclosures is big bucks for a few financially-conflicted/ ethically challenged HOA debt collectors.

HOA debt collectors win by putting virtually ALL the proceeds of the sales in their attorney trust funds (except the actual delinquent assessments plus interest and late fees (chump change) that go to the HOA.

In my case, RRFS kept $57,282 in “excess” proceeds and paid the HOA $2,701.04 as payment in full. What a deal! Seems like a disproportionate sanction to me, but probably it’s in the bottom quartile of all the David Copperfield RRFS has conjured up to rip off HOA homeowners further after stealing their houses.

See forwarded email of RRFS holding $1.1 million on one HOA sale. I think the HOA got less than 1% of that windfall.

In this Spanish Trails case RRFS has been holding a whopping $1.1 million+ since 2014. One question is “Will the 90- year-old former owner get a fair shake in court to claim those proceeds or will the debt collectors and the banks (and maybe the judge) postpone until the bank wins by default?

What the law says the forecloser has to do with the sale proceeds

NRS 116.31164(3)(c) (2013) requires that the funds be distributed in a certain order – to pay reasonable foreclosure costs, pay the HOA delinquent assessments, then pay off liens, last, pay the owner. The owner only gets something if the sale extinguished the mortgage.

The debt collector’s attorney is not supposed to retain indefinitely the “excess” proceeds. The attorney is supposed to file a complaint in district court called interpleader and SHALL distribute the funds in the manner defined by NRS, but they just pretended to do it.

What happens in real life is the debt collectors just keep the money because they haven’t gotten caught.

It’s almost a state-sanctioned form of embezzlement.

This windfall is potentially in the tens of millions, and there is a pretty small crew of individuals that do this – HOA debt collectors with NRS 649 licenses and attorneys who don’t need a license and so are even less regulated.

If there is no litigation, no one makes a claim for the proceeds.

There is no accounting of the sale proceeds by the HOA. In fact, the HOA has no record even that a property was foreclosed using the HOA’s power of sale or how much the house was sold for or any accounting. The attorneys and debt collectors tell the HOA -WRONGLY – that it is not the HOA’s money so they effectively block any independent accounting of the proceeds.

I haven’t found any interpleader filed for the court to distribute the proceeds of any of the Sun City Anthem foreclosures conducted in SCA’s name by any of SCA debt collectors, but it’s hard to be sure since they withhold, conceal or misrepresent any records they do have.

If there is litigation, like in this Spanish Trail case, it goes on for years,

and 99% of the time the homeowner who lost the house is not in the case. The court fight is usually just between the bank and the buyer at the sale. The attorneys try to keep the HOA out of it except for the HOA homeowners to pay the litigation costs.

A stunning example of why attorney trust funds can’t be trusted

Chapter 7 as an easy way to fraudulently abscond with all the proceeds from many HOA sales held indefinitely in attorney trust funds

The proceeds of these sales can just disappear in a morass of sham LLCs that Nevada is so good at producing while so poor at regulating.

SCA hired Alessi & Koenig, LLC after RRFS was fired.

David Alessi was not licensed to practice law in Nevada but passed himself off as an licensed attorney anyway so A&K didn’t have an NRS 649 debt collection license.

That was the least of their problems

A&K dissolved the LLC, hid its assets, filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and morphed into HOA Lawyers Group. Alessi only admitted in the bankruptcy proceedings as retaining $2.9 million after having conducted at least 800 HOA “public” auctions out of their offices between 2011-2015, 500 of which per David Alessi’s deposition, had named A&K as a party to wrongful foreclosure litigation. They had one racketeering, bid rigging judgment (Melinda Ellis) against them that they skipped on.

Generally, NV HOA Boards are ill-advised by financially conflicted agents who tell the BODs to do the wrong thing. SCA just pays more for it.

Link to the notice about this scam I sent on 1/25/17 that the SCA Board ignored. My reward came when the current SCA attorney/debt collector ordered me to recuse myself from all SCA collection matters after I was elected to the Board and prohibited me from accessing any SCA records without his approval.

The banks are far from blameless. Do not give them a free pass.

The banks are usually cheating as well because they are saying that they own the mortgage when they actually don’t own it any more than I do.

