Tag: fraud

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, 644-45, 837 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, 657, 218 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.

Nevada quiet title case law supports voiding the sale of 2763 White Sage

Jimijack & Nationstar did not meet their burden of proof

(“We first hold that each party in a quiet title action has the burden of demonstrating superior title in himself or herself.”)

Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154, 156 (Nev. 2019) 

Facts

  1. Jimijack did not have an admissible deed.
  2. Nationstar was never the beneficial owner of the Hansen 7/22/04 deed of trust.

The foreclosure sale was void and could not remove Tobin’s title rights

A foreclosure sale generally terminates a party’s legal title to the property. See Bldg. Energetix Corp. v. EHE, LP,129 Nev. 78, 86, 294 P.3d 1228, 1234 (2013) ; Charmicor, Inc. v. Bradshaw Fin. Co.,92 Nev. 310, 313, 550 P.2d 413, 415 (1976). This general rule is subject to certain limited exceptions, such as where the sale is void. See Energetix , 129 Nev. at 86, 294 P.3d at 1234 (noting that a lack of substantial compliance with the relevant statutes and a lack of proper notice are exceptions to the general rule); see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 134 Nev. ––––, ––––, 427 P.3d 113, 121 (2018), as amended on denial of reh’g (2018) (holding that a foreclosure sale on a lien is void where that lien has been satisfied prior to the sale “as the lien is no longer in default”); Henke v. First S. Props., Inc.,586 S.W.2d 617, 619-20 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979) (concluding that the payment of past-due installments cured a loan’s default such that the subsequent foreclosure on the property was void); 1 Grant S. Nelson, Dale A. Whitman, Ann M. Burkhart & R. Wilson Freyermuth, Real Estate Finance Law § 7:21 (6th ed. 2014) (noting that a trustee’s sale is void where there is no authorization to foreclose, and that there is no authorization to foreclose when the loan is not in default). To complete a valid foreclosure sale for unpaid assessments in Nevada, a UOA must comply with the provisions set forth in NRS Chapter 116. Relevant to the present case, the UOA must mail and record a notice of delinquent assessment, NRS 116.31162(1)(a), “a notice of default and election to sell,” NRS 116.31162(1)(b), and a notice of foreclosure sale, NRS 116.311635(1)(a).

Res. Grp., LLC v. Nev. Ass’n Servs., Inc., 437 P.3d 154, 158 (Nev. 2019)

Facts: the sale was not authorized as noncompliant with statutes

  1. The sale was not authorized by valid corporate action of the HOA Board as defined by NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.3102 and in SCA bylaws 3.15.
  2. The sale did not comply with the statutes governing HOA foreclosures in NRS 116.31162- NRS 116.31168 (2013).
  3. The sale did not comply with the notice and due process requirements that constrain actions of the HOA Board when it is imposing sanctions for alleged violations of the governing documents, including the alleged violation of delinquent assessments, found in NRS 116.31031, Sun City Anthem CC&Rs 7.4, SCA bylaws 3.26, and NRS 116.31085 and SCA bylaws 3.15A.
  4. Red Rock usurped the authority of the HOA Board by imposing unauthorized fines, fees and charges disregarding NRS 116A.640(8)(9) & (10), NRS 116.31015.

The sale was conducted after the default was cured three times

  1. Check 143, regardless of when or how it was credited paid the $275 quarterly installment of assessments for the period of 7/1/12 to 9/30/12.
  2. Miles Bauer tender of $825 on 5/8/13, would have paid the total delinquent assessments due for the period of 10/1/12 -6/30/13 but for being unlawfully and covertly rejected by Red Rock.
  3. Nationstar negotiator’s offer to the HOA on 5/28/14 of one year ($1,100) assessments to close the escrow on the 5/8/14 $367,500 auction.com sale cured the super-priority of the default, but for Red Rock’s unlawfully and covertly characterizing Nationstar’s offer to the HOA Board as an owner request for waiver. Red Rock falsified the foreclosure file to conceal its misdeeds, and Nationstar aided and abetted Red Rock’s fraud in order to perpetuate a fraud of its own, i.e., to allow the HOA sale to proceed without notice, disregard the restrictions of the PUD Rider Remedies (F), then record a false claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest, file a false quiet title action against a party with no adverse claim, then falsely claim the HOA sale was unfair to Nationstar because of the rejection of the Miles Bauer tender, but was fair to take away the title rights of the owner. and when the plot was u covered by the owner, claim that Tobin had no rights to assert a quiet title claim.

Case Detail: A-21-828840-C Nona Tobin vs. banks, debt collectors & attorneys

Links to PDFs of case file

  1. 2/16/21 summons Tobin served Red Rock interpleader complaint
  2. 2/17/21 AOS affidavit of service
  3. 3/8/21 Tobin AACC vs. Red Rock, Nationstar and Wells Fargo
  4. 3/15/21 RFJN request judicial notice of property record identifying recorded false claims to title
  5. 3/22/21 TPC third party complaint (not yet served) vs. attorneys for abuse of process, racketeering, fraud, civil conspiracy and prayer for declaratory relief, restitution, punitive damages, and sanctions
  6. 4/4/21 RFJN unadjudicated claims by Tobin and Nationstar
  7. 4/7/21 RFJN relevant laws and regs
  8. 4/9/21 RFJN false evidence in the court record
  9. 4/9/21 ANSC Nationstar’s answer to Red Rock’s interpleader
  10. 4/12/21 Tobin MTD Motion to distribute (returned)
  11. 4/14/21 CNND CLERK’s notice that 4/12 MTD returned as failed to request a hearing
  12. 4/15/21 MSJ Tobin Motion for summary judgment
  13. 4/15/21 CONFILE Tobin 4/12/21 motion to distribute corrected re-filed
  14. 4/16/21 CNNDCA clerks’ notice of curative action to nonconforming document  
  15. 4/16/21 MDSM Red Rock motion to dismiss Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC per NRCP 12(5), claims preclusion, failure to state a claim, failure to plead fraud and racketeering with particularity
  16. 4/16/21 CNOH CLERK’s notice of hearing Tobin motion for an order to distribute on 5/18/21
  17. 4/16/21 CNOH CLERK’s notice of hearing Tobin MSJ
  18. 4/16/21 CNOH CLERK’s notice of hearing Red Rock motion to dismiss

Back story of this David vs. Goliath fight

“How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen? ”
How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen? was first published on 10/9/20 when Nona started trying (unsuccessfully) to use technology to level the playing field by naming and shaming.

“What happened after Sun City Anthem refused Nona’s 2017 offer to settle?”

“What happened after Sun City Anthem refused Nona’s 2017 offer to settle?” was published on 11/9/20 after Nona was subjected to four years of unwarranted, financially draining, and emotionally taxing litigation.

“The house that took over a life”

The house that took over a life
“The house that took over a life” was first published on SCAStrong.com on 1/14/18. Things have gotten considerably worse after three more years of grueling litigation.

Case Detail A-21-828840-C as of 4/10/21

Register of Actions as of 4/10/21 includes Red Rock’s complaint served on five defendants on 2/16/21; Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 answer and counterclaim and crossclaim; four Tobin requests for judicial notice. On 4/9/21 Melanie Morgan filed an untimely answer for both Nationstar and Wells Fargo, but filed no counter-claims against Red Rock. Morgan did not answer Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 cross-claim against her clients.
The instant case: Red Rock Financial Services filed an unwarranted interpleader complaint after unlawfully retaining the proceeds of the disputed HOA sale for over six years.
Red Rock did not face any liability, let alone liability for an amount that exceeded the proceeds unlawfully retained. Red Rock filed this complaint for the improper purpose of obstructing justice, i.e., trying to moot appeal case 82294 and to cover up the unlawful failure to distribute the proceeds of the sale in 2014 as mandated by statute. Five defendants were named when only one, Nona Tobin as an individual, has a current recorded claim for the undistributed proceeds.
2013 Nevada law governing the distribution of proceeds after an HOA foreclosure sale was NRS 116.31164(3)
NRS-116.31164-3-2013. Red Rock and/or Steven Scow unlawfully retained the proceeds for over six years from this and many other foreclosures. There is nothing in Nevada law that allows Red Rock to collect attorney fees or costs for filing interpleader. There are also provisions in the HOA bylaws that prohibit any funds collected on behalf of Sun City Anthem from being under the proprietary control of anyone other than the HOA Board of Directors. Steven Scow’s retention of proceeds after being instructed by Red Rock in 2014 to interplead them should be investigated as possible attorney trust fund violations.
Red Rock asked Steven Scow to interplead the proceeds in 2014
Steven Scow for Red Rock’s interpleader prayer for relief
Red Rock’s interpleader prayer for relief is duplicitous as Red Rock conducted a fraudulent sale, and with no legal authority, Steven Scow and/or Red Rock kept virtually all the money for years.
2/3/21 Red Rock’s Complaint has 1 cause of action: interpleader
2/16/21 Red Rock Complaint was served on 5 defendants
2/17/21 Republic Services filed a disclaimer of interest within 24 hours of service

2/17/21 Republic Services Disclaimer of Interest

Within 24 hours of service on Republic Services’ commercial agent in Carson City, an attorney in Las Vegas filed a Republic Services’ disclaimer of interest. According to the statute, Red Rock was required to distribute the sale proceeds to junior lien holders in 2014. Red Rock did not distribute the proceeds and so the three-year statute of limitations on statutory liens, Republic Services had already released its two liens in 2017. Given how very, very many times Red Rock has pulled this stunt, one would think Republic Services would have at least a little reluctant to disclaiming interest.

