Tag: MOTION TO DISMISS

Red Rock’s untimely motion to dismiss was filed 4/16/21

3/8/21 Tobin filed a counter-claim vs. Red Rock that Red Rock never answered

Instead of timely opposing Tobin’s Claims, Red Rock filed an unsupported, untimely motion to dismiss per NRCP (b)(5) failure to state a claim & claims preclusion

NRCP 12(a)(1)(B) deadline for opposing a counter-claim was 3/31/21: “Within  21  days  after  being  served  with  the pleading   that   states   the   counterclaim   or crossclaim.” 

Again seeking dismissal without adjudication on the merits continues Red Rock’s corrupt pattern & practice of evading accountability for wrong-doing

Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 61708, at *3 (Nev. May 1, 2014) (“Further, ‘public policy dictates that cases be adjudicated on their merits.’”)

Failure to oppose = admission of allegations

“Under NRCP 7(a) a reply to a counterclaim is a required responsive pleading. Because of his failure to reply, appellant admitted the allegations of the counterclaim. NRCP 8(d).”)

 Bowers v. Edwards, 79 Nev. 384, 389 (Nev. 1963)

Tobin asserted 19 affirmative defenses that Red Rock did not refute or claim were previously heard

(“If the plaintiff fails to demur or reply to the new matter, contained in the answer, constituting a defense, the same shall be deemed admitted.”)

Nevada-Douglas Co. v. Berryhill, 58 Nev. 261, 268 (Nev. 1938)
  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.330, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  8. Priority
  9. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  10. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  11. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  12. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  13. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  14. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11(b)
  15. Failure to mitigate damages
  16. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  17. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  18. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  19. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation
Tobin asserted 5 causes of action – none of which meet the elements of claims preclusion and none of which were refuted

(“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required…)

Danning v. Lum’s, Inc., 86 Nev. 868, 0 (Nev. 1971)
  1. Distribute the interpleaded funds to Tobin as the sole claimant with interest ($91,000+)
  2. Conversion/unjust enrichment
  3. Fraud
  4. Lifting the corporate veil
  5. Racketeering
Facts do not support claims preclusion elements of same parties & claims
  1. 1/31/17 Tobin CRCM was Red Rock’s exhibit 1 and the sole “proof” provided to support the claim of claims preclusion.
  2. 1/31/17 CRCM had different parties (Nona Tobin, an individual and Nona Tobin, trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, were the counter-claimants vs. Sun City Anthem, DOEs and ROEs. Red Rock and its affiliates were identified as “HOA Agents” as there was no ability to separate their legal standing to name them as defendants.
  3. 1/31/17 CRCM had six different causes of action, five of which were unheard: Quiet title (sale was void for noncompliance with statutes; equitable relief (non-compliance with HOA governing documents notice & due process requirements); unjust enrichment (failure to distribute the proceeds); fraudulent concealment (foreclosure records and Ombudsman NRS 38.310 notice of sale process); breach of contract (HOA agents with the HOA), civil conspiracy
  4. 3/8/21 unanswered counterclaim vs. Red Rock was different party and different claims Fraud, conversion/unjust enrichment, lifting the corporate veil, Racketeering
  5. 3/8/21 unanswered cross-claims of Fraud, Racketeering and conversion/unjust enrichment vs. Nationstar & Wells Fargo were different parties and different, never heard claims
Red Rock has not demontrated that Tobin “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.”
  1. Sun City Anthem filed a motion for summary judgment solely as to the quiet title cause of action of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust without addressing the five other causes of action.
  2. None of the claims of Nona Tobin as an individual were ever heard, let alone given “a full and fair opportunity to litigate” as Tobin was unfairly, and without appeal, removed as a party on the ever of trial and all her pro se motions stricken unheard after Nationstar attorney Melanie Morgan and Jimijack attorney met ex parte with Judge Kishner.
  3. See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
  4. see Nona Tobin’s requests for judicial notice
Party asserting the defense of claims preclusion has the burden of proof that all the elements were met. Red Rock did not meet its burden.

