On 12/19/22, I filed a motion for an order to show cause why written findings of attorney misconduct should not be forwarded to the State Bar because the State Bar would not investigate complaints without it. Below is my statement of intent.
The motion was made in good faith and supported by verified evidence
Summary of 3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Red Rock attorney Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC
Steven Scow, Koch & Scow LLC is the attorney for Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132) that conducted the disputed HOA foreclosure sale usurping the statutory authority of the HOA.
Scow knew that this critical case-concluding phrase in the 4/18/19 order was false, “The totality of the facts evidence that the HOA properly followed the processes and procedures in foreclosing upon the Property”.
Despite knowing the order was based on the false evidence Scow himself produced, Scow and/or other attorneys under his direction, repeatedly relied on it in meritless filings and court hearings that succeeded in obstructing a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims based solely on verified evidence on at least these dates: 6/23/20, 8/3/20, 8/11/20, 4/16/21, 4/27/21, 4/29/21, 5/11/21, 8/19/21, 10/22/21, 11/16/21, 12/28/21, 1/19/22, 5/25/22, 6/13/22.
The 3/1/22 complaint overview to the Bar vs. Scow and table of contents of exhibits are quoted here:
3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906) is quoted/summarized here:
Steven Scow, the subject of this instant complaint, represents Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership (EIN 88-0358132), that secretly sold my late fiancé’s house allegedly at a properly noticed and conducted HOA sale.
Steven Scow produced false evidence and concealed inculpatory evidence in response to my 2/4/19 subpoena that was relied on by the court to grant a meritless motion for summary judgment for quiet title by the HOA (even though the HOA had no interest in the title to protect). Upon information and belief, the HOA filed the motion for improper purposes, i.e., to cover up the fraudulent conduct of the sale and/or to retaliate against me for being a whistleblower.
The HOA’s motion, and Nationstar’s equally meritless joinder, were granted by the order entered on 4/18/19 by the court’s relying solely on Steven Scow-produced Red Rock’s unverified, uncorroborated, and sometimes blatantly falsified, foreclosure record.
Steven Scow’s and David Ochoa’s fraudulent misrepresentation to the court of the Red Rock unverified file as the HOA’s official records, is the proximate and direct cause of three more years of litigation for which I have accrued $317,532.76 in attorneys’ fees and much more in personal and financial cost.
All subsequent orders in district court cases A-15-720032-C, A-19-799890-C, A-21-828840-C and in appeals 79295 and 82294 were the fruit of this poison tree of falsified documents used to inaccurately depict the HOA sale as compliant with all legal requirements in Nevada statutes and the HOA governing documents.
My complaint against Steven Scow is much larger than my individual case. It also focuses on his refusal to distribute the excess proceeds from this sale (despite my repeated unheard civil and administrative claims), AND from a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 sales, AND from an unknown number of other sales conducted by Red Rock over the years.
3/1/22 complaint to the State Bar vs. Steven Scow (SBN 9906was supported by the following exhibits that were rejected by the Assistant Bar Counsel without the investigation required by SCR 104(1)(a):
Exhibit A Scow presented false evidence in response to Tobin’s 2/4/19 subpoena.
Exhibit B Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained, to this day, the excess proceeds of Sun City Anthem HOA foreclosure sales after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
Exhibit C Scow also unlawfully retained excess proceeds from foreclosures by other HOAs after Red Rock instructed him to remit checks to court for interpleader in 2014.
Exhibit D Scow did not produce subpoenaed documents that contained inculpatory evidence without claiming privilege.
Exhibit E Steven Scow failed to identify the partners who are unfairly profiting by these statutorily non-compliant sales and Scow’s failure to distribute the excess proceeds.
Exhibit F Steven Scow filed meritless claims, motions, and oppositions to evade judicial scrutiny of inculpatory evidence.
Exhibit G-1 SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws after being intentionally misinformed about the law by Scow’s clients.
Exhibit G-2 Legal limits on closed HOA meetings in SCA governing documents were disregarded because Scow’s clients intentionally misinformed the SCA Board about them.
Exhibit H-1 “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”
Exhibit H-2 “HOA debt collectors wield an unlawful level of power”
Exhibit H-4 Exhibit 5 of 3/8/21 Tobin’ A-21-828840-C Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-claims that shows that required notices for the sale were not provided, but the records were falsified to cover it up and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think” Cost more
Exhibit H-5 Call for an audit of the co-mingled, unaudited account(s) where Scow unlawfully (NRS116.31164(3)(c)(2013) retained the excess proceeds he was instructed to remit to the court in 2014.
Scow knew, but concealed that Red Rock unlawfully sold the property for $63,100 without notice on 8/15/14, three months after Nona Tobin had already been accepted the high bid of $367,500 on 5/8/14 from MZK Properties on auction.com, but that Nationstar would not let escrow close on a sale that was five times higher than the Red Rock sale.
Pages 14 to 20 of the draft complaint against Scow list and describe the specific false evidence he entered into the court record in response to subpoena.
False evidence (partial list) was entered into the court record via the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425).
RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf– the date was scrubbed, Red Rock misrepresented to the Board “As of today, RRFS is unaware of any buyer that is lined up…” when Red Rock was aware the property had already been sold on auction.com three months earlier and Nationstar had sent a notice that it would pay one year of assessments to close escrow on the 5/8/14 auction.com sale.