Nona Tobin’s answer, affirmative defenses, counter-claims and cross-claims

No defendant timely answered Red Rock or filed any counter-claims or cross-claims except Nona Tobin as an individual

3/8/21 Nona Tobin’s answer, affirmative defenses, counter-claim vs. Red Rock and cross-claims against Nationstar and Wells Fargo
Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 counter-claim against Red Rock has five causes of action: 1) distribution of the proceeds to Tobin plus interest & penalties; 2) unjust enrichment/conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter ego -piercing the corporate veil; 5) Racketeering.

Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 cross-claim against Nationstar and Wells Fargo includes three causes of action: 1) Racketeering, 2) Unjust enrichment/conversion; and 3) Fraud.

As of 4/11/21, no counter-defendant nor cross-defendant has filed a responsive pleading to refute Tobin’s claims against them.

Counter-claimant and cross-claimant Nona Tobin’s Prayer for relief

COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN repeats, realleges, and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations hereinabove inclusively as though set forth at length and in full herein. 

This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct. (Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).

COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:

  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title;
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005.
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales;
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds;
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association;
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3):
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; 
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 motion to dismiss, knowing that all these filings contained many misrepresentations of material facts for which there was no factual support or evidence,  defied NRCP 11 (b)(3), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
  10. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its misappropriation of funds, covert rejection of assessments, falsification of records that allowed the unjust enrichment of undisclosed partners and co-conspirators;
  11. that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages for the fraudulent confiscation of the subject property, valued on 12/27/19 at $505,000 property pursuant to NRS 207.470(1) as RRFS’s actions on the dozen 2014 unnoticed foreclosures constitute racketeering;
  12. that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) vs. RRFS for its filing the improper interpleader action with penalties as all other named defendants’ liens have been released and Nationstar mortgage is judicially estopped from claiming it ever was the beneficial owner of the Hansen deed of trust;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345;
  15. that the Joel Stokes-Civic Financial Services “agreement”, recorded on 5/23/19, and misrepresented to Judge Kishner on 5/21/19 as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement was fraud on the court and sanctionable conduct pursuant to ;
  16. that sanctions are appropriate vs. Nationstar and its Akerman attorneys pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) (misrepresentations in court filings), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
  17.  To declare that Joel Stokes’ deed, recorded on 5/1/19, was void as Jimijack had no interest to convey and that this transfer prior to the 6/5/19 trial was for the corrupt purpose of deceiving the court into allowing Joel Stokes and Nationstar to perpetrate a fraud on the court;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480;
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and
  22. that attorneys pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(3) and/or NRS 18.010(2)

Exhibits to Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 counter-claims and cross-claims

  1. APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all opposing parties
  2. the sale was void for rejection of assessments.
  3. The alleged default was cured three times,
  4. SCA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action
  5. Required notices were not provided, but records were falsified to cover it up
  6. SCA Board imposed ultimate sanction with NO due process 
  7. Neither BANA nor NSM ever owned the disputed DOT
  8. Examples of RRFS corrupt business practices
  9. Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal
  10. the proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. RRFS’s fraud, oppression & unfairness
  12. attorney interference in the administration of justice
  13. lack of professional ethics and good faith
  14. Presented false evidence to cover up crime
  15. Civil Conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages
  16. Republic Services lien releases
  17. Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. RELEVANT HOA GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROVISIONS
  20. Administrative Complaints related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  21. Nevada court cases related to the APN 191-13-811-052 title dispute
  22. Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

Nona Tobin’s 3rd party complaint against six attorneys was filed on 3/22/21 but has not yet been served, and they have not yet waived service.

3/22/19 Nona Tobin’s third-party complaint
Four causes of action and claims for relief, damages and sanctions were filed against attorneys as individuals rather than against their clients. The causes of action were 1) abuse of process; 2) Fraud; 3) Civil Conspiracy; 4) Racketeering.

Nona Tobin’s 3rd party complaint prayer for relief

  1. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants engaged in abuse of the HOA quiet title civil litigation process to steal Nona Tobin’s property;
  2. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants acted alone and/or in concerted action and/or in civil conspiracy to misrepresent material facts to the court in order to defraud the court and to steal Nona Tobin’s property;
  3. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants knew, or had reasonable cause to know that their actions violated many Nevada laws and that their actions would cause damage to innocent persons;
  4. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants concealed the unethical and/or criminal actions of co-conspirators and others;
  5. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s nor its successor trustee’s rights to title;
  6. that Plaintiff is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale;
  7. that Plaintiff’s 3/28/17 deed as an individual is valid  and superior to the Jimijack’s defective, inadmissible 6/9/15 deed and the 5/1/19 deed of Jimijack’s successor Joel Stokes; that Plaintiff is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  8. that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false;
  9. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of all prior litigation and appeals, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and
  10. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants, attorneys as well as the principals, in all related litigation pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as well as exemplary and punitive damages to the maximum allowed by NRS 42.005;
  11. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants, attorneys as well as the principals, in all related litigation pay restitution and punitive damages for their RACKETEERING  pursuant to NRS 207.360(9)(18)(29)(30)(35); NRS 207.390, NRS 207.400(1)(2) and FRAUD pursuant to  NRS 205.330, NRS 205.360, NRS 205.372, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.395, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175, and/or for their aiding and abetting said unlawful RICO acts;
  12. that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants, attorneys as well as the principals, pay EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO NRS 42.005 and NRS 207.470(1)&(4).
  13. that the Court provide findings of fact to the Nevada Bar Counsel for the Ethics & Disciplinary Panel to impose appropriate attorney sanctions as the court may find are justified given their misconduct pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1-4); NRPC 3.1, 3.3, 3.4,3.5(b), 4.1, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 8.3, 8.4.

Nona Tobin’s Requests for judicial notice

3/15/21 RFJN Clark County official property records for APN 191-13-811-052

Instrument
number		Record
date		Document type
description
2021021200015492/12/21DEED of trust 12/28/20 quicken LLC $355,320 loan 2 Chiesi
2021020500004202/5/21Substitution/reconveyance of quicken INC 12/27/19 $353,500 loan to switch 2 12/28/20 $355,320 dot quicken LLC 2 Chiesi
20201204000109712/4/20Order to expunge 8/8/19 LISP, 8/14/19 LISP & 8/14/19 LISP Tobin LIS pendens and to dismiss Tobin’s claims with prejudice recorded by quicken attorney maurice wood while appeals 82094, 82234, 82294 and 79295 are pending.
2020020600001992/6/20reconveyance of Joel Stokes’s $355,000 5/23/19 dot that masqueraded as Nationstar-Jimijack deal.

5/21/19 transcript Nationstar-Jimijack settlement docs status check.

T Dixon v-p 1st American Title executed reconveyance 2/5/20, > 1 month after quicken recorded 12/27/19 $353,500 loan 2 Chiesi and Driggs title allegedly insured the Chiesi title.
2020020600001982/6/20Substitution of trustee on Joel Stokes 5/23/19 $355,000 dot.

2/4/20 Tyson Christensen, v-p of fay servicing as if Morgan Stanley’s attorney in fact.

No recorded power of attorney.
20191227000134612/27/19DEED of trust 12/26/19 $353,500 quicken loans INC 2 Brian & Debora Chiesi
20191227000134512/27/19DEED grant, sale bargain (not quit claim) Joel Stokes, an individual, alleged he had a valid title to transfer to Brian & Debora Chiesi.
Joel Stokes did not have a valid title as Jimijack had no valid title to transfer to Joel Stokes on 5/1/19.

Driggs title agency, INC. 7900 w sahara #100 lv 89117-7920.
Escrow #19-11-120779jh
DECLaration of value
20191227000134412/27/19DEED Sandra 2 Joel Stokes, as spouses, not as Jimijack trustees.
Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack transferred Jimijack’s defective title to Joel Stokes, as an individual, on 5/1/19,


RPTT exemption 5
20191203000315212/3/19On 12/3/19 Hong recorded notice of 11/22/19 a-15-720032-c order that erroneously expunged Tobin 8/8/14 LIS pendens re a-19-799890-c 8/7/19 complaint and 7/23/19 appeal and 7/24/19 appeal into 79295

8/8/19 sca motion to strike Tobin’s pro se 8/7/19 nolp was granted on 9/3/19 rtran, but sua sponte 11/22/19 order was wrongly written to both expunge 8/8/19 LISP (outside judge kishner’s jurisdiction) and to strike 8/7/19 nolp from the a-15-720032-c court record 11/22/19 order, recorded 12/3/19, was unappealable per order 20-13346 wherein the nv supreme court claimed 11/22/19 order was outside its jurisdiction.