Carrillo v. Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1204, 1211 (D.N.M. 2016) (“A party asserting the defense of claim preclusion must establish that: “1) there was a final judgment in an earlier action, 2) the earlier judgment was on the merits, 3) the parties in the two suits are the same, and 4) the cause of action is the same in both suits.” Id. Claim preclusion does not apply unless the party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. Id. at 59. ”)

Fraud & racketeering charges were pled with particularity and will be summarized again here due to the extensive volume of facts

Nona Tobin filed four requests for judicial notice. How each RFJN identified with specificity the alleged criminal actions are summarized here.

3/15/21 RFJN the property record for APN 191-13-811-052. The fraudulent claims were summarized in Exhibit 1 to Tobin’s AACC contains a table that shows the multiple fraudulent recorded claims to title.

4/4/21 RFJN unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims

4/7/21 RFJN relevant laws & regulations

4/9/21 RFJN NRCP 16.1 disclosures, subpoena responses & disputed fatcs in the court record

Instrument numberRecord
date		Document type
description
2021021200015492/12/21DEED of trust 12/28/20 quicken LLC $355,320 loan 2 Chiesi
2021020500004202/5/21 Substitution/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.
20191227000134612/27/19  DEED of trust 12/26/19 $353,500 quicken loans INC 2 Brian & Debora Chiesi
20191227000134512/27/19  DEED grant, sale bargain (not quit claim) Joel Stokes, an individual, alleged he had a valid title to transfer to Brian & Debora Chiesi. Joel Stokes did not have a valid title as Jimijack had no valid title to transfer to Joel Stokes on 5/1/19.   Driggs title agency, INC. 7900 w sahara #100 lv 89117-7920. Escrow #19-11-120779jh DECLaration of value
20191227000134412/27/19  DEED 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
20191203000315212/3/19  On 12/3/19 Hong recorded notice of 11/22/19 a-15-720032-c order that erroneously expunged Tobin 8/8/14 LIS pendens re a-19-799890-c 8/7/19 complaint and 7/23/19 appeal and 7/24/19 appeal into 79295   8/8/19 sca motion to strike Tobin’s pro se 8/7/19 nolp was granted on 9/3/19 rtran, but sua sponte 11/22/19 order was wrongly written to both expunge 8/8/19 LISP (outside judge kishner’s jurisdiction) and to strike 8/7/19 nolp from the a-15-720032-c court record 11/22/19 order, recorded 12/3/19, was unappealable per order 20-13346 wherein the nv supreme court claimed 11/22/19 order was outside its jurisdiction.   9/10/19 nv supreme court order 19-37846 denied Nona Tobin all rights to appeal any decision made by judge kishner.
2019081400030848/14/19  LIS pendens Tobin recorded 39 pages with a-19-799890-c complaint attached. On 8/13/19 Tobin filed nolp into a-19-799890-c
2019081400030838/14/19  LIS pendens related to Tobin/Hansen trust appeals 79295 7 pages plus receipt for recording both 8/14/19 LIS pendens
2019080800020978/8/19  LIS pendens (7 pages) related to 7/23/19 Hansen trust appeal & 7/24/19 appeals & 8/7/19 a-19-799890-c
2019072400033557/24/19  Judgment Hong recorded 6/24/19 order vs GBH trust on 7/24/19 after he received notice of two appeals filed on 7/23/19 and 7/24/19.   6/24/19 order expunged 56/19 LIS pendens which related to the claims of both Nona Tobin, an individual, and the Hansen trust , but Nona Tobin, an individual, ws excluded from the trial and removed as a party unfairly due to the misrepresentations joseph Hong made to judge kishner at a 4/23/19 hearing held ex parte due to Hong serving notice that the hearing was continued to 5/7/19.
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.  
2015060900015376/9/15  DEED, from Opportunity Homes to F. Bondurant LLC, a sham entity controlled by Joseph Hong, was executed on 6/4/19, and witnessed by Joseph Hong’s employee, Debra Batsel.   Batesel witnessed at the same time Thomas Lucas and some unknown party execute a purchase agreement to transfer title from Opportunity Homes.   Joseph Hong did not participate in discovery and entered no evidence into the record at any time from 6/16/15. To the present to support any of his clients’ claims, but still won quiet title at the 6/6/19 trial from which all documentary evidence was excluded due to Hong’s misconduct.
2015031200022853/12/15  Substitution/
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.
2014090900009749/9/14  On 9/9/14, Bank of American recorded that it had assigned its interest in the Hansen deed of trust, if any, to Wells Fargo, effective 8/21/14, the day before the foreclosure deed was recorded.
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
2008082700036278/27/08  DEED Gordon Hansen B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, was recorded when the GBH Trust was created.   Title was extinguished by the 8/22/14 recording of a foreclosure deed as was the 7/22/04 Hansen deed of trust.   Neither the 8/27/08 Hansen Trust’s Deed nor the 7/22/04 Hansen Deed of Trust should have been extinguished by the fraudulent HOA sale. The 4/18/19 order granted Nationstar’s fraudulent 2/12/19 limited joinder to order that the HOA sale was valid to extinguish the  owner’s title rights, but it was not valid to extinguish Nationstar’s rescinded 12/1/14 claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
2007051000011275/10/07  DEED 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
2004090100072979/1/04  Declaration of Homestead by Gordon B. Hansen, an unmarried man
2004083100075638/31/04  Sub trustee/reconveyance of paid in full 7/31/03 DEED of trust Gordon & Marilyn Hansen $310,600 1st dot assigned 2 Washington Mutual by City First Mortgage   7/31/03 lien was released on 8/31//04.
2004081700022848/17/04  Reconveyance 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