RRFS 095 is SCA 277..png is a doctored combination of unrelated emails to misrepresent that no notice was actually sent to the owner in response to Nationstar’s 5/28/14 $1100 offer. Annotated version – (SCA 277)
RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a letter that was provably never sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14 as “no return to sender – deceased” was disclosed
RRFS 124 IS 140318 REQ 4 PAYOFF .pdf– on 3/18/14 Red Rock agent Christie Marling acknowledged Chicago Title’s request for payoff figures but asked to delay response until the Board reviewed a pending request for a waiver on 3/27/14. (RRFS 129)
RRFS 128 IS SCA 315.pdf and SCA 315 misrepresented how the Board approved the sale. Board Resolution R005-120513 at the 12/5/13 meeting did not approve the sale of this property or any other SCA property.
Red Rock concealed in discovery its 3/28/14 demand to Chicago Title that shows on page 6 that the board approved a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction on 3/27/14.
Red Rock provided falsified accounts so that the Board’s approval of a $400 fee reduction and $18.81 interest reduction did not show as an entry on 3/27/14 on future ledgers. (RRFS 076) and (SCA 255) and (SCA 303) and (RRFS 103)
Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 debt collection contract that required Red Rock to indemnify Sun City Anthem and hold it harmless if any claims were brought alleging misconduct Red Rock’s part which caused a minimum of $150,000 in damages to the HOA.
RRFS 093-119 95 IS 277 119 IS 302.pdf is a falsified notice that was never sent to Tobin’s address at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave. as alleged. Tobin has stated multiple times under oath that she received no notice whatsoever from Red Rock after the 2/12/14 notice of the 3/7/14 sale which was not held because the property was in escrow with a $340,000 cash offer pending lender approval.
RRFS 071-083 IS SCA 250-262 140815 ACCT DETAIL RES TRAN.pdf Red Rock withheld in discovery all the financial transactions on resident transaction report pages 1336 – 1337 from 7/31/14 through 9/25/14, concealing thereby that the HOA has no record that 2763 White Sage was ever sold on 8/15/14, or any other date, and shows no entry in any ledger that confirms the alleged $63,100 was collected from a sale.
Red Rock concealed page 1337 of the Resident Transaction Report that shows that Jimijack – not Opportunity Homes – became the second owner of the property on 9/25/14 and that there is no record of Opportunity Homes LLC or F. Bondurant LLC ever owning the property.
RRFS 305 – 311 shows that Red Rock responded to a payoff request from Ticor Title on 5/29/13 with a demand for $3,055.47 three weeks after Red Rock covertly rejected the Miles Bauer $825 tender when only $825 in assessments were then delinquent.
The court can’t render judgment for or against a non-party
Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“the district court entered judgment on this un-asserted claim without conducting a trial (and without employing any recognized trial substitute such as NRCP 12(c) or 56). Instead, the court simply resolved all pending factual and legal disputes on its own,in chambers, without hearing the sworn testimony of any witnesses, without applying any rules of evidence or any recognized procedures for admitting evidence, without permitting the parties to assert any objections to any evidence, without permitting any cross-examination of any witness by any party, and without identifying the legal standards used to resolve any factual or legal disputes, and without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law.”)
Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“The district court clearly erred by failing to apply the Nevada Revised Statutes, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable precedent from our supreme court, and by entering judgment without a trial in favor of a party that never even pled a claim for relief”)
Moore v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 69367, at *3 n.2 (Nev. App. Jan. 13, 2017) (“Booke was not a party to the case, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter any judgment against him. See NRCP 4(d); Schwob v. Hemsath, 98 Nev. 293, 294, 646 P.2d 1212, 1212 (1982) (“Without proper service of process the district court acquires no. jurisdiction over a party.”) (citing Brockbank v. District Court, 65 Nev. 781, 201 P.2d 299 (1948); State v. District Court, 51 Nev. 206, 273 P. 659 (1929)). ”)
“A district court may render judgment for or against a person only where the court has jurisdiction over the parties. C.H.A. Venture v. G. C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 383, 794 P.2d 707, 708 (1990). Thus, a court may not enter a judgment for or against a nonparty.”
NRCP 10(a)(1) The complaint must name all the parties
10(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, the county, a title, a case number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The caption of the complaint must name all the parties; the caption of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.
“Parties are those who are named as such in the record, and who are properly served with process, or enter their appearance. 20 R.C.L. p. 662; Womach v. City of St. Joseph, 201 Mo. 467, 100 S.W. 443, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 140.”
A party must file an appearance, and no attorney ever appeared for Red Rock LLC
A court does not have jurisdiction over non-parties
I.C.A.N. Foods, Inc. v. Sheppard (In re Aboud Inter Vivos Trust), 314 P.3d 941, 946 (Nev. 2013) (“Young v. Nev. Title Co.,103 Nev. 436, 442, 744 P.2d 902, 905 (1987) (“A court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for or against one who is not a party to the action.””)
Red Rock LLC did not intervene as a timely motion and an interest in the proceedings would have been required.
Non-party Red Rock LLC never timely filed the required NRCP 24(a)(2) motion to intervene. It could not assert it had an interest it did not have relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, i.e., it never had any relationship to the HOA, the interpleaded proceeds, or this dispute, other than sharing an attorney and a similar name with the Plaintiff.
The 2/3/21 complaint must identify ALL the parties per NRCP 10a1 and Red Rock LLC is NOT named as the Plaintiff
Red Rock LLC did not serve any summons to claim relief as the plaintiff
I filed the only counter- and cross-claims, and I did not serve any claims against Red Rock LLC.