9/10/19 nv supreme court order 19-37846 denied Nona Tobin all rights to appeal any decision made by judge kishner.
2019081400030848/14/19LIS pendens Tobin recorded 39 pages with a-19-799890-c complaint attached.
On 8/13/19 Tobin filed nolp into a-19-799890-c
2019081400030838/14/19LIS pendens related to Tobin/Hansen trust appeals 79295 7 pages plus receipt for recording both 8/14/19 LIS pendens
2019080800020978/8/19LIS pendens (7 pages) related to 7/23/19 Hansen trust appeal & 7/24/19 appeals & 8/7/19 a-19-799890-c
2019072400033557/24/19Judgment Hong recorded 6/24/19 order vs GBH trust on 7/24/19 after he received notice of two appeals filed on 7/23/19 and 7/24/19.

6/24/19 order expunged 56/19 LIS pendens which related to the claims of both Nona Tobin, an individual, and the Hansen trust , but Nona Tobin, an individual, ws excluded from the trial and removed as a party unfairly due to the misrepresentations joseph Hong made to judge kishner at a 4/23/19 hearing held ex parte due to Hong serving notice that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19.
2019071700029717/17/19Assignment Stokes 5/23/19 dot 2 morgan stanley
No proper purpose, but served to cloud the title and attempted to cover the dirty money trail.
2019071000023527/10/19Akerman recorded (cover sheet) release of Nationstar’s 1/13/16 LISP re NSM vs op homes (ROLP page 2). Akerman did not serve any notice of the release into a-16-730078-c where my 4/24/19 motion to vacate the HOA’s MSJ and NSM’s joinder (per NRCP 60(b)(3) fraud) and motion for summary judgment vs all parties was still unheard.
2019060400007726/4/19Assignment of Joel Stokes DEED of trust had no proper purpose, but served to cloud the title and attempted to cover the dirty money trail.
2019060300015996/3/19substitution/ reconveyance release of LIEN of Hansen DEED of trust to Joel Stokes
2019052800028435/28/19LIS pendens release of Nationstar’s LIS pendens by Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack
2019052300035315/23/19DEED of trust Joel Stokes-$355,000 DEED of trust from civic financial services
2019050600010225/6/19LIS pendens Hansen trust/Tobin
2019050100033485/1/19DEED Joel a. Stokes & Sandra f. Stokes, as trustees of Jimijack irrevocable trust to Joel a. Stokes, individual.

The Joel Stokes’ DEED was recorded five weeks before the 6/5/19 trial.

The 6/6/19 trial allegedly adjudicated GBHt trustee Nona Tobin’s 2/1/17 counterclaim vs Jimijack for quiet title & equitable relief, fraudulent reconveyance (Jimijack’s DEED was inadmissible per NRS 111.345), unjust enrichment (collecting rent from 9/25/14, not 6/9/15 as Jimijack DEED claimed, after a fraudulent sale), civil conspiracy (bid suppression, selective notice of sale to speculators) and preliminary/permanent injunctions (prevent sale or transfer during pendency of proceedings).

The 6/6/19 trial also allegedly adjudicated 2/1/17 cross claim vs. Yuen k. Lee dba f. Bondurant LLC.

Jimijack did not have an admisible DEED.

No Jimijack irrevocable trust instrument was ever disclosed so there is no reason to believe there was any legal authority for trustees to revoke a title from an irrevocable trust and put it in the name of Joel a. Stokes, one of the trustees.
2019030800027903/8/19Assignment Wells Fargo 2 Nationstar by Nationstar
Mohamed Hameed executed as v-p of Wells Fargo
On 3/12/19, two weeks after the end of discovery, akerman disclosed the rescission as NSM 409-NSM 411.
2019030800027893/8/193/8/19 NSM rescinded the 12/1/14 assignment of the Hansen DEED of trust from Bank of American 2 NSM by NSM.
Mohamed Hameed executed it as v-p of Bank of American.
No recorded power of attorney
On 3/12/19, two weeks after the end of discovery, Akerman disclosed the rescission as NSM 412-NSM 413
2017033100030733/31/17Interest disclaimer lee/f bondurant filed 3/8/17 NSM 222-227
2017033100030723/31/17Interest disclaimer Lucas/ophomes filed 3/8/17 NSM 218-211
2017033100030713/31/17Interest disclaimer steve Hansen filed 3/28/17 NSM 212-217
2017033000038603/30/17Republic services released its 2nd garbage LIEN recorded 5/6/14 concealed by rrfs & NSM
2017033000038593/30/17Republic services released its 1st garbage LIEN recorded 9/23/13
2017032800014523/28/17DEED Gordon b Hansen trust, dated 8/22/08, 2 Nona Tobin, individual, NSM 208-211
2016060700014506/7/16LIS pendens re NSM 6/2/16 aacc vs Jimijack NSM 203-207
2016052300014175/23/16Request notice by Tobin 4 Hansen trust not disclosed by NSM
2016052300014165/23/16Certificate of INCumbency Nona Tobin 4 Hansen trust
2016011300010511/13/16LIS pendens re 1/11/16 complaint Nationstar vs opportunity homes
20151201000340212/1/15Judgment of default vs Bank of American 10/23/15 JDDF.

No notice of entry of the default judgment was served.

Instead, Joseph Hong recorded the 10/23/15 unnoticed default judgment.

Joseph Hong who knew, or should have known, that NRS 40.110 “Court to hear case; must not enter judgment by default”
“the court shall proceed to hear the case as in other cases and shall have jurisdiction to examine into and determine the legality of plaintiff’s title and of the title and claim of all the defendants and of all unknown persons, and to that end must not enter any judgment by default, but must in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and possession and receive such legal evidence as may be offered respecting the claims and title of any of the defendants and must thereafter direct judgment to be entered in accordance with the evidence and the law.”

Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust did not have an admissible DEED per NRS 111.345 and therefore had no standing to assert a quiet title claim against any lender.

Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that two other lenders, Wells Fargo (9/9/14) and Nationstar (12/1/14), held recorded claims to be the beneficiaries of the 7/22/04 Hansen DEED of trust as Bank of America’s sole successor-in-interest.

Joseph Hong knew that had the court held an evidentiary hearing, it would have been detected that Bank of America did not hold any recorded claim to the Hansen DEED of trust after 9/9/14 and that Hong’s naming BANA as a defendant was for the corrupt purpose of getting a default by a lender who had no claim.

Nationstar NSM 192-194, but NSM denied knowing in 1/22/15 req notice, 4/12/15 AFFD, 4/12/16 mot
2015081700010568/17/15Substitution of trustee Joan H. Anderson to NSM co-conspirator American Trustee Servicing Solutions by Nationstar, claiming without legal authority to be “attorney-in-fact” for Wells Fargo.
No recorded Power of Attorney.
Nationstar disclosed as NSM 270-272 is an unrecorded, inapplicable Wells Fargo Power of Attorney. Contradicted by NSM 6/3/19 sub/reconvey.
2015060900015456/9/15DEED F. Bondurant LLC to Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust
Inadmissible per NRS 111.345.

1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary violations and exhibits re notary CluAynne M. Corwin’s involvement with several other questionable subsequent transfers of HOA foreclosures involving Joseph Hong, Joel Stokes, Pam at Linear Title, and Peter Mortenson

No legal capacity to transfer title to Jimijack as notary CluAynne M. Corwin “witnessed” Yuen K. Lee’s signature but used her notary stamp to affirm that Thomas Lucas, manager of Opportunity Homes
No notary record that CluAynne M. Corwin witnessed any deed executed on 6/8/15.
No purchase agreement was disclosed to show how, when, from whom or for how much Joel and Sandra Stokes acquired the property.
NRS 240.120, NRS 240.155, NRS 240.075 violations.
Incompetent acknowledgment per NRS 111.125.

Jimijack had no DEED with legal capacity to hold or transfer title, but transferred to Joel Stokes, an individual on 5/1/19.
Jimijack’s defective deed was disclosed as NSM 189-191. Nationstar knew that the two deeds recorded on 6/9/15 alleged title claims that replaced Opportunity Homes LLC as an interested party.

For unknown reasons, Nationstar chose not to name either F. Bondurant LLC or Jimijack, who both had recorded deeds on 6/9/15, when Nationstar sued disinterested Opportunity Homes in its 1/11/16 complaint in A-16-730078-C.

Nationstar voluntarily dismissed its 1/11/16 claims against Opportunity Homes and its non-existent claims vs. F. Bondurant LLC by a stipulation and order entered on 2/20/19. Neither evidence nor trial were required to prevail.