Table of Violations was rejected without appeal by the Nevada Supreme Court on 9/10/19

STATUTEPROVIDESVIOLATION RESULTING IN VOID HOA SALE
NRS 116.3116Super-priorityMiles Bauer tendered $825 that SCA agents rejected
NRS 116A.640 (8)HOA Manager can’t: “8.  Intentionally apply a payment of an assessment from a unit’s owner towards any fine, fee or other charge that is due.”   “check (142) for HOA dues”  was applied first to fees 10/18/12 by RRFS as partial payment; 11/9/12 applied as “RRFS collection payment” in Resident Transaction Report   See “RRFS Claims vs Actual”  
NRS 116A.640(9)HOA Manager can’t: “9.  Refuse to accept from a unit’s owner payment of any assessment, fine, fee or other charge that is due because there is an outstanding payment due.”  RRFS refused BANA’s 5/9/13 tender of $825. RRFS did not present Nationstar’s $1100 offer to close the escrow opened on 5/8/14 on the $350,000 www.auction.com sale (SCA 302) rejection of BANA tender was when only nine months were delinquent as of 4/30/13 NSM $1100 offer rejected as if it was an owner request for waiver
NRS 116A.640(10)HOA Manager can’t: “10.  Collect any fees or other charges from a client not specified in the management agreement.”    Managing agent FSR (fka RMI) held the NRS 649 debt collection license dba Red Rock Financial Services (RRFS)       4/27/12 RRFS debt collection agreement   2/26/10 RMI management agreement   3/31/14 FSR management agreement   Red Rock’s response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena concealed the 4/27/12 contract. The lack of enforcement of the 4/27/12. contract’s indemnification provision has resulted in over $100,000 in charges to be forced onto HOA homeowners and unlawfully avoided by Red Rock for cases stemming from 2014 foreclosures, i.e.,   A-15-720032. Jimijack Irrevocable Trust v. BANA, N.A. & SCACAI   A-14-707237-C LN Management LLC series Pine Prairie v. Deutsche Bank   A-15-711883-C My Global Village LLC v BAC Home Servicing   A-15-724233-C TRP Fund IV LLC v Bank of Mellon et al   A-14-702071 Citi-mortgage, Inc v. SCA, (SCA paid $55K to settle in 2017)   2:17-cv-1800-JAD-GWF FNMA v SCACAI   2:17-cv-02161-APG-PAL Bank of NY Mellon v. SCACAI   A-16-735894-C TRP FUND IV v. HSBC Bank  
NRS 116.31162 –   SCA Board Resolution Delinquent Assessment Policy and Procedure           Can’t file a notice of intent to lien “or take any other action to collect prior to “60 days after the obligation becomes due’.