C.H.A. Venture v. G.C. Wallace Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 106 Nev. 381, 384, 794 P.2d 707, 709 (1990) (“Personal service or a legally provided substitute must still occur in order to obtain jurisdiction over a party.”). Moreover, “[a] district court is empowered to render a judgment either for or against a person or entity only if it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter,” and a district court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a party—even one with actual notice of the proceedings—unless that party has first been adequately served.
Red Rock LLC is not, therefore, a counter-defendant just because Scow added an LLC designation to counter-defendant in the caption.
No party timely responded to my 3/8/21 claims so I filed 1st 4/12/21 motion for the proceeds
No party timely (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B) responded to my 3/8/21 claims so I filed a 4/15/21 motion for summary judgment
Counter -claims require a timely responsive pleading (NRCP 12(a)(1)(B))
(B) A party must serve an answer to a counterclaim or crossclaim within 21 days after being served with the pleading that states the counterclaim or crossclaim.
Rule 12.(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading.
4/16/21 Scow filed a rogue, unsupported NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss on behalf of non-party Red Rock LLC the day after I filed my MSJ because no party filed a timely answer to my 3/8/21 AACC.
12/28/21 Non-party Red Rock LLC filed an improper opposition to my motion for an evidentiary hearing and a motion for vexatious litigant restrictive order against me and motions for attorneys fees when it had no standing to be in the case
6/13/22 Non-party Red Rock LLC filed an improper opposition to my 2nd motion for the proceeds with interest and penalties for being wrongfully withheld 8+ years and another motion for a vexatious litigant restrictive order against me for moving to correct the orders for the party identification and another motion for legal fees.
Judge Peterson granted the non-party’s 6/13/22 motion for attorney fees but Scow didn’t accurately write the 1/9/23 order
I insisted that my opposition be added and a corrected order was filed on 1/16/23
1/23/23 I filed motion to reconsider this 1/16/23 order because it was granting the motion of a non-party and because it did not deny my prior 6/27/22 motion to strike the rogue filings of non-party Red Rock LLC in an written appealable order.
State, Div. Child Fam. Servs. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 452 (Nev. 2004) (“[p]rior to the entry of a final judgment the district court remains free to reconsider and issue a written judgment different from its oral pronouncement.” Consequently, we stated that “[a]n oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid for any purpose; therefore, only a written judgment has any effect, and only a written judgment may be appealed.””)
2/10/23 I filed an order granting these motions as unopposed
2/15/23 court denied because of ex parte hearing I knew nothing about
Judge Peterson just ex parte declared “Red Rock is a party” and I’m a vexatious litigant and the court rules don’t apply to my opponents
1/23/23 motions ask for equal treatment of non-parties to fairly end this dispute
Judge Peterson allowed Scow to write the order. The order misrepresents the motion to reconsider as “frivolous” and violating the court’s admonitions.
It is not improper to move to strike the rogue filings of a non-party. It is asking for equal treatment.
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)
Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
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)
Distribute the interpleaded funds to Tobin as the sole claimant with interest ($91,000+)
Conversion/unjust enrichment
Fraud
Lifting the corporate veil
Racketeering
Facts do not support claims preclusion elements of same parties & claims
1/31/17 Tobin CRCM was Red Rock’s exhibit 1 and the sole “proof” provided to support the claim of claims preclusion.
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.
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
3/8/21 unanswered counterclaim vs. Red Rock was different party and different claims Fraud, conversion/unjust enrichment, lifting the corporate veil, Racketeering
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.”
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.
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.
See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
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
Order 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.
reconveyance 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.
Substitution 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.
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
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
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.
Akerman 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.
DEED 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.
Assignment 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.
3/8/19 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
Judgment 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
Substitution 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.
DEED 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.
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.
Nationstar’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.
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.
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.
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.
DEED 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,
power 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)
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”
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
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 agreement2/26/10 RMI management agreement3/31/14 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
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
Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + procedures
No 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.
NOS – 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
No 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
Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale
8/15/14 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
Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributed
On 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.
Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemption
Deed 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 .
FSR 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.
(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.
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.
Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious
4. 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.
BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOA
HOA 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.
Limits 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 Appeal
SCA 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.
An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agent
RRFS 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).
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 documents
FSR/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.
Defines 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.
This 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).
SCA 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.
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 name
The 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.
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 conducted
No 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.
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 witnesses
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)
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 rep
Never gave info that could be considered actual or constructive notice
right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BOD
Tobin 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
On 3/8/21, Nona Tobin filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claims vs. Red Rock, and cross-claims against Nationstar and Wells Fargo.
Link to NONA TOBIN’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 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
It is long and complex, and so it is published here in segments.
Counter-claimant and cross-claimant Nona Tobin’s 3/8/21 Prayer for sanctions, damages & declaratory relief vs. Red Rock
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:
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. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due“
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; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation“
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; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 order granting its 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). (See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice.)
that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) and 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;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
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).
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;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
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 See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
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)
On 3/8/21, Nona Tobin filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counter-claims vs. Red Rock, and cross-claims against nationstar and wells Fargo.
Link to NONA TOBIN’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 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
It is long and complex, and so it is published here in segments.
This blog is the counter-claim vs. Red Rock which has five causes of action: 1) distribution of the proceeds to Tobin plus interest & penalties (Interpleader); 2) unjust enrichment/conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter ego -piercing the corporate veil; 5) Racketeering.