Nationstar never produced any evidence to support its filed claims against Jimijack and was excused from the 6/6/19 trial at the 4/25/19 pre-trial conference after Nationstar withdrew its 3/21/19 motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack.

Nationstar’s claims against Jimijack were dismissed by stipulation and order entered on 5/31/19.
Again, neither evidence nor trial were required to prevail.
2015060900015376/9/15DEED, from Opportunity Homes to F. Bondurant LLC, a sham entity controlled by Joseph Hong, was executed on 6/4/19, and witnessed by Joseph Hong’s employee, Debra Batsel.

Batesel witnessed at the same time Thomas Lucas and some unknown party execute a purchase agreement to transfer title from Opportunity Homes.

Joseph Hong did not participate in discovery and entered no evidence into the record at any time from 6/16/15. To the present to support any of his clients’ claims, but still won quiet title at the 6/6/19 trial from which all documentary evidence was excluded due to Hong’s misconduct.
2015031200022853/12/15Substitution/
reconveyance Wells Fargo 2nd open-ended deed of trust
2015022300006082/23/15RPTT refund 2 Thomas Lucas
2015012200018501/22/15request notice Nationstar
20141201000051812/1/14Nationstar’s assignment of the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust from Bank of America to Nationstar, was recorded three months after BANA had no interest to assign on 12/1/14.

Nationstar refused to respond in good faith to Tobin’s interrogatories and requests for documents

12/1/14 was executed by Nationstar’s robo-signer in Nebraska and was rescinded by Nationstar’s robo-signer in Texas on 2/25/19, and recorded on 3/8/19. Nationstar disclosed the rescission two weeks after the end of discovery on 3/12/19.

Because the sale was void by reasons of fraud, unfairness and oppression, neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale.

However, 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
2014090900009749/9/14On 9/9/14, Bank of American recorded that it had assigned its interest in the Hansen deed of trust, if any, to Wells Fargo, effective 8/21/14, the day before the foreclosure deed was recorded.
2014082200025488/22/14DEED HOA foreclosure 2 opportunity homes
2014050600043575/6/14LIEN 2nd garbage was recorded on 5/6/14 and released on 3/30/17
2014021200015272/12/14notice of 3/7/14 HOA sale
2013092300013699/23/13LIEN 1st garbage
2013040800010874/8/13default 2nd HOA notice of default,
2013040300015694/3/13notice of rescission of HOA 1st notice of default
2013031200008473/12/13default HOA 1st notice of default
20121214000133812/14/12LIEN $ 925.76 when $300 was due & owing
2012041200018834/12/12assignment mers 2 Bank of American by Bank of American
2008082700036278/27/08DEED Gordon Hansen B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, was recorded when the GBH Trust was created.

Title was extinguished by the 8/22/14 recording of a foreclosure deed as was the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust.

Neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale.
The 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
2007051000011275/10/07DEED of trust 2nd open ended DEED of trust by Wells Fargo 2 Gordon Hansen, recorded on 5/10/07, was released on 3/30/17
2004090100072979/1/04Declaration of Homestead by Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man
2004083100075638/31/04Sub trustee/reconveyance of paid in full 7/31/03 DEED of trust Gordon & Marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot assigned 2 Washington Mutual by City First Mortgage

7/31/03 lien was released on 8/31//04.
2004081700022848/17/04Reconveyance of 11/20/03 Wells Fargo $55,000 2nd DOT
To Hansen .
The 11/20/03 lien was released on 8/17/04
2004072200035077/22/04DEED OF TRUST is the disputed Hansen DOT.

Nationstar disclosed the Hansen deed of trust and the Planned Unit Development Rider as NSM 141-162
$436,000 loaned on 7/15/04
Due in full on 8/1/2034
Borrower: Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man
Lender: Western Thrift & loan
Trustee: Joan H. Anderson
PUD rider remedies f. that lenders are contractually authorized only to add delinquent HOA assessments to the outstanding loan balance and add interest at the note rate (here 6.25%).
Lenders are prohibited from using the tender of delinquent assessments, rejected or not, as a de facto foreclosure without due process.

Nationstar disclosed the PUD Rider Remedies section was disclosed as NSM 160 so ignorance cannot be an excuse.

Nationstar disclosed that it does not hold the origInal note by disclosing a copy as NSM 158-160.

NSM’s copy of the note shows Nationstar, Wells Fargo and bank of Amercia are not in the chain of title of endorsements.

All recorded assignments of the Hansen DEED of trust that culminated in Nationstar reconveying the Hansen DEED of trust to Joel stoke, an individual, on 6/3/19, were false claims to title in the meaning of NRS 205.395.

National banking associations’ corrupt business practices were revealed in 12/7/20 national settlement agreement and consent order, its 8/17/18 settlement and release, the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Bank of America, the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement and consent judgment for Wells Fargo.

Violations of NRS 205.395, NRS 207.360, and other statutes in this particular case are documented in 11/10/20 complaint to the Nevada Attorney General (See TOC of AG exhibits), 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Servicing Division (See TOC 12/16/20 complaint), NCJD 2021-026,
2004061100055476/11/04DEED
20031120000403011/20/03DEED of trust $55,000 Wells Fargo 2nd deed of trust to Gordon & Marilyn Hansen
2003091000005889/10/03DEED of trust assign 7/31/03 dot city first mortgage 2 washington mutual
2003073100044447/31/03DEED of trust Gordon & marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot from city first mortgage
2003073100044437/31/03power of attorney
Marilyn 2 Gordon Hansen

“limited to executing loan documents for purchase of home located at 2763 white sage…power of attorney is null & void after execution.”

Marilyn 2 Gordon Hansen Power of Attorney is the only recorded power of attorney in this property record from 2003 to the present.
Nationstar did not record Power of Attorneys for the claims NSM recorded as “attorney-in-fact” on 12/1/14 (Bank of American), 8/17/15 (Wells Fargo), 3/8/19 (Bank of American), 3/8/19 (Wells Fargo) or 6/3/19 (American trustee servicing solutions)
2003073100044427/31/03DEED Del Webb 2 Marilyn & Gordon Hansen
2003073100044417/31/03Notice of completion
  1. 2003 recorded claims
  2. 2004 recorded claims
  3. 2007 recorded claims
  4. 2008 recorded claims
  5. 2012 recorded claims
  6. 2013 recorded claims
  7. 2014 recorded claims
  8. 2015 recorded claims
  9. 2016 recorded claims
  10. 2017 recorded claims
  11. 2019 recorded claims
  12. 2020 recorded claims
  13. 2021 recorded claims