7/30/12 was date “obligation was past due’ for quarter ending 9/30/12   10/3/12 check 143 for $300 submitted & ID’d as “check for HOA dues” to pay $275 assessments and $25 late fee   lien recorded with no prior notice for $925.76 when only $300 was due     See annotated SCA 168-SCA 175  SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy  
NRS 116.31162 (4)Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + proceduresNo schedule of fees, repay plan, or hearing provided ever. No exception exists in the law to providing these notices or holding a hearing if an account has been sent to collections as claimed by SCA.   See 3/26/19 RTRAN, pgs. 23-24.
NRS 116.311635NOS – publish 3 times. Date & time & place of sale, mail certified to owner,2/12/14 NOS  complied with NRS 116.311635, but the single complaint notice was cancelled by notice to Ombudsman  on 5/15/14. See Ombudsman NOS compliance record of HOA notice published 2/12/14 for a 3/7/14 sale. No new compliant NOS was published prior to the 8/15/14 sale. All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were explicitly excluded from notice of the sale and were given no notice after it was sold. See
NRS 116.311365(2b3)Give NOS to OMBNo 2nd NOS – 8/15/14 sale held without notice to any party with a known interest.   RRFS did provide a 2nd NOS in two other SCA foreclosures where the 1st NOS was cancelled  
NRS 116.31164(3)(b)Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale8/15/14 sale was held without having a 2nd NOS and without giving the OMB the foreclosure deed EVER   All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were not given any notice after the property was sold
NRS 116.31164(3)(c)Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributedOn 11/30/18, Steve Scow said that the funds were still in the Red Rock Financial Services account.   SCA 217 & SCA 223-224 were deceptive.     SCA 224 disclosed a $57,282 check, dated 8/27/14, to Clark County District Court, to create to mis-perception that the funds had been distributed.   In 2014, RRFS misled Tobin so she could not submit a claim for the proceeds through interpleader.   Tobin has been prevented from making the claim that she is entitled to the proceeds because NSM is not entitled to them as NSM’s claims to be the beneficial owner of the Western Thrift deed of trust are provably false.  
NRS 116.31166Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemptionDeed recitals were false.   The HOA & its agents failed to comply with all legal requirements that were conditions precedent to a valid sale.   The default did not occur as was stated on the 3/12/13 rescinded Notice of default (NOD).   Payments were made after 7/1/1, i.e. check 143 was credited as paying all the quarter ending 9/30/12.   The Miles Bauer tender of $825 on 5/9/13 would have paid all delinquent assessments through 6/30/13.   RRFS misrepresented SCA 302 (NSM 5/28/14 offer of $1100) and called it an owner request for waiver in SCA 295 .  
NRS 116.1113Obligation of good faithFSR d/b/a RRFS had a financial conflict of interest serving both as the HOA’s managing agent and as its debt collector. FSR and RRFS advised the HOA BOD that it was required to handle collections and foreclosure in secret meetings.   FSR/RRFS falsely advised the HOA BOD that all BOD decisions related to “public” auctions of foreclosed properties were confidential by law.   FSR/RRFS did not act in good faith when it advised the BOD that there was an exception to due process requirements and owner protections in the law and in the deed restrictions if the proposed sanction was foreclosure.   FSR/RRFS prevented the BOD from complying with the requirements for taking valid corporate actions by getting the BOD to make all the decisions leading up to the sale of the property in unnoticed, closed meetings and without giving the owner an opportunity to prevent the sale.  
NRS 116.3102 (m)(1) (m) May impose reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents of the association only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.  FSR/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that this provision did not apply when the HOA was imposing fines that were mis-named collection costs.   FRS/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that selling an owner’s home for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments was not a fine or a sanction.
NRS 116.3102 (3)(4) 3.  The executive board may determine whether to take enforcement action by exercising the association’s power to impose sanctions or commence an action for a violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules, including whether to compromise any claim for unpaid assessments or other claim made by or against it. The executive board does not have a duty to take enforcement action if it determines that, under the facts and circumstances presented:       (a) The association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action;       (b) The covenant, restriction or rule being enforced is, or is likely to be construed as, inconsistent with current law;       (c) Although a violation may exist or may have occurred, it is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or       (d) It is not in the association’s best interests to pursue an enforcement action.  
NRS 116.3102 (3)(4)Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious4.  The executive board’s decision under subsection 3 not to pursue enforcement under one set of circumstances does not prevent the executive board from taking enforcement action under another set of circumstances, but the executive board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action.   The BOD was arbitrary and capricious in its decision to make foreclosure decisions based solely on the allegations of its financially-conflicted agents,.   The HOA BOD allowed non-uniform enforcement and unjust enrichment of the agents to occur without supervising or auditing the agents’ actions or allowing owners to know what actions the agents were taking.  
NRS 116.3103BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOAHOA agents were unjustly enriched by usurping the policy authority and duties the SCA Board is prohibited from delegating by its governing documents.   It is not in the best interests of the HOA for the Board to allow agents to give higher priority to their own business interests than to the interests of the SCA membership given that the HOA a mutual-benefit association that exists solely to protect the common good (common areas and general property values) of the homeowners.   SCA agents have no statutory or contractual authority independent of the association.   The Association owes no duty to its agents.  