Counterclaim vs. Red Rock Financial Services
PARTIES
See Exhibit 22 for 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA parties pg 2-3, 5th cause of action unjust enrichment (pgs 18-19), statement of facts (pgs 5-9)
Cross-claimant NONA TOBIN, an Individual, (Herein “Cross-claimant” or “Tobin”) was the sole successor trustee, beneficiary and surviving member of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, (Herein “Hansen Trust”) that held recorded title to the subject property from 8/27/08 until a foreclosure deed was recorded on August 22, 2014 transferred title to the alleged purchaser at the disputed HOA sale.
Tobin claims an individual interest in this property as all the GBH Trust’s claims to title were transferred to Tobin as an individual via a quit claim deed, recorded on 3/28/17.
Also on 3/28/17 the Hansen Trust was closed as it was insolvent when its sole asset was transferred out of the trust. NONA TOBIN claims the proceeds of the sale unlawfully retained by Koch & Scow, with interest, penalties and sanctions.
JURISDICTION, VENUE
The real property which is the subject of this civil action is a residence commonly known as the 2763 White Sage Drive, Henderson, NV 89052, APN 191-13-811-052, (hereinafter “Property”).
This action is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court and this venue is appropriate because the real property is located within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court has the authority under NRS 30.030 to declare rights, status and other legal relations of the respective parties in this NRS 40.010 quiet title dispute.
NRS 30.130 limits the Court’s authority to ensure that the rights of parties who are not present from being prejudiced by court actions in their absence.
The Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving the interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions (CC&Rs) applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association (HOA) to parties who have submitted their claims to mediation in the manner proscribed in NRS Chapter 38.
NRS 38.310(2) limits the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that have been
The Court’s jurisdiction in this case requires an interpretation of NRS 116.31164(3) (2013) which mandated the ministerial duties Red Rock Financial Services (Herein “RRFS”) was required to perform promptly after it conducted the disputed 2014 HOA foreclosure sale.
This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to impose sanctions on Red Rock Financial Services for its failure to comply, and to ensure that the HOA Board complied, with with ALL the statutory mandates for conducting a valid HOA foreclosure sale, included in NRS 116.3116-NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116A.640 (8), (9), (10), NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.1113, NRS 116.31065, NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31087, NRS 116.31175, NRS 116.31183, NRS 116.31184, NRS 116.4117
This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to impose sanctions on Red Rock Financial Services for its failure to provide, and its failure to ensure that the Sun City Anthem (Herein “SCA”) Board provided ALL the owner protections, notice and due process mandated by the HOA governing documents, SCA Board 2013 Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA 168-175). SCA Board Resolution 1/17/11 Policy and Procedure for enforcement of the governing documents (due process before imposing sanctions for alleged violations), SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v) (owner access to quarterly delinquency reports) , SCA bylaws 3.15 (open Board meetings), SCA bylaws 3.15A (closed Board meetings permissible topics), SCA bylaws 3.18/3.20 (delegation by SCA board prohibited), SCA bylaws 3.26, SCA bylaws 6.4 (owner access to records), CC&Rs 7.4 (enforcement (due process before imposing sanctions),
This Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to determine the standing of the defendants named by Red Rock to assert a claim for the excess proceeds from the HOA sale.
The court has jurisdiction to impose sanctions against parties who have recorded false claims to title as defined by NRS 205.395 and to consider the severity of the sanctions in terms of other statutes applicable to, and commensurate with, the frequency and seriousness Nationstar’s corrupt business practices, under the auspices of NRS 205.377, NRS 207.360 (9)(10)(30)(35), NRS 207.400 NRS 207.470 (1)and (4), and NRS 207.480.
See Exhibit 20 – Relevant statutes and regulations.
Plaintiff RRFS knows that all the liens recorded related to named Defendants other than Nona Tobin, i.e., Republic Services, Wells Fargo, and Nationstar have been released on 3/30/17, 8/17/04, 3/12/15, and 6/3/19, respectively. See Exhibit 1.
The HOA sale was void as payments and tenders after 7/1/12 were rejected, misappropriated, misrepresented and/or concealed. Default did not occur as described in the 3/12/13 Notice of default or as recited in the 8/22/14 foreclosure deed. See Exhibit 2.
The Default was cured three times, but RRFS kept pursuing the predatory path to unwarranted, unjustly profitable foreclosure. See Exhibit 3.
There was no valid authorization of the sale, but RRFS disclosed deceptive and falsified documents to create the misrepresentation of reality. See Exhibit 4.
Required notices were not provided, but RRFS falsified records to cover it up. See Exhibit 5.
SCA Board imposed the ultimate sanction against the estate of the deceased homeowner, but RRFS and SCA attorneys concealed and misrepresented material facts and the law to cover it up. See Exhibit 6.
Bank of America never was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust, but committed mortgage servicing fraud, refused to let two fair market value sales close escrow, refused to take the title on a deed in lieu, took possession without foreclosing, and used attorney Rock K. Jung to covertly tender delinquent assessments to circumvent the owner’s rights under the PUD Rider remedies (f) to confiscate her property without foreclosing. See Exhibit 7.
Many examples of RRFS’s corrupt business practices exist of keeping fraudulent books, scrubbing page numbers from ledgers, combined unrelated documents to rewrite history, scrubbing dates from emails, not documenting Board actions, and much more. See Exhibit 8.
All opposing counsels in all the litigation over the title to this one property made misrepresentations in their court filings and made oral misstatements of material facts and law at hearings. See Exhibit 9.