4/4/21 RFJN Unadjudicated claims & administrative complaints

Nona Tobin’s administrative complaints
  1. 1/28/21 NCJD complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline vs. Judge Joanna Kishner
  2.  “Recommendation to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline”
  3. 3/14/19 AG complaint vs. Nationstar & Jimijack Irrevocable Trust
  4. 11/10/20 2nd AG complaint vs Nationstar; Akerman; Wright Finley Zak; Bank of America
  5. 12/16/20 complaint to the Mortgage Lending Division vs. Nationstar; Akerman; Wright Finley Zak; Bank of America
  6. 2/14/21 complaint to the State Bar of Nevada vs. Joseph Hong
  7.  2/16/21 complaint to the State Bar of Nevada vs. Brittany Wood
Nationstar’s and Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated civil claims in prior proceedings. No other party filed any claims.
Nationstar’s dismissed its filed claims without adjudication
  1. Nationstar’s 1/11/16 A-16-730078-C complaint Nationstar vs. Opportunity Homes
  2. Nationstar’s 6/2/16 AACC answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claim vs. Jimijack
Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated pleadings in prior proceedings
  1. Summary of Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated pleadings
  2. Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Sun City Anthem
  3. Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Jimijack
  4.  Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC
  5. Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated claims vs. Thomas Lucas dba Opportunity Homes LLC
  6. Nona Tobin’s unheard 8/7/19 quiet title & equitable relief, unjust enrichment & abuse of process complaint
Nona Tobin’s unadjudicated district court motions
  1. 3/3/17 Nona Tobin’s unheard motion to void the sale for statutory non-compliance
  2. Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment vs. Jimijack Irrevocable Trust
  3. Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/10/19 motion for summary judgment vs. all parties
  4. Nona Tobin’s unheard 4/24/19 motion to vacate 4/18/19 order pursuant to NRCP 60(b)(3) and motion for summary judgment
  5. Nona Tobin’s unheard 6/17/19 motion to intervene as an individual
  6. Nona Tobin’s unheard 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54(b) and NRCP 59(a)(1)(A)(B)(C)(F)
  7. Nona Tobin’s unheard 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310(2)
Orders that disposed Nona Tobin’s claims without any evidentiary hearings
  1. 8/11/17 order granting Opportunity Homes’s motion for summary judgment vs Nona Tobin and the Hansen Trust that was unfairly filed after order denying Opportunity Homes’s motion for summary judgment vs. Nationstar was entered on 6/22/17.
  2. 9/20/17 stipulation and order to dismiss Nona Tobin’s and the Hansen Trust’s 1/31/17 cross-claims, except for quiet title, and withdrawing her 3/3/17 motion to void the sale and SCA’s 3/31/17 opposition thereto pending the completion of NRS 38.310 mediation
  3. 4/18/19 order that granted SCA motion for summary judgment as to the Hansen Trust’s quiet title cause of action and Nationstar’s joinder
  4. 5/31/19 order denying motion to reconsider 4/18/19 order
  5. 6/24/19 order granting quiet title to Jimijack who had no deed, denying all the Hansen Trust’s claims, not just quiet title, expunging Nona Tobin’s lis pendens, and declaring the ruling binds non-party Nona Tobin as an individual
  6. 9/4/19 order that denied Nona Tobin the right to appeal as an individual
  7. 11/22/19 order that formalized Judge Kishner’s 4/23/19 striking of all Nona Tobin’s individual claims and motions from the court record unheard and expunged her lis pendens
  8. 4/30/20 order that denied Nona Tobin any right to appeal the 11/22/19 order that declared her a non-party, as an individual, but which bound her to the rulings that excluded her and struck her filings unheard from the court record
  9. 10/8/20 order that sanctioned Nona Tobin $3,455 to Joel A. Stokes’s attorney pursuant to EDCR 7.60 (1) and/or (3) for filing the A-19-799890-C complaint on 8/7/19, one week before the five-year statute of limitations, after being denied access to the A-15-720032-C 6/5/19 trial.
  10. 11/17/20 order that sanctioned Nona Tobin $8,849 pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) on the grounds that her filing the A-19-799890-C complaint on 8/7/19, one week before the five-year statute of limitations, was unwarranted and for the sole purpose of harassing Quicken Loans & Brian & Debora Chiesi who recorded claims adverse to Tobin on 12/27/19 while Tobin had two recorded lis pendens.
  11. 12/3/20 order that dismissed all Nona Tobin’s claims unheard pursuant to NRCP 12(b) (5), on the grounds of non-mutual claims preclusion, and NRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to join the HOA as a necessary party regarding the distribution of the excess proceeds.
Nona Tobin’s pending appeals before the Nevada Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals
  • 79295 Gordon B. Hansen Trust vs. Jimijack, Nationstar, Sun City Anthem, Yuen K. Lee dba F. Bondurant LLC
  • 82094 Nona Tobin vs. Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual
  • 82234 Nona Tobin vs. Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi
  • 82294 Nona Tobin vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Joel & Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack, Jimijack Irrevocable Trust & Joel A. Stokes, an individual, Quicken Loans LLC and/or Inc. & Brian & Deborah Chiesi

4/7/21 RFJN Relevant laws and regulations

4/9/21 RFJN evidence and disputed facts in the court record

Exhibit 1: ENTERED BY JOSEPH HONG (NV BAR #5995) FOR JIMIJACK IRREVOCABLE TRUST

12/05/18 Hong response to Tobin interrogatories was all the evidence in the record to support Jimijack’s title claims

Joseph Hong filed no NRCP 16.1 disclosures for any of his clients. Joseph Hong’s 12/5/18 response to Tobin’s interrogatories was allegedly verified by his client. Joseph Hong never entered any evidence into the record to support Jimijack’s title claims. Joseph Hong never refuted Nona Tobin’s claim that Jimijack’s only recorded deed was inadmissible pursuant to NRS 111.345. Interrogatories to Jimijack were not included in Hong’s response.
Exhibit 2: ENTERED BY MELANIE MORGAN (NV BAR #8215) NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM
EXHIBIT 4: NONA TOBIN & THE HANSEN TRUST PROFFERED EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT 5: RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO TOBIN SUBPOENA
EXHIBIT 6: BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY RESPONSE TO TOBIN SUBPOENA
EXHIBIT 7: NEVADA LEGAL NEWS RESPONSE TO TOBIN SUBPOENA
EXHIBIT 8: DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ENTERED BY RED ROCK & SUN CITY ANTHEM
EXHIBIT 9: DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS PROFFERED BY NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

“Nationstar evidence was not examined”

4/9/21 Nationstar & Wells Fargo filed an answer to Red Rock’s 2/16/21 complaint

Nationstar and Wells Fargo deceptively failed to admit that neither of them have a recorded claim for the proceeds. Nationstar and Wells Fargo failed to file a disclaimer of interest so the proceeds could go properly to Nona Tobin for the improper purpose of covering up Nationstar’s fraudulent conduct in relation to the Hansen deed of trust.
Melanie Morgan knows that the proceeds must be distributed ONLY to Nona Tobin because Wells Fargo’s liens were released on 3/30/17 and Nationstar as part of a fraudulent deal with Joel Stokes, released the lien of the Hansen deed of trust on 6/3/19.

Nona Tobin’s Pending Appeals of cases A-15-720032-C and A-19-799890-C

Nona Tobin’s Pending Appeals

Prior 8th Judicial District Court actions

Case summary A-15-720032-C
Link to 29-page case summary
Register of Actions A-16-730078-C (consolidated in 2016 when Nona Tobin filed a motion to intervene)
Link to full 2-page case summary annotated
Case summary A-19-799890-C

8/7/19 Nona Tobin’s complaint

The complaint was filed on 8/7/19 by Nona Tobin, Pro Se, in order to beat the 8/14/19 five-year statute of limitations. Causes of action: Quiet title & equitable relief (against all defendants), Cancellation of instruments; Unjust enrichment (against. Red Rock, Koch & Scow, Joel Stokes & Nationstar); Abuse of process (against Joseph Hong, Melanie Morgan, and David Ochoa)

6/3/20 Nona Tobin’s 1st amended complaint

Tobin hired an attorney who amended the complaint to narrow the issues to three claims for relief: Quiet Title (against all defendants); Unjust Enrichment (against Brian & Debora Chiesi, Joel Stokes, Jimijack irrevocable Trust, Red Rock Financial Services & Nationstar); Declaratory Relief (as to all defendants)

The abuse of process cause of action against the attorneys whose fraud on the court prevented adjudication of Tobin’s claims in the prior proceedings was bifurcated, on the advice of counsel, since it judges don’t like it when the attorneys are named as the culpable party vs. their clients.

9/6/20 order (NEOJ 10/8/20) to sanction Nona Tobin $3,455 for filing the complaint payable to Joseph Hong

Link to 9/6/20 order & 10/8/20 notice of entry of order to sanction Nona Tobin $3,455 for filing the complaint payable to Joseph Hong

11/17/20 order to sanction Nona Tobin $8,949 for filing the complaint payable to Brittany Wood

Order granted attorneys fes and costs pursuant to NRS 18.010(2) on the grounds that Nona Tobin’s filing this quiet title complaint was unwarranted and “was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party.”

12/3/20 order of dismissal with prejudice and expungement of lis pendens as if never recorded

Red Rock’s motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) failure to state a claim by the legal doctrines of non-mutual claims preclusion and res judicata) and NRCP 12(b)(6) failure to join the HOA as a necessary party to protect its alleged interest in the undistributed proceeds of the 2014 HOA sale. Judge Johnson granted the joinders of all other defendants, regardless of whether or not they were parties to the prior proceedings or when they recorded adverse claims to Nona Tobin.
Link to 10-page case summary
Link to 10-page case summary

Combined case summaries annotated

Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified & fraudulent

Sun City Anthem misrepresented the record

Link to bookmarked SCA 176-643 Red Rock Foreclosure File disclosed by Sun City Anthem in 2018.

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.

Link to “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014“
Link to “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosures conducted by Red Rock Financial Services“

Links to A-15-720032-C motions and orders that relied on the disputed Red Rock foreclosure file disclosed by SCA as SCA 176-643 are listed below.

Red Rock Foreclosure File as SCA 176-643 as SCA attorneys produced it.

Links to Tobin’s evidence disputing material facts in the Red Rock foreclosure file, stricken or ignored by Judge Kishner, are listed below.

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.

2/4/19 Tobin subpoena to Red Rock requested these documents

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“

12/13/12      12/13/12 P/O DEMAND RECEIVED SCA 615

12/20/12      12/20/12 P/O DEMAND SENT See SCA 603

1/3/13          1/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT TO OWNER“. See annotated SCA 591-592

1/9/13          1/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND RECEIVED See SCA 586

1/16/13 SCA 578 “P/O DEMAND SENT” See SCA 579

3/7/13          3/7/13 SCA 572 Send NOD to Title Company

4/2/13          SCA 378 Endorsement, effective 4/2/13, relates to 9/23/13 Republic Lien and “plant date of 2/5/14”?? Unclear

4/4/13          4/4/13 SCA SCA 552 NOD Notice of Rescission

4/16/13        4/16/13 SCA 525 “Payoff Demand Received”

See SCA 513-530 to see how SCA handled the rejection of the Miles Bauer tender .

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.