Since it is unlawful for an HOA to foreclose after a bank had issued a notice of default (NRS 116.31162(6), the prime pickings for HOA foreclosures were frequently ones that the bank did not foreclose on for 2-3 years of non-payment. These houses were ripe of HOA foreclosure primarily when the banks couldn’t prove they owned the mortgage after Nevada passed AB 284, its anti-foreclosure fraud law in 2011. So the banks in these HOA foreclosure litigations unfairly get a second bite of the apple

Catch-22 so the owner always loses and the bank wins

In my case, the homeowner died.

The HOA sold the house to a Realtor in the listing office after the bank blocked four legitimate sales of the property.

The bank now claims the HOA sale was valid to get rid of my (the estate’s) property rights, but that the HOA sale was not valid to extinguish the deed of trust the bank is lying about owning.

Obviously, the highest priority to fraudulent banks is to get mortgages on their books that had been securitized out of existence. The proceeds of the HOA sale are second priority.

Two bites of the apple

So the banks in these HOA foreclosure litigations have a chance to get quiet title just by beating the speculator in court so they can foreclose without meeting the stringent stands of AB 284. Obviously it is much more worth it to those kinds of fraudulent banks to get mortgages on their books that had been securitized out of existence than to worry about the proceeds of the HOA sale.

Bottom line: who gets screwed? Easy — The HOAs and the homeowners lose 100% of the time.

The HOAs get nothing from a sale but the few assessment dollars they certainly could have gotten easier if they had taken title by deed in lieu or had offered the property up to their own HOA owners.

How can it be good business judgment to pay collection costs that are orders of magnitude larger than the minuscule debts collected?

Instead of the HOA (or some of its owners) getting the windfall of a house with no mortgage, the homeowners get a big, fat legal bill to pay for the fight between the HOA sale purchaser and the bank for wrongful foreclosure. In SCA’s dozen 2014 foreclosures owners have paid, several hundred thousand bucks in attorney fees, settlements, insurance deductibles, and other costs have accrued to collect because SCA has totally abdicated to the debt collectors and .

How the scam is working even now to screw me out of Bruce’s house

The homeowner, in this case, me, got screwed by losing the house at a surprise sale for a trivial delinquency, 8th amendment anyone?

What idiot would lose a $400,000 house for a $2,000 debt?

I, for one, would easily have corrected a $2,000 delinquency had I thought, in a million years , that the bank – the same bank, mind you, that claimed $389,000 was owed to it — wouldn’t stop the HOA from selling the house for $63,100 when a $358,800 offer from a bona fide purchaser was on the table.

Oh well…current status of my one little stolen house case

There will be a hearing on March 26 on motions for summary judgment. The trial is set for May 28, 2019.

Here is a link to a counter-motion I drafted yesterday that I am sure my attorney will choose not to file after because my draft is focused on the bank’s duplicity and not exclusively on the (considerable) statutory deficiencies of the HOA sale per se.

However, it shows how the banks’ attorneys are trying to use the HOA foreclosure quiet title proceeding to unfairly gain title to a property when its claim to be owed around $400,000 is provably false.

Abusive collection practices tip the scales against owners, especially dead owners

In this case, the debt collector should have stopped the HOA sale when the bank tendered nine months of assessments, the super-priority, but instead, it carried on in secret meetings (of which there are no agendas and no minutes) to get the SCA Board to approve an unnecessary sale without telling me. The debt collectors unlawfully refused the banks’ tender of the super-priority amount twice, and each one should have stopped the HOA sale, but the debt collector never told the Board what it did.

Why don’t more owners sue after losing their expensive house for a trivial debt?

It’s simply a low percentage game.

It has cost me over $30,000 in attorney fees already and trial isn’t until May in this four-year long case. My attorney has been very generous with reducing fees and looking at my work, but most attorneys won’t represent a homeowner because the chance of recovery is so small and the banks’ resources so formidable.

Spanish Trail case – no distribution of $1.1M yet for 90-year-old who lost his house in 2014, but who cares? He’ll be dead soon anyway.

Here’s the minutes of the February 5 hearing in the Spanish Trail case that was continued to March 5. Link to the March 1 minutes of the hearing that inexplicably occurred on March 1 and not March 5.

How this tome started: Forwarded email about Spanish Trail case shows how easy it is to steal when nobody is looking.

The email I am forwarding was my attempt to articulate the nuances of this scam to my attorney which he probably didn’t read. I don’t think he charges me for reading my long descriptions of the systemic deficits and scams because he is already not billing me for all the time it takes just to deal with trying to get quiet title to Bruce’s house,

Bank attorney boilerplate strategy doesn’t mean their fees are less

For the benefit of any potential investigator, the email below demonstrates the exact same legal sleight of hand used in the Spanish Trail case will be used to try to crush me later this month.