The proceeds of the sale were not distributed in 2014 and RRFS’s complaint for interpleader in 2021 was filed in bad faith. See Exhibit 10.
RRFS concealed the 4/27/12 debt collection contract that requires RRFS to indemnify the HOA and has been unjustly enriched, thereby well over $100,000 in fees and considerably more in undistributed proceeds. RRFS did not participate in NRS 38.310 mediation in good faith. See Exhibit 11.
In case A-19-799890-C, Brody Wight knowingly filed a motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) and NRCP (b)(6) that was totally unwarranted, harassing, disruptive of the administration of justice, not supported by facts or law, and filed solely for the improper purpose of preventing discovery of the crimes of his law firm and its clients. See Exhibit 12.
None of the opposing counsels have acted in good faith in compliance with the ethic standard of their profession. All have failed in their duty of candor to the court, wasted millions of dollars in judicial resources, and have engaged in criminal conduct to further the criminal conduct of their clients. See Exhibit 13.
Attorneys have knowingly presented false evidence into the court record in discovery. See Exhibit 14.
Nationstar and RRFS conspired to conceal the manner in which RRFS covertly rejected Nationstar’s $1100 offer to close the MZK sale. Civil Conspiracy. See Exhibit 15.
First cause of Action: Interpleader NRCP 22
For a declaratory judgment that RRFS must distribute the retained funds to Nona Tobin with interest as there are no parties with higher priority and all the liens of named defendants have been released.
Second Cause of Action: (Unjust Enrichment) or (Conversion)
Plaintiff/counter-defendant RRFS has been unjustly enriched:
by adding unauthorized fees,
by applying assessment payments to fees first,
by suppressing bidding through selective notice to only speculators,
by unlawfully exerting proprietary control of funds belonging to Nona Tobin, Sun City Anthem and others,
by keeping two sets of books,
by presenting false evidence to the court,
by conspiring with lenders and aiding and abetting them to assert ownership of deeds of trust they do not own.
In Nevada, the elements for a claim of conversion are:
A distinct and intentional act of dominion by one which is wrongfully exerted over the property of another;
Act committed in denial of, or inconsistent with the rightful owner’s use and enjoyment of the property;
Act committed in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of the owner’s rights or titled in the property; and
Causation and damages
M.C. Multi-Family Development, L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assoc., Ltd., 193 P.3d 536, 543 (Nev., 2008); Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 5 P.3d 1043 (Nev. 2000); Bader v. Cerri, 96 Nev. 352, 609 P.2d 314 (1980); Wantz v. Redfield, 74 Nev. 196 (1958); Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nev. 345 (1873).
All of the elements of conversion are met and established by the evidence in the exhibits.
Third Cause of Action: Fraud
Defendant RRFS made multiple false representations or misrepresentations as to a past or existing fact; See Exhibits. There are examples in almost all of them.
With knowledge or belief by defendant that representation is false or that defendant lacks sufficient basis of information to make the representation;
Defendant intended to induce plaintiff to act in reliance on the representation;
Justifiable reliance upon the representation by the plaintiff;
Causation and damages to plaintiff as a result of relying on the misrepresentation; and
Clear and convincing evidence exists and is pleaded with specific evidence in the exhibits filed herein.
NRCP 9; NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 9.01; Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 51 (2005); J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 89 P.3d 1009 (2004); Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 14 Nev. 441, 956 P.2d 1382 (1998); Blanchard v. Blanchard, 108 Nev. 908 (1992); Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992); Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 1260, 969 P.2d 949, 957 (1998); Sanguinetti v. Strecker, 94 Nev. 200, 206, 577 P.2d 404, 408 (1978); Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 541 P.2d 115 (1975).
Fourth Cause of Action: Alter Ego Piercing the Corporate Veil
On 1/31/17, Nona Tobin filed a cross – claim versus Sun City Anthem and identified “HOA Agents” as the true perpetrators of the wrongdoing. See Exhibit 21 for the description of why these agents were not named as parties.
RRFS and SCA withheld and concealed all contracts and all identification of the parties in a manner that completely obscured the money trail.
The Nevada Supreme Court has held that, though generally “[t]he corporate cloak is not lightly thrown aside,” nevertheless there are some situations in which blind “adherence to the fiction of a separate entity [of the corporation] [would] sanction a fraud or promote injustice.” Baer v. Amos J. Walker, Inc., 85 Nev. 219, 220, 452 P.2d 916, 916 (1969). The court has therefore carved out an exception to the general rule of faithfully respecting the corporate form and corporate independence, i.e., the so-called “alter ego” exception, by which the corporate veil can be pierced. Id. The Supreme Court of Nevada, in the matter of McCleary Cattle Co. v. Sewell, adopted a three prong test for ignoring the separate existence of a corporation in determining “alter ego liability.” McCleary, 73 Nev. 279 at 282, 317 P.2d 957 (1957). This test has since been codified in by Nevada Statute, NRS 78.747:
Jay Young, Nevada Law Blog
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RRFS (Racketeering)
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR engaged in racketeering activities as defined in NRS 207.360 and a racketeering enterprise as is defined in NRS 207.380;
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR, acting directly, and in conspiracy with one another or through their syndicate(s), participated directly in racketeering activity by engaging in at least two crimes related to racketeering;
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s activities have the same or similar pattern, intent, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events;
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR acquired or maintained directly or indirectly an interest in, or control of, any enterprise, or defendants are employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate directly or indirectly in the affairs of the enterprise through a racketeering activity;
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s injuries flow from the defendant’s violation of a predicate Nevada RICO act;
NONA TOBIN’s injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s violation of the predicate act;
NONA TOBIN’s did not participate in the commission of the predicate act; and
NONA TOBIN is entitled to institute a civil action for recovery of treble damages proximately caused by the RICO violations. NRS 207.470(1).
