Tag: NSM

Nationstar got summary judgment to quiet title with no filed title claim

1/11/16 Nationstar started by filing to quiet title vs. the wrong buyer.

Opportunity Homes LLC was disinterested. Two others had recorded deeds on 6/9/15

1/11/16 Nationstar also lied about how it became the beneficiary of the 1st deed of trust that was extinguished by the 8/15/14 HOA foreclosure sale.

Jimijack somehow already had a default judgment by suing disinterested Bank of America.

How could that happen?

There were TWO banks with recorded claims that BANA gave its beneficial interest to it:

9/9/14 BANA recorded it assigned its interest, if any, to Wells Fargo on 8/21/14

12/1/14 Nationstar recorded it had BANA’s unrecorded power of attorney to assign BANA’s interest, if any, to itself on 10/23/14

Nationstar didn’t file any claims against me as the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust or as an individual .

Nationstar got summary judgment by claiming BANA gifted the $389,000 loan balance to it 3 months after BANA gifted it to Wells Fargo immediately after it was extinguished by the HOA foreclosure.

How did that happen?

Neither Jimijack nor Nationstar nor the HOA have any filed claims but all got summary judgment by getting my claims precluded and my evidence stricken and their fraud undetected

Nationstar quietly dismissed all its filed claims without adjudication on 2/20/19, 3/12/19, 4/23/19, and 5/31/19

Nationstar covertly recorded a rescission of its claim to be BANA’s successor in interest

Nationstar’s attorney and Jimijack’s attorney told the judge to ignore all my evidence because I wasn’t really a party

Hong concealed from the court Jimijack covertly dumped its inadmissible deed

Joel Stokes encumbered the property with $355,000 CVS loan to launder Nationstar’s pay off for releasing the lien of the 1st DOT

Nationstar’s attorneys knew that Nationstar rescinded its claim that got its 2/12/19 joinder granted and knew its 3/8/19 claim recorded after discovery ended was fraudulently executed by a robosigner

Nationstar’s attorneys knew the PUD Rider prohibited turning the rejection of assessments into a de facto foreclosure and that’s what they were doing by this trick

Akerman still went all in two days before the trial with the quid pro quo

None of the elements for quiet title were met at the 6/5/19 trial as no party was at the trial who had any interest in the title to protect, and all documentary evidence was unfairly excluded.

The necessary elements of a declaratory relief or quiet title claim are as follows:

(1) there must exist a justiciable controversy; that is to say, a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; 

(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;

(3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy, that is to say, a legally protectable interest; and

(4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.

Kress v. Corey, 189 P.2d 352, 364 (Nev. 1948)
 

The elements for a claim of quiet title were NOT met in the 1st action.

No claims were properly adjudicated based on judicial scrutiny of verified evidence supporting claims by parties with STANDING.

1. Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;2. Complaint must be verified. NRS 40.090-1;

3. Summons must be issued within one year of filing the complaint and served per NRCP. NRS 40.100-1;

4. Lis Pendens must be filed with the county recorder within 10 days of filing of the complaint. NRS 40.090-3;

5. Copy of the Summons must be posted on the property within 30 days after the summons is issued, and an affidavit of posting must be filed with the court. NRS 40.100-2;

6. Disclaimer must be filed. NRS 40.020;

7. Affidavit to unknown heirs must be filed. NRS 14.040(3);

8. Court must hold a hearing on the evidence in order to issue judgment. NRS 40.110(1)

9. Quiet title may not be obtained through default judgment. NRS 40.110(1); and

10. Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(0).

Nevertheless, the 6/24/19 order misrepresented that the decision to quiet title met the elements.

Nationstar did not have standing

NATIONSTAR FILED THE 2/12/19 JOINDER TO THE HOA’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE VS. THE HANSEN TRUST IN BAD FAITH

  1. NSM never was beneficiary of the Hansen 7/22/04 1st Deed of Trust, but recorded false claims to confiscate Tobin’s property without foreclosing.
  2. NSM was not BANA’s successor in interest and so even if Miles Bauer’s 5/9/13 tender of $825 preserved the security interest, NSM has no right to any benefit from the preservation of the security interest
  3. Tobin/Hansen trust did not file any claims against NSM in the first proceedings because she was joining NSM in its bid to void the defective sale in its entirety.
  4. NSM had no standing to claim that the sale was valid for the sub-priority portion of the HOA’s lien because there was no sub-priority portion on 5/9/13, and NSM made that claim for the sole improper purpose of stealing the house from Tobin because NSM knew it had no standing to foreclose on Tobin if the sale were voided in its entirety.
  5. The PUD rider remedies provision limits any lender’s recovery of delinquent assessments on behalf of the borrower to adding the amount paid to the outstanding balance of the loan plus interest at the note rate, and NSM’s attempt to get relief by confiscating Tobin’s property without meeting the foreclosure requirements of NRS 107.080, as amended by AB 284 (2011) is fraud.
  6. NSM was not the servicing bank on behalf of Wells Fargo as it first claimed the hour before discovery ended, but whether it was or not, NSM did not protect the interest of the beneficiary by foreclosing on the Hansen deed of trust in 2012 after the owner died and payments stopped. should have protected t
  7. NSM did not have a recorded power of attorney for its agent Mohamed Hameed to execute an assignment of the Hansen 1st DOT from Wells Fargo to itself, recorded on 3/8/19 and disclosed two weeks after the end of discovery.
  8. it is not Wells Fargo’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the 1st DOT
  9. NSM concealed its 5/28/14 $1100 super-priority offer so it cannot now claim that its rejection by Red Rock
  10. it is judicially estopped by its false and inconsistent claims, concealing of evidence, and its unwarranted civil action, from claiming any of Tobin’s statements of fact are false.