NRS 116.31162(5)(2013) prohibits the HOA from foreclosing on fines or penalties. See Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs. Saticoy Bay LLC series 2227 Shadow Canyon, 133 Nev. Advance Opinion 91, 405 P.3rd 641 cited in 4/17 order. See #1 irregularity cited by NSM, page 9.

4/17/13        4/17/13 SCA 527 Request reviewed

4/30/13        4/30/13 SCA payoff Demand Sent

5/16/13        5/16/13 SCA Payoff Demand Received

5/29/13        5/29/13 SCA 504 payoff Demand See SCA 504

8/15/13        8/15/13 See SCA 491 for notice sent to 2664

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.

See SCA 401-403

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.

Note that this contradicts SCA 377 and SCA 407.

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.

See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014“
See “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws“

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 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. 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.

See Resident Transaction Report Page 1334-1339 that was provided in response to Nona Tobin’s records request to CAM Lori Martin in May 2016.

2/24/14        2/24/14 SCA 338 Invoice (Priority Posting)

See “Deceptive disclosures: SCA Board 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 128“

2/27/14 See SCA 315 President signed that Board approved 3/7/14 sale on 12/5/13 by BOD resolution [R05-120213]. See pg. 2 12/5/13 SCA BOD minutes for [R05-120213].

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.

3/3/14          3/3/14 SCA 336 priority posting confirmations

3/4/14          3/04/14 SCA 329 “Sale Postponed“

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.

3/7/14          3/7/14 “Request Form sent to Board“

3/18/14        3/18/14 “Payoff Demand Received“

3/18/14        SCA 312-13 Chicago Title payoff request

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 286 alleges 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

See SCA 250-262 for RRFS account detail as of 8/15/14 (SCA 250-255), RRFS attempts to rectify the numbers (SCA 256-259) and Resident Transaction Report to 7/30/14 (SCA 260-262) all that fail to account for the $400 Board approved waiver)

8/15/14        SCA 250 RRFS account detail 1/1/06–6/25/08. not relevant

8/15/14        SCA 251 RRFS account detail 7/1/08-8/18/11 not relevant

8/15/14        SCA 252 RRFS account detail 10/1/11- 12/5/12

8/15/14        SCA 253 RRFS account detail 12/5/1 – 4/4/13

8/15/14        SCA 254 RRFS account detail 4/4/13 – 1/30/14

8/15/14        RRFS account detail 2/11/14 – 8/15/14. See annotated SCA 255 for major discrepancies with 3/28/14 RRFS demand pg. 6

8/15/14        SCA 274 is an email with the date scrubbed that alleges sale was approved and the amount due on 8/15/14 would be $5,738.68

8/18/14        8/18/14 SCA 228 deed sent to 3rd party

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.

8/28/14        SCA 223 and SCA 224 RRFS memo to Steve Scow, Koch & Scow, from Christie Marlow re Foreclosure excess funds “please have these funds interpleaded in regards to the below properties“. See SCA 223, SCA 224, SCA 217, and documents showing RRFS pattern and practice of retaining excess proceeds.

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.

See post “RRFS claims vs Actual $$ Due“

7/1/14-10/15/14 Tobin-Leidy emails (31 pages – No attachments)

February-October 2014 Tobin-Leidy emails (201 pages including attachments)

5/20/19 Proudfit DECL with 20 exhibits

3/5/19 Tobin OPPM SCA MSJ

Ombudsman Compliance Record for 2763 authenticated 4/15/19

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)

4/29/19 Tobin/GBH Trust motion to reconsider NEO 4/18/19 order

5/23/19 TOC of Tobin Reply with links to 11 exhibits

5/23/19 Tobin filed Reply

5/13/19 Leidy DECL with exhibits (76-pages )

5/8/14 $367,500 sale to high bidder MZK.

7/25/14 Leidy post to MLS “I have worked out all other liens and this can close quickly”

3/28/14 RRFS $4,962.64 pay off demand to Chicago Title

3/28/14 ledger page 6 for $400 SCA BOD-approved $400 fee waiver that shows SCA 255 was falsified

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.

RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due

EXCESSIVE, UNAUTHORIZED & UNEARNED “COLLECTION COSTS” = ABUSIVE & PREDATORY COLLECTION PRACTICES

12/31/11Balance due Dec 31, 2011 was zero. See annotated Resident Transaction Report Page 1335.
1/1/12$275 Jan 2012 Qtr Assessment (1/1/12-3/31/12)
1/31/12$25 Late Fee Assessed. See 1/31/12 RMI Quarterly statement. Upon information and belief, the 1/31/12 statement assessments due and late fees due was the last such statement distributed to owners.
2/14/12Tobin’s Check 112, dated 2/14/12, paid $275 for quarter ending 3/31/12 plus $25 late fee
4/1/12$275 Assessments due for 4/1/12-6/30/12
4/24/12Tobin’s Check 127, dated 4/24/12, paid for quarter ending 6/30/12, so no late fee became due on 4/30/12.
6/30/12Page 1335 Resident transaction report shows assessments were current to 6/30/12.
7/1/12Foreclosure deed recitals falsely claim that no payments were made after 7/1/12. See 8/22/14 annotated foreclosure deed.
See 3/12/13 rescinded NODES, 
7/1/12$275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12
7/31/12$25 Late fee assessed for 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter 
8/17/12Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid $275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12 and $25 Late fee assessed on 7/31/12, for 2763 White Sage Drive.
See annotated Resident Transaction Report Page 1335.
8/17/12Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid $275 Assessments due for 7/1/12-9/30/12 and $25 Late fee assessed on 7/31/12, for 2664 Olivia Heights.
See Resident Transaction Report Page 12859 
9/13/12SCA’s managing agent RMI referred the account to its subsidiary RRFS to initiate collections per RRFS log in SCA 415, RRFS’s log of “homeowner progress”
9/17/12On unsent 9/17/12 RRFS notice of intent to lien, RRFS claimed $617.94 was due when only $275 assessments and a $25 late fee were authorized for 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter.
See SCA 642 and SCA 643.
9/17/12RRFS reported to the Board that the account was a potential write off of $321.51 SCA removed the RRFS collection reports from the SCA website after Tobin downloaded them in 2018.
See RRFS potential write off as of 9/30/12 for 2763 White Sage, RRFS account #808634
9/20/12SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the sender’s copy of certified letters, item number 71603901984964087011.

Both sender’s copies are stamped as received by RRFS on 10/8/12. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any proofs of service for SCA 628 and SCA 635.

Tobin has no record or recollection of ever receiving it. SCA alleged in its MSJ that Tobin had sent it to RRFS with a 10/3/12 letter she sent to SCA transmitting check 143 and Hansen’s death certificate. No evidence supports this claim.