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS conspired with, aided and abetted CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR, and many other lenders, to perpetrate a fraud on the court with a quid pro quo of Nationstar’s (and fill-in-the-blank OTHER LENDER’S NAME)’s not asserting a claim for the excess proceeds so Koch & Scow could keep whatever proceeds they wanted without fear of audit or challenge.
On 3/8/21 Nona Tobin filed an answer and counter-claim when Red Rock sued her over the money they stole from her in 2014. This blog contains the answer and links to the exhibits.
Nona’s answer
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 2. See Exhibit 17.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 3 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin, admits that Wells Fargo is a national banking association doing business in Clark County, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Wells Fargo as a defendant.
Nona Tobin denies the allegation that Wells Fargo was properly named as a defendant by allowing the documents to speak for themselves. See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 18.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin, admits that Defendant Republic Services, Inc. is a Nevada corporation doing business in Clark County, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Republic Services, Inc as a defendant, and denies the allegations by allowing the documents to speak for themselves. See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 16.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs 5 of the Complaint, Nona Tobin admits Nationstar Mortgage LLC was incorporated in Delaware and during all relevant times was doing business in Clark County, NV under NV Business ID: NV20101844335, but denies that Plaintiff acted in good faith when it named Nationstar Mortgage LLC as a defendant.
Nona Tobin denies RRFS’s allegation that Nationstar LLC has any standing to assert a claim in this interpleader action for any portion of the proceeds by allowing the documents to speak for themselves. See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 20.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 10, quoted here below, Nona Tobin denies the allegations contained therein as they grossly misrepresent the facts and the duties owed. See Exhibits 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
In connection with the foreclosure sale, the Association was paid the money it was owed, and RRFS was paid its fees and costs incurred in collecting the debt as allowed by contract and Nevada law.
After paying these costs, RRFS was left with funds of $57,282.32. RRFS has no further direct interest in such funds.
These funds have been deposited into counsel’s attorney-client trust account and $3,500 has been withheld as costs, expenses, and fees to commence this action.
The remainder of such funds will be deposited with the Court until such time and place as directed by this Court.
Red Rock’s law suit against Nona Tobin & others, page 3, paragraph 10
3/15/21 RFJN request judicial notice of property record identifying recorded false claims to title
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
4/4/21 RFJN unadjudicated claims by Tobin and Nationstar
4/15/21 CONFILE Tobin 4/12/21 motion to distribute corrected re-filed
4/16/21 CNNDCA clerks’ notice of curative action to nonconforming document
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
4/16/21 CNOH CLERK’s notice of hearing Tobin motion for an order to distribute on 5/18/21
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” 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
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
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:
that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title;
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.
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds;
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;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3):
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;
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).
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;
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;
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;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345;
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 ;
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).
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;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
That Nona Tobin is entitled to is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
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;
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
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
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
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;
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;
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;
that the Counter-Defendant, Cross-Defendants, and Third-Party-Defendants concealed the unethical and/or criminal actions of co-conspirators and others;
that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s nor its successor trustee’s rights to title;
that Plaintiff is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale;
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;
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;
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
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;
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;
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).
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.
Order 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.
reconveyance 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.
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
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.
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.
Akerman 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.
DEED 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.
Assignment 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.
3/8/19 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
Judgment 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
DEED 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.
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.
Nationstar’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.
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.
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.
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
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,
“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)
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
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
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
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)
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.
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.”
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 summaryLink to 10-page case summary
SCA misrepresented the Red Rock foreclosure file to Judge Kishner as if it represented the true, accurate, and complete records of the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage, despite SCA attorneys knowing full well that the file was the debt collector’s unverified, uncorroborated version of revisionist history.
SCA attorneys were not representing the interests of the HOA when they disclosed Red Rock’s fraudulent documents. SCA attorneys presented to the court Red Rock’s fantasy version of reality that was explicitly contradicted by SCA’s official, verified records of the enforcement actions taken in secret by the HOA Board between 2012-2014.
SCA attorneys withheld, concealed, and/or misrepresented the HOA’s official records related to this foreclosure and a dozen other foreclosures in the same time period.
3/6/19 SCA Reply to Tobin 3/5/19 OPPM See page 6, lines 26-27, where SCA 302 and SCA 276 (annotated) and SCA 277 (altered) were wrongly attributed to Craig Leidy, “requested the HOA waive thousands of dollars of the debt“
Steven Scow produced Red Rock foreclosure file in response to Tobin 2/4/19 subpoena
RRFS 001-425 Red Rock foreclosure file as Steven Scow produced it was not properly verified as being a true, accurate and complete record contemporaneously produced by a person in the normal course of her occupation.
Steven Scow provided RRFS 001-425 that was deceptive, inaccurate, and incomplete with the obvious mens rea and the specific intent to conceal the wrongdoing of his clients.Steve Scow withheld all documents requested in items 4,5, and 6. The proofs of service provided in response to item 2 did not include any proofs of service for any of the notices that Tobin disputes were sent.