NRS 116.31031   CC&Rs 7.4   Bylaws 3.26   Resolution Establishing the Governing Documents Enforcement Policy & ProcessLimits on BOD power to impose sanctions   HOA BOD must provide:   Notice of violation Notice of hearing and procedures Notice of sanction & chance to appeal Notice of appeal hearing procedures AppealSCA alleged it sent a 9/20/12 notice of hearing for proposed sanction of suspension of membership privileges, but there was no hearing and no notice of sanctions alleged.   None of the contractually-defined  notice requirements guaranteed to all SCA homeowners prior to the imposition of a sanction for an alleged violation of any kind were met:   No Notice of violation (also no quarterly delinquency report as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v))   No Notice of hearing and proceduresNo Notice of sanction & chance to appealNo Notice of appeal hearing proceduresNo Appeal hearing held   Check 143 for $300 was submitted on 10/3/12 to pay $275 assessments through 9/30/12 plus $25 late fee authorized (SCA170).   RRFS credited $300 on 10/18/12 to unauthorized fees instead of to cure the delinquency as the owner stated was her intention.  
NRS 116.310313An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agentRRFS claims to have independent authority to charge fees unlimited by this provision.   SCA BOD has abdicated to that view and memorialized it in SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA168-175).  
NRS 116.116.3106 (1)(d)HOA must define in its bylaw which of BODs duties SHALL not be delegated  FSR/RRFS misled the HOA Board
SCA Bylaws 3.20/ 3.18a, b, e, f, g, i Adopted pursuant to NRS 116.3106(d)Can’t delegate (a) budget; (b) levying or collecting assessments, (e) deposit in approved institutions for HOA’s behalf, (f) making/ amending use rules, (g) opening bank accounts and controlling signatories, (i) enforcing governing documentsFSR/RRFS usurped the collection and foreclosure process by asserting total proprietary control over all financial records. They structured a system that excluded the HOA Board from ability to supervise or audit the agents’ work.   FSR/RRFS had signatory control over SCA accounts covering all assessments collected.   SCA maintained no independent records to document that the sale occurred in the manner claimed by FSR/RRFS (or occurred at all).   SCA’s ownership records (Resident Transaction Report) show only two owners of the property (Hansen and Jimijack before 2016 while RRFS shows three owners and Jimijack claims there were four.    SCA has no record that the property was sold on 8/15/14 or on any other date.   The HOA has no record that $63,100, or for any other amount, was collected from selling the property.   The HOA has no records of what happened to whatever money was collected for whatever properties were sold by agents exercising the HOA’s statutory right to foreclose in whatever unknown manner they chose.
NRS 116.31083Defines Requires HOA BOD meetings to be open to all owners except in four limited circumstances  No notice to the membership when any decision to foreclose a particular property was made.   The Board meets in closed session to discuss and act on topics outside the four permissible ones.
NRS 116.31083 (6)   NRS 116.3108(4)  agenda must clearly describe topicsThis property was never on any Board agenda for any reason.   NRS 116.3108 (4) 4.  The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of:       (a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, including, without limitation, any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any fees or assessments to be imposed or increased by the association, any budgetary changes and any proposal to remove an officer of the association or member of the executive board.       (b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.       (c) A period devoted to comments by units’ owners regarding any matter affecting the common-interest community or the association and discussion of those comments. Except in emergencies, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to paragraph (b).  
NRS 116.31083 (9)minutes must include date, time and place of meeting; directors present, substance of matters discussed, record of vote, owners’ commentsNothing in any minutes indicate the SCA Board authorized this property to be sold.   No Board vote on record related to this property at all.
NRS 116.31065Rules must be uniformly enforced or not at allSCA asserts that foreclosure is a statutory right that exempts the HOA Board & its agents from providing an owner the notice and due process required by NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 prior to the Board’s imposing any sanction against an owner for an alleged infraction of the HOA’s governing documents.   Tobin asserts that there is no exception in the law that exempts an HOA from providing all of the notice and due process delineated in NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 when the Board imposes any sanction. It is ludicrous for an HOA Board to assert that the ONLY exception to an owner’s rights to due process was when an unsupervised agent imposed the harshest possible sanction, i.e., permanent revocation of membership privileges, 100% of the owner’s title rights and a fine 200 times the debt, for an alleged violation of the governing documents fo delinquent assessments.
NRS 116.31175     SCA bylaws 6.4 SCA bylaws 3.26  HOA agents do not control HOA records. The Board controls the records and must provide owners access to all BOD agendas, minutes, & all HOA records (with statutorily-defined exceptions), including contracts, court filings when HOA is a party. which must be reported quarterly by nameThe HOA and its agents did not put provide any agenda that specified any proposed action to sanction the owner of 2763 White Sage for delinquent assessments or to sell the property to collect.   SCA did not  provide any minutes of meetings where those actions are taken and does not allow access to court records or contracts so they allow people to basically steal. There is no record of which houses are taken and sold or where the money went.   SCA withheld compliance records requested in 2016 unless they received a request from the court.   SCA withheld all minutes of Board meetings at which the owner or the property or Nona Tobin were discussed or actions taken to impose sanctions (See Request for Judicial Notice filed 4/9/21).   SCA withheld all the documents requested in discovery.   SCA withheld reports given to the Ombudsman and told Tobin she had to obtain them from the Ombudsman. Then, SCA falsely told the court that the unverified, uncorroborated, falsified Red Rock foreclosure file was SCA’s official record, and that the Ombudsman’s contemporaneously logged compliance records were inadmissible.    
NRS 116.31175   SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”  FSR f/k/a RMI, as the HOA’s managing agent, never provided a quarterly delinquency report to the HOA BOD.