All evidence supports that RMI sent SCA 628 and SCA 635 to RRFS at which time RRFS stamped them received. The effect of this was to unfairly impose unauthorized and unnecessary collection fees on the estate of a deceased homeowner without the executor’s knowledge.
9/20/12SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the same notice of hearing on 10/8/12 for temporary suspension of Gordon Hansen’s privileges for the alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments. SCA may have sent this notice. However, Tobin did not receive it. There never was a hearing on 10/10/12. Tobin’s check 143, dated 8/17/12, paid assessments through 9/30/12 are rendered it moot.
9/30/12$275 Assessments due for 7/1/12 – 9/30/12 quarter plus $25 late fee assessed on 7/31/12 were paid by $300 check 143
9/30/12In SCA 618, RRFS Allocation detail shows that check 143 was applied to pay the assessments and late fees due and payable through 9/30/12.
9/30/12Check 143 paid the account in full for the quarter 7/1/12-9/30/12. See SCA 618 which shows 
9/30/129/30/12 RRFS reported to the SCA Board that as of 9/30/12, account 808634 was a potential write off of $351.21.
See RRFS potential write off as of 9/30/12 for 2763 White Sage, RRFS account #808634
10/1/12$275 Assessments due for quarter 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/3/12Per SCA 631, Tobin gave notice to SCA that the owner had died. Enclosed were
1) 1/14/12 death certificate and
2) “Check for $300 HOA dues”
Tobin’s notice was sent to the HOA. She indicated the late payment of the deceased owner’s assessments was an error, that the property was in escrow,
that the prospective purchasers were moving in shortly,
that further payments would be made out of escrow, and
that the HOA should work with Doug/Proudfit Realty or new owners to collect future assessments. SCA’s claims that Tobin acted in bad faith, had “unclean hands” and that she was “barred by equitable principles from recovering” for not knowing or remembering that check 143 was not delivered on 8/17/12 when it was written.
Tobin had no recollection of writing the 10/3/12 letter and only became aware of it on 12/26/18 when PDFs of documents disclosed by SCA on 5/31/18 as a picture of a CD, were given to her by attorney Joe Coppedge.
10/3/12Page 1335 Resident Transaction Report does not have an entry to acknowledge that check 143 for $300 was submitted to pay the assessments for the quarter from 7/1/12 – 9/30/12 as was reported in SCA 618.. 
10/8/12RRFS stamped on a paper with a picture of check 143 as received by RRFS on 10/8/12.
There is no date stamp on check 143 to indicate when SCA received it or when RRFS received it.
It is more probable, given the many alterations/ misrepresentations of other documents RRFS/SCA disclosed, that Tobin’s recollection that she submitted check 143 with check 142 on 8/17/12 was correct. and RRFS altered the date on the transmittal letter from 8/17/12 to 10/3/12 to conceal that FSR forwarding the account to collections on 9/13/12 was an error.
10/8/12SCA 628 and SCA 635 are the same SCA compliance letter, dated 9/20/12,  to Gordon Hansen, at 2664 Olivia Heights. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any proofs of service for SCA 628 and SCA 635. Tobin has no record or recollection of ever receiving it. SCA/RRFS did not disclose any letter to 2763 White Sage which would have been required it this was supposed to be the first step of the due process required before imposing a penalty on the homeowner for delinquent assessments.
10/10/12The 10/10/12 hearing noticed allegedly by the 9/20/12 letter in SCA 628 and SCA 635 did not occur. No notice of sanction followed it equivalent to the 8/13/14 Notice of Fines Tobin received after a hearing was held to give notice of a $25 fine for dead plants.
10/18/12RRFS ledger did not apply check 143 to pay the 7/1/12-9/30/12 quarter. On 10/18/12 RRFS ledger entered that check 143 left a balance $369.15 instead of the $275 that was actually due and payable for the quarter of 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/18/12SCA 618 PAY ALLOCATION shows check 143 was both allocated as payment of the quarter 7/1/12-9/30/12 or was a partial payment that left a balance as of 10/18/12 comprised of all RRFS-added charges.
10/18/12RRFS ledger SCA 623-625 called check 143 a partial payment
10/31/12$25 late fee for 10/1/12-12/31/12 delinquent installment was assessed. As of 10/31/12, amount due and owing was $300.
10/31/12Balance due on 10/31/12 as listed in SCA resident transaction report instead of the $275 assessments and $25 late fee actually authorized and due and payable as of 10/31/12.
10/31/12On 11/5/12 RRFS ledgeer sent to 2763 White Sage and forwarded by Proudfit Realty to Ticor Title claimed $495.36 was due when $300 would have paid through 12/31/12 the $300 assessment and late fee authorized for the quarter 10/1/12-12/31/12
10/31/12RRFS reported to the Board that account 808634, 2763 White Sage Dr. was a potential write off of $382.26 as of 10/31/12
11/1/12SCA Board published a schedule of fees that conformed to the NRS 116.310313(2) limits set by the CIC Commission except for the sentence “Fees and costs may change without notice. Schedule of fees may not be all inclusive.”
11/5/12SCA 620 11/5/12 “Correspondence Response Sent to Homeowner” “(RRFS) is in receipt of the correspondence that the homeowner has passed away. Our records have been updated…” RRFS claimed $495.36 was due as of 10/31/12 instead of the $300 actually due.
11/9/12Per 11/9/12 into SCA resident transaction report after a $300 collection payment was credited from check 143, there was a $351.21 balance reported on Page 1335 because two unauthorized monthly late fees had been added. $300 was due, $275 for assessments for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter plus the $25 late fee due on 10/31/12.)
11/9/12Page 1335 Resident Transaction Report has an entry, dated 11/9/13, that shows the HOA received a collection payment of $300 on 11/6/12.
11/9/12SCA 617 “Payment Allocation 11/9/12” information as of 10/18/12. Check 143 for $300 was received as a “partial payment”. “Association Allocation detai”l: $300 check was allocated to $275 assessments due 7/1/12.and 7/31/12 to $25 late fee assessed.. 
12/5/12On 12/14/12, RRFS recorded a lien the falsely stated $925.76 was due and payable. RRFS recited on the lien that the HOA had verified that $925.76 was due and payable as of 12/5/12. As of 12/5/12, $275 for assessments for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter were delinquent and a $25 late fee was authorized t be imposed on 10/31/12. All other charges were unnecessary as the account should have not been sent to collections when the only delinquent assessments were for a quarter that had not even ended. Once check 143 was paid, the account should have been removed from collections. Once the HOA received notice that future assessments would be paid out of escrow, adding $625.76 in collection fees over what was due and payable was predatory and unfair.
12/20/12On 12/2012, Ticor Title requested payoff figures from RRFS to be paid out of Sparkman 8/10/12 escrow
1/1/13Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/13
1/1/13According to the HOA Resident Transaction Report, on 1/1/13, there was an outstanding balance of $677.31. This is a variance of $102.31 over what was due and payable on 1/1/13, i.e, $275 assessments for 10/1/12-12/31/12 + $25 late fee plus $275 for 1/1/13-3/31/13 quarter. Note that $575 was due. RMI, as SCA’s managing agent, recorded in SCA’s oficial accounting records that $677.31 was due. RMI d/b/a RRFS, SCA’s debt collector, demanded $1,355.60 from the deceased owner’s estate. RMI d/b/a RRFS, SCA’s debt collector, demanded $1,451.75 from the prospective purchasers’ escrow.
1/1/13On 1/1/13, $275 assessments came due for quarter 1/1/13-3/31/13. There was a $300 ourstanding balance for the 10/1/12-12/31/12 quarter that resulted in a $575 balance due and payable. 
1/3/13RRFS sent a notice, dated 1/3/13, the GBH Hansen estate that a lien had been recorded on 12/14/12 for $976.25, but that on 1/3/13 $1355.60  was then due. The $925.76 l12/14/12 lien overstated the amount due by $625.76. The claim that $1355.60 was due on 1//3/13 overstated the amount actually due and owing by $780.60.
1/3/131/3/13 SCA 587 LIEN SENT TO OWNER
1/3/131/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT TO OWNER”
1/9/131/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND RECEIVED1/16/13 SCA 578 P/O DEMAND SENT
1/16/13On 1/16/13, RRFS responded to Ticor Title’s request for updated payoff figures with a pay off demand to the Sparkman escrow of $1451.75. This demand overstated the amount actually due and payable on 1/16/13 by $876.75.
1/31/13$25 late fee due for the 1/1/13-3/31/13 quarter. 
1/31/13RRFS reported to the Board that account 808634, 2763 White Sage Dr. was a potential write-off of $677.31 as of 1/31/13.
3/7/13$702.31 amount required to pay assessments, late fees, and interest to bring balance to zero through 3/31/13 per SCA resident transaction report Page 1335 
3/7/13$2,475.35 was due and payable as of 3/7/13 per RRFS on 3/12/13 NODES
3/12/13RRFS claimed on the rescinded 3/12/13 (NODES) Notice of Default and election to Sell that, as of 3/7/13, $2,475.35 was due, not the $702.31 reported on the  SCA resident transaction report Page 1335
3/27/13Effective 3/27/13, RRFS rescinded the 3/12/13 notice of default.
4/1/13$275 Assessments due for quarter 4/1/13-6/30/13
4/3/13SCA 553 RRFS on 4/3/13 recorded the rescission of the 3/12/13 NODES. No notice of the rescission was mailed to the owner or to the property.
4/4/13As of 4/4/13, $2752.66 Due and payable per RRFS on the recorded 4/8/13 NODES vs. $825 assessments ($275 x 3 quarters from 10/1/12-6/30/13) and $50 for late fees ($25 for the 4/1/13-6/30/13 quarter was not due until the for the 4/1/13-6/30/13 quarterly installment was 30 days past due on 4/30/13.
4/16/13SCA 525 4/16/13 “Payoff Demand Received”.
See SCA 415-416 for RRFS work log entries related to RRFS refusal of Miles Bauer tender.
4/17/13SCA 527 4/17/13  Request reviewed
4/30/13$25 late fee was assessed for 4/1/13-6/30/13 delinquent installment
4/30/13SCA 254 RRFS acct detail 4/4/13 – 12/31/13 shows RRFS charged the Hansen account $150 to respond to Miles Bauer request for pay off figures
4/30/13SCA 517 -519 4/30/13 “Payoff Demand Sent” RRFS letter to Miles Bauer stated that as of 4/30/13, $$2,904.26 was due.
5/7/13Tobin faxed a letter to put BANA on notice of her intent to stop paying to protect the security interest of a lender to whom she did not owe any debt.
See Tobin 5/7/13 letter to BANA and attachments disclosed as NSM 274-328.
5/8/13SCA 513 Miles Bauer check for $825, the exact amount of assessments then delinquent.
See SCA 513-530 for RRFS disclosures re rejection of the first super-priority tender. (SCA 302 was the second.)
5/16/135/16/13 SCA 512 is a request for payoff figures from Proudfit Realty “We are expecting a short-sale approval letter to be issued in the name of the new buyers. Escrow is expected to close no later than June 28, 2013.”
See SCA 504-512.
5/29/13RRFS responded on 5/29/13 that $3,055.47 was due and payable instead of the $825 assessments and $75 late fees that were due and owing to bring the account paid in full to 6/30/13.
5/29/13SCA 254 RRFS acct detail 4/4/13 – 12/31/13 shows that on 5/29/13 RRFS charged $150 for pay off demand in relation to Proudfit Realty request for pay off figures in Mazzeo’s escrow opened on 5/10/13 for a $395,000 purchase offer
6/30/13If Miles Baur tender of $875 had been accepted and correctly applied, assessments would have been paid through 6/30/13. There were unpaid late fees for the three quarters then delinquent ($25 x 3= $75 due for the quarters from 10/1/12-6/30/13).