  1. Volunteer SCA Board violated their own CC&RS and sanctioned this owner by authorizing foreclosure in secret on the advice of counsel.
  2. HOA managers/debt collectors/attorneys usurp the HOA power to foreclose for their own unjust enrichment.
  3. Once the foreclosure is over, the attorney tells the HOA Board it’s not the association’s problem; it’s between the buyer and the bank.

All proceeds of HOA sales must be accounted for by SCA, but the SCA Board has been told that once the account goes to the debt collector it’s not their problem.

Attorneys Koch & Scow have held the sale proceeds for four years in both this Spanish Trail case and 2763 without filing for interpleader

….probably collecting the interest, not filing interpleader, and keeping what nobody notices. This is much more money, RRFS kept $1,168,865 is excess proceeds after the 11/10/14 sale.

It looks just like the RRFS trust fund check to the court for $57,282 excess proceeds check from excess proceeds after the 8/15/14 sale that Koch & Scow never filed for interpleader. When I attempted to make a claim for those funds in September 2014, I was rebuffed.

the 2/5/19 Spanish trail hearing is about proceeds from 11/10/14 sale

The owner, not in the case, gets the proceeds if the sale extinguished the loan

Here are the minutes of a 2/5/19 hearing where attorney Akin (not on efile list) was waiting for outcome so his 90-year-old client (former owner?) could see about the excess proceeds. Continued to 3/5/19. Will Akerman attorney even go to interpleader or will she let the old owner have it?

Ackerman got Spanish trail sale to be valid, but sale did not extinguish loan

Order granting MSJ to the bank 12/5/18

But the court finds that the HOA could only foreclose on the sub-priority portion of the lien This is what Ackerman is trying to do in the 2763 case, only representing a different bank.

Ackerman may be a front for bank fraud like attorneys for the mob

Ackerman got quiet title for Thornberg, the bank who I suspect is fraudulent and claims to have gotten the beneficial ownership from MERS. This is like 2763 DOT. I say this because in 10/1/11, Nevada legislature passed AB 284 which made it a felony for to banks to use robo-signers to execute notarized false assignments of mortgages.

In this case, the owner defaulted in 2011 on the DOT and the HOA filed a NODES in late-2011, why didn’t the bank foreclose for over three years until the HOA sold it in late-2014?

Bank MSJ: Foreclosure only sub-priority piece is valid

The Ackerman MSJ is what they will be arguing about 2763. Bank made super-priority tender. It was refused. Sale did not extinguish the loan because HOA only foreclosed on sub-priority portion. Argues that it doesn’t matter if Saticoy is a bona fide purchaser. Shadow Wood applies as sale was commercially unreasonable and unfair.

Banks were the proximate cause of the delinquency by blocking sales and refusing title by deed in lieu

The fact that both banks tendered the super-priority amount is supported by the RRFS/SCA disclosures, and it is a strong reason well briefed by Ackerman for protecting the DOT, so we have to show that because BANA and Nationstar were provably engaged in mortgage fraud, they were complicit in preventing the estate from paying the assessments by BANA’s refusing to close two escrows out of which the HUD-1s show the assessments would have been paid, and by Nationstar’s refusing to close two escrows from bona fide CASH purchasers at market value and not responding to the

$375,000 offer i signed on 8/1/14.

HOA OPPC to bank MSJ

John Leach was SCA’s attorney until 2017 when Clarkson took over. His OPPC shows the same attitude SCA has showed to me.

The HOA doesn’t belong in the case. RRFS did everything right

The fight is rightly just between the bank and purchaser in possession The owner is just a loser, not the HOA’s problem

The SCA Board violated its duty to the homeowners by abdicating to self-serving agents

Here’s where our case has to differentiate itself. We have to hold the HOA Board accountable for letting the debt collector/manager/attorney use the HOA power to foreclose to screw the HOA and ALL the owners. Doing collections and foreclosures in secret keeps the chance of compliance low, keeps neighbors from helping a neighbor in trouble, or an out of state executor that doesn’t get proper notice from knowing what to do. Not publishing that a house is going to be foreclosed to the owners prevents any owner from bidding.

The Board can’t wash its hands. It’s wrong for them to blindly listen only to RRFS without having to listen to the owner. FSR/RRFS set the owner up to get the property into foreclosure for way more ways to make money than just charging usurious fees.