Disputed facts in Red Rock foreclosure file
9/17/12 SCA 642 RRFS letter to 2664 OH SCA 643 to 2763 notice of intent to lien – Tobin has no recollection nor Proudfit any record of this. No proof of service though alleged to se sent certified. Demanded $617.94 when it is undisputed that the account was PIF on 6/30/14. See SCA 642 and SCA 643.
9/20/12 SCA 628 120920 SENDER’S copy of hearing notice SCA sent to 2664 Olivia Heights could not have been sent by Tobin to RRFS as alleged in 2/5/19 MSJ See SCA 628, SCA 635,
9/20/12 SCA 635 is duplicate of SCA 628 also alleged to be sent to 2664. No allegation that the notice was sent to 2763. No allegation that the hearing was actually ever held. See SCA 628, SCA 635,
10/18/12 See SCA 618 Payment Allocation Detail. Check 143 was applied to pay assessments from 7/1/12-9/30/12, but also called a “partial payment”
10/8/12 SCA 626 “CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED” SCA claimed the sender’s copy of the hearing notice was sent to RRFS by Tobin which is impossible.
SCA duplicated and misrepresented this document to falsely imply that SCA had complied with the notice requirements in SCA CC&Rs 7.4 prior to imposing the sanction of permanent revocation, rather than temporary suspension, of member benefits, for the alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments.
There was no hearing on 10/10/12 or any other date because check 143 cured the delinquency. Assessments were paid through 9/30/12. No other notice like this was ever sent and none of the other steps of due process required were ever provided. This “sender’s copy was NOT attached to Tobin’s 10/3/12 letter to the HOA that transmitted check 143.SCA misrepresented this letter to claim it was evidence that Tobin was not entitled to any relief because it meant that she had unclean hands.
11/5/12 11/5/12 SCA 620 “Correspondence Response to Homeowner“
Note that check 143 paid the assessments from 7/1/12-9/30/12.
See SCA 618 “Association Allocation Detail” and #13 on Page 4 of 4/17/19 order that states “payment was applied to the July 1, 2012 Quarterly Assessment and the Late Fee due on July 31, 2012.“
The foreclosure deed recitals are false because they state that the default began on 7/1/12. The association detail shows that Red Rock knew the proper way to account for payments according to NRS 116A.640(8), but simply chose to ignore the law and keep two sets of books.
Therefore, the Miles Bauer $825 tendered on 5/9/13 satisfied the debt of $825 assessment due and payable for the quarters from 10/1/12 to 6/30/13.
Nationstar relied on this to commit its fraud on the court. Nationstar was never Bank of America’s successor in interest as the beneficiary of the disputed Hansen deed of trust. Nationstar rescinded that 12/1/14 fraudulent claim on 3/8/19. Further, Nationstar concealed SCA 302 which is clear proof of its specific intent to steal this property from Nona Tobin.5/10/13 rejection of the $825 tendered was sufficient to void the entire sale. RRFS covertly rejected this tender without legal authority. $825 was the exact amount of assessments that were then delinquent. The 5/16/13 entry implicates the attorneys as co-conspirators.
The only remaining debt at the time of the Miles Bauer tender were fines: $75 late fees authorized by the SCA Board as a fine for non-payment of installments within 30 days of their due date and whatever fines RRFS-added on their own initiative. An HOA cannot foreclose if the assessments are brought current and only fines, including collecting fees remain.
8/15/13 SCA 401 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “deceased”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 287 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board on 6/9/14 was denied.
8/15/13 SCA 403 is an envelope addressed to 2763 White Sage that was stamped on 8/15/13 “Return to sender Not deliverable as addressed. Unable to forward.”. There is no such envelope for the letter RRFS alleged in SCA 278 was sent to 2763 White Sage on 7/2/14. This is the 7/2/14 letter that RRFS claims was sent to notify the owner that the waiver request RRFS sent to the SCA Board in SCA 295 on 6/9/14 was denied.
10/16/13 10/16/13 SCA 450 “Followed Up POP“
10/16/13 SCA 468 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” to 10/16/13 does not show any BOD approval. See 468 is duplicated in annotated SCA 415-416 Homeowner Progress Report to 01/3/14.
1/3/14 1/03/14 SCA 407 Followed Up POP
1/3/14 SCA 406 “Permission for publication of foreclosure sale and authority to conduct foreclosure sale”, RRFS form letter signed by Dan Folgeron on 1/9/14. According to this form, RRFS had the ability to move the sale date without specific instruction from the BOD.
By RRFS being able to unilaterally move a sale date, RRFS can suppress bidding, particularly when this is compounded by RRFS giving the SCA BOD the false instruction that
“The Board of Directors agrees that in the event that the homeowner makes any claim regarding the loss of its property through this foreclosure action, the association shall have the exclusive duty to defend and to pay all defense costs of all such claims...”.
More importantly, it violated the 4/27/12 RRFS debt collection contract Indemnity clause on page 3, #7 of the RRFS-SCA contract signed on 4/27/12. Both RRFS and SCA refused to produce this contract in discovery. SCA deceptively disclosed the inapplicable 2007 contract that does not contain the provision that RRFS must indemnify SCA.
SCA homeowners have been forced to pay over $100,000 in costs that contractually were the responsibility of RedRock.
1/3/14 RRFS transmittal memo to SCA, dated 1/3/14, gave Permission for Publication packet to SCA BOD which contained the sentence. “If the Board does not want to proceed with the foreclosure sale please return the packet unsigned.” Note that there are multiple unsigned documents in SCA 176-643. Note also that there is no Board decision to proceed or not in any Board minutes.