It was unfair for Miles Bauer to tender the $825 for the nine months then delinquent after its principal, servicing bank BANA, refused to let the escrow (8/10/12-4/8/13) close on Sparkman’s FMV arms-length offer.

Ticor Title had been instructed to pay the $1,451.75 RRFS had demanded on 1/16/13 on COE.
It was also unfair that BANA’s agent Miles Bauer tendered the $825 super-priority directly to RRFS without notifying Ticor Title, Proudfit or Tobin. 

RRFS did not notify the SCA Board, or more importantly, request Board approval, of its rejection of the tender of 100% of the assessments then delinquent.
Per RTR pages 1334-1336 the amount due and owing as of 6/30/13 was $1,083.14.
7/1/13Per RTR pages 1334-1336 the amount due and owing as of 7/1/13 was $1,308.14
7/1/13$275 Assessments due for 7/1/13-9/30/13
7/1/13$825 delinquent through 6/30/13 +$275 assessments due for 7/1/13-9/30/13 quarter equated to $1100, one year of assessments due because of RRFS’s unilateral rejection of the Miles Bauer tender and because of BANA’s unilateral rejection of the Mazzeo’s 5/10/13 $395,000 offer.
7/10/13Tobin removed the property from the market, turned off the electricity, and initiated a deed in lieu process with BANA.
See Tobin’s 2013 deed in lieu hand written notes.
7/31/13$25 late fee due bringing to $1100 the assessments that were delinquent plus$100 in late fees that were authorized=$1,200.
8/15/13SCA 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. 
See SCA 401-403 Return to Senders
8/15/13SCA 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 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. 
10/1/13Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 12/31/13
10/1/13Balance per RRFS account detail in SCA 254
10/1/13Assessments due for 10 /1/13-12/31/13
10/16/1310/16/13 SCA 450 Followed Up POP
10/16/13SCA 468 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” to 10/16/13 does not show any BOD approval
10/31/13$25 late fee due
1/1/14Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/14
1/1/14Balance per RRFS account detail in SCA 254
1/1/14Assessments due for 1/1/14-3/31/14
1/31/14$25 late fee due
2/11/14Effective 2/11/14, RRFS claimed that $5,081.45 was due and payable on the Notice of Sale published on 2/12/14 (cancelled on 5/15/14 and not replaced).

Note that RRFS did not ever update the 2/11/14 $5,081.45 figure a a second published NOS.
RRFS concealed its 3/28/14 payoff demand to Chicago Title in which RRFS stated that as of 3/28/14 $4,962.24 was due as of 3/28/14. The discrepancy ($5,081.45 on 2/11/14 vs. $4,962.24 on 3/28/14 is explained on page 6 of the 3/28/14 demand.

RRFS and SCA obfuscated that on 3/28/14 the SCA BOD instructed RRFS to reduce $400 in late fees and $18.81 in interest of the $5,083.45 RRFS claimed was due on 2/11/14.) Note that SCA 275-SCA 315 includes significant alterations of the RRFS accounts and records to obfuscate this action by the SCA BOD and to misrepresent the 5/28/14 NSM offer (one year of assessments ($1100) to close the MZK 5/8/14 auction.com sale) as a fee waiver request from the owner. Further, SCA 254, RRFS’s 8/15/14 Account Detail fails to accurately account for the 3/28/14 fee and interest waiver authorized by the SCA BOD. 
2/11/14$4,240.10
2/12/14Published 2/12/14 Notice of Sale (NOS) alleged that $5,081.45 was due as of 2/11/14. 
2/28/14$4,962.64 RRFS response to payoff demand requested by Chicago Title  
3/18/143/18/14 payoff demand received

Note that the 3/6/14 Chicago Title Preliminary Title Report was concealed in discovery.
3/18/14SCA 312 -313 shows that Chicago Title requested pay-off figures from RRFS.
3/18/14SCA 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. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail from 2/11/14-8/15/14
3/28/14On 3/28/14 RRFS demanded $3,055.47 was due in response to Chicago Title’s 3/18/14 request for pay off figures found in SCA 312 -313. RRFS, NSM, and SCA concealed RRFS’s 3/28/14 demand. On 10/14/14, Leidy provided it to Tobin. Leidy informed Tobin on 10/14/14 that it was the only ledger he had ever received.
3/28/14RRFS concealed payoff demand of $3,055.47 in response to Chicago Title (concealed in discovery)
3/28/14$4,687.64 was shown as due and payable on
3/28/14See Page 6 of the 3/28/14 RRFS ledger concealed from discovery by RRFS, SCA, BHHS, and NSM.

3/28/14 Page 6 shows a $400 fee reduction was approved by the SCA board pursuant to Leidy’s 3/7/14 only fee reduction request found buried in SCA .
6/9/14 Page 6 of RRFS 6/9/14 ledger scrubs the $400 Board approved reduction and reports that RRFS billed no collection costs from 2/11/14 to 5/30/14 (See SCA 301).
A further accounting discrepancy in found in SCA 250
4/1/14Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report to bring account current to 6/30/14
4/1/14$275 Assessments due for 4/1/14-6/30/14
4/24/14
4/30/14$25 late fee due for delinquent  4/1/14-6/30/14 installment
4/30/14SCA 254 RRFS acct detail 4/4/13 – 12/31/13 shows on 4/30/13 RRFS claimed $2,876.95 was due as of 4/30/13 in response to Miles Bauer’s request for pay off figures. SCA 254. On
5/6/14SCA 307
5/15/14No BOD approval of postponed 5/15/14 sale date
5/15/14SCA 307 is an unsigned approval form to conduct the sale on 5/15/14.
No signed BOD approval was disclosed in SCA 176-643 or exists in the 4/26/14 minutes of Board approval to conduct the sale on 5/15/14.

On 5/15/14, the Ombudsman received notice that the 5/15/14 sale was cancelled as the owner was retained.
5/15/14SCA 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
5/28/14SCA 302 NSM 5/28/14 super-priority offer
6/2/14Ombudsman employee, Ann Moore, logged that the Ombudsman had received notice that the 5/15/14 sale date had been cancelled, the 2/12/14 notice of sale process and the “trustee sale: were cancelled and the “owner retained”. See authenticated Ombudsman Notice of Sale Compliance Record (OMB-NOS)
7/1/14Balance due per FSR on SCA resident transaction report Page 1336 to bring account current to 9/30/14 was $2,692.68.
See Resident Transaction report, Pages 1334-1336
7/1/14Assessments due for 7/1/14-6/30/14
7/2/14SCA 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 that is on the bottom of the page SCA 277
7/2/14unsent RRFS ledger falsely alleged to have been sent to 2664 OH and 2763 WS
7/31/14$25 late fee due.
7/31/14Per RTR pages 1334-1336 the amount due and owing on 7/31/14 $2,692/68.
8/13/14Notice of Fines was sent after a hearing was held prior to the imposition of a $25 fine for a dead tree at 2763 White Sage
8/15/14RRFS sold 2763 White Sage without notice to any party with a known interest.
8/15/14SCA 255 2/11/14 – 8/15/14 RRFS account detail does not have an entry of 3/28/14 SCA BOD $400 fee waiver and does not include any charges for the 3/28/14 pay off demand to Chicago Title and does not report SCA 302, NSM’s 5/28/14 super-priority tender. It also shows RRFS was charging late fees monthly when payments were in quarterly installments and $25 per installment was authorized.
8/27/14Collection payment entered to pay Gordon Hansen’s account in full on Page 1336
9/25/14Page 1337 Resident Transaction Report shows an entry on 9/25/14 that Jimijack Irr Tr paid $225.00 new owner setup fee. Jimijack’s Resident ID was 0480-02. SCA’s ownership record shows Jimijack was the second owner of the property.
9/25/14Page 1337 Resident Transaction Report 9/25/14-3/31/16 and SCA owner record 4/1/16-5/9/16 shows Jimijack was the only owner after Hansen. SCA refused to provide the SCA ownership records requested from 8/15/14 date of the sale to 2/28/19 end of discovery.
4/1/162763 White Sage payments for all owners 1/1/06-5/9/16
10/14/14Tobin to Leidy email demanding answers
10/14/14 Leidy response
10/14/14Leidy emailed to Tobin the 3/28/14 ledger that RRFS concealed in discovery that shows how RRFS falsified the ledgers.