Undisputed facts about how SCA Board did as they were told (by debt collector) but it was wrong

The volunteer Directors have been tricked by self-serving agents into doing what the agents say they HAVE TO DO.

In this case, the Board was handling collections and foreclosures such that it made money for the agents, but were actually against the law or SCA governing docs: Here is a link to emails where the former Board President told me how the Board handled foreclosures in 2014 – all in closed BOD meetings under RRFS control.

  1. Give complete control over collections to the manager/debt collector of accounting with no checks and balances or any need to ever hear from the owner affected.
  2. Keep everything strictly confidential and
  3. trust that the manager and debt collector are doing it right
  4. Allow the manager to report after an account was sent to collections and never check what fees were charged or what the circumstances might be, like the owner died and it was in escrow
  5. assume that since the debt collector said they gave a notice and no owner ever filed an appeal, that everything is fine
  6. Make all decisions in executive session without specifying the name of the party or the proposed sanction
  7. Do not publish the quarterly delinquency report required by the bylaws even though that’s how delinquent taxes are publicly reported
  8. Adopt a fee schedule but do not give it to the homeowner who is subjected to them and don’t audit anything that RRFS charges to see if it’s right
  9. Listen only to the debt collector and never tell the owner when decisions are being made to sanction them
  10. Do not put specifically on the agenda or give the owner any requested minutes from BOD meetings in executive session where actions about the owner were decided:
    1. when the debt collector said that the owner requested a waiver of $459 and the owner was not permitted to be present why the debt collector said that the BOD could only waive assessments, late fees and interest, but could not waive the collection fees
    2. when a pay plan was offered, considered or rejected
    3. when it decided to post the property for sale, or
    4. when the BOD was asked to postpone or cancel the sale, or
    5. was told what the date of the sale was to be, or
    6. was told that the foreclosure occurred ·    the BOD discussed the owner’s delinquency and possible sanctions,
    7. when the BOD was told of the possible alternatives to aggressive collections, such as a deed in lieu, wait to collect out of escrow without charging or unnecessary collection charges, small claims, accept the bank’s tender of the super-priority and restart the clock on what the owner owes,
    8. Adopt a policy and procedure that defines how the governing documents will be enforced providing specific due process steps, but carve out an exception for predatory collections and foreclosure, the harshest of all penalties, and do that in secret, don’t tell the owner that you did it, make any appeal without litigation impossible and then treat the owner like a criminal if she tries to get the stolen house back.

Legal theory for the Board’s authority and why it can’t be delegated or agents be unsupervised.

  1. The Association exists to protect the owners’ common good.
  2. The Association is not the Board; it is the membership at large.
  3. The Board has the sole power to act.
  4. Agents can advise, not direct.
  5. Board’s fiduciary duty is act solely and exclusively for the association’s, i.e., all owners’ benefit. The Board owes no duty to its agents.
  6. The agents have no rights, only duties, to the Association, i.e., agents have fiduciary duty to protect the due process rights of the owners.

Our case is unique in arguing violations of due process guaranteed by NRS 116.31031 and NRS 116.31085, SCA CC&Rs 7.4.

This is not the way the agents act and it’s not the way they have trained the Board to act, but it’s the way the law and the governing documents say it is.

  1. The BOD has authority to maintain the common areas and other services funded by assessments.
  2. The Board has the authority to determine the amount of the assessments needed to cover the maintenance and protection of the common areas.
  3. The HOA is a mutual benefit, non-profit entity which exists solely for the purpose of maintaining the property values and quality of life in the community.
  4. The directors, attorneys and managing agents are all fiduciaries by law and they must act in good faith in a manner which is solely and exclusively in the best interest of the association and use good business judgment.
  5. The Board has the sole responsibility for adopting an annual budget to fund maintaining the common areas and programs and activities to support the community life.
  6. SCA bylaws 3.18a,b,e,f,g,i /3.20 prohibit the Board from delegating and abdicating control over any of SCA’s money: budgeting, levying and collecting assessments, setting up the bank accounts where the money collected goes, controlling the signatories, setting up the use rules and restrictions and enforcing them
  7. The Board is the sole authority on the enforcement of the governing documents.
  8. While managing agents and attorneys can advise and implement, the Board alone is the decider.
  9. NRS 116 and NRS 116A (for managing agents) has provisions which specifically define the authority and limits constraining the Board before it can sanction owners for alleged violations
  10. See the Table of Authorities.