The absence of this mandated report facilitated FSR d/b/a RRFS’s predatory collection practices which included adding unauthorized fees and charges as “fines” misnamed as collection costs.
NRS 116.31085(4)BOD SHALL meet in exec session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who is about to be sanctioned requests an open hearing by the BOD. If the person requests in writing that an open hearing be conductedNo hearing was ever provided because no notice was ever given to the owner that the Board intended to impose a sanction of permanent revocation of membership privileges by selling the house.   SCA alleges that it offered on 9/20/12 a hearing scheduled for 10/8/12 prior to the imposition of a sanction of the temporary loss of membership privileges because, as of 9/20/12, the $275 assessment payment for the quarter ending 9/30/12  had not yet been received.
NRS 116.31085(4a)Owner who is being sanctioned for an alleged violation is entitled to attend all portions of the Board hearing, including the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnessesNo notice to attend
NRS 116.31085(4b)Owner is entitled to due process which must include without limitation the right to counsel, right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel (BOD)No due process provided
NRS 116.31085(5)subsection 4 establishes the MINIMUM protections the BOD must provide before it makes a decisionSCA didn’t provide the minimum protections
NRS 116.31085(6f)any matter discussed in exec session must be noted briefly in the minutes of the Executive Board. The Board shall maintain minutes of any decision related to subsection concerning the alleged violation and upon request shall provide a copy of the decision to the owner subject to being sanctioned or repNever gave info that could be considered actual or constructive notice
NRS 116.31087(1)right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BODTobin was blocked multiple times from telling the HOA BOD that their agents were stealing.   Tobin was told she would have to get a court order to even see the records about the sanctions they took sanctioning for dead trees at the property  
NRS 116.31087(2)Board has 10 business days to place on next regular BOD meetingDidn’t do it