1/3/14 SCA 415 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” from 9/13/12 -4/10/13
1/3/14 SCA 416 RRFS “Homeowner Progress Report” from 4/10/13 – 1/3/14. Note neither RRFS nor SCA disclosed this form for the period from 1/3/14 – 8/15/14 when RRFS sold the property without notice after the property had already been sold on auction.com on 5/8/14.
1/9/14 SCA 377 and SCA 407 Dan Folgeron signed RRFS form” Association Foreclosure sale Approval” for “Property Address” Dan wrote in “All twelve properties attached”. Neither SCA nor RRFS listed the properties nor was there any attachment.
NO SCA BOARD APPROVAL OF THE SALE IS ON ANY AGENDA.
1/9/14 SCA 407Dan Folgeron signed RRFS form” Association Foreclosure sale Approval” for “Property Address” Dan wrote in “All twelve properties attached”. Neither SCA nor RRFS listed the properties nor was there any attachment. This is a duplicate of SCA 377. According to the box checked RRFS was not given authority to postpone the sale without discussing with the Board.
1/10/14 1/10/14 SCA 405 “Board Approved POP” is contradicted by the HOA records that were concealed in discovery.
1/29/14 1/29/14 SCA 389 “Supporting Documents“
2/11/14 SCA 382- 384 disclosed the Resident Transaction Report from 1/1/6-2/11/14. SCA refused to disclose the Resident Transaction Report when requested in discovery. The part that shows the RTR does not include any indication that the property was foreclosed, that $63,100 was collected for the sale, or that there were any other owners between Hansen and Jimijack, shows in the time period after 2/11/14.
2/27/14 There is a 2/27/14 email on the bottom of SCA 332 that informs them that she received a request from the realtor for a reduction in fees because the owner is dead and there is no money left in the estate. See annotated SCA 332.
This was Craig Leidy’s only request. SCA and RRFS misrepresent this to cover up SCA 302 and SCA 295.
3/4/14 See SCA 324-325 email Leidy-RRFS Marling exchange where Leidy had asked for a copy of the fees and to speak to the Board about a fee reduction. Marling says she’ll let him know if they want him to attend.
3/4/14 SCA 332 (top) is a 3/4/14 email from RRFS to Gary Leopold, FSR employee serving as the SCA CAM, to state that she had received a request from the 3/7/14 sale was postponed to 4/8/14. There is a 2/27/14 email on the bottom of the page that informs them that she received a request from the realtor for a reduction in fees because the owner is dead and there is no money left in the estate. See annotated SCA 332.
3/18/14 SCA 310 contains two emails dated 3/18/14 which clearly indicate RRFS received a request for payoff figure on 3/18/14, but the SCA BOD was scheduled to review Leidy’s requests at the 3/27/14 meeting. Note RRFS and SCA both failed to disclose the 3/28/14 RRFS response to Chicago title in which the ledger shows that the SCA BOD approved a $400 fee waiver on Page 6. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail that allegedly was accurate and complete from 2/11/14-8/15/14.
This 3/28/14 RRFS payoff demand was concealed in discovery. Both SCA and RRFs produced the false evidence of doctored ledgers as shown below.
3/28/14 SCA 277 Undated email RRFS to Leidy “Please see response regarding the settlement request for $1000.00” (Note there was no settlement request for $1000. Leidy did not receive this. Not clear what was supposedly attached as it does not relate to the 6/5/14 email Leidy sent to RRFS to forward the NSM 5/28/14 offer.
5/6/14 5/6/14 “Supporting Documents“
5/13/14 5/13/14 “Sale Postponed“
5/15/14 SCA 307 is an unsigned approval form to conduct the sale on 5/15/14. Note there was no BOD approval in SCA 176-643 to conduct the sale on 5/15/14, the date that the Ombudsman received notice that the 5/15/14 sale was cancelled as the owner was retained.
5/15/14 SCA 308 is another email alleging final approval of the 5/15/14 sale from which the date has been scrubbed and there is no signature
5/28/14 5/28/14 SCA 302 NSM Equator message to Leidy “please be advised the max I will be able to pay the HOA is $1100”
Nationstar concealed this in discovery. RRFS was obviously complicit as can be seen by SCA’s fraudulently misrepresenting it to the SCA Board in SCA 295 as an owner request for waiver.
5/28/14 5/28/14 SCA 302 NSM Equator message to Leidy that was mischaracterized by SCA/RRFS as a non-existent new request from Leidy. See SCA 277. See also SCA 295 and SCA 276
6/5/14 SCA 277 Leidy forwarded NSM’s 5/28/14 offer (SCA 302)but SCA concealed it at the bottom of the page
SCA 277 and RRFS 095 are how this doctored evidence was produced.
6/9/14 SCA 275 “Request Sent to Board“
6/26/14 SCA 276 Jean Capillupo signed the 6/9/14RRFS waiver form from SCA 295. 6/26/14 SCA 276 (Signed 6/9/14 RRFS Form “Waiver or Reduction in Fees” found in SCA 295. Note no BOD response to SCA 302 was disclosed.
7/2/14 SCA 275 “7/2/14 Received Board response“
7/2/14 SCA 278 alleges RRFS sent a letter to 2763 stating the BOD “has denied your request for a settlement of $1,000.” SCA 279 is a blank owner request form. SCA 280-285 is a ledger. SCA/RRFS did not produce any proof of service. No RTS like in SCA 401-405. Tobin has said under oath she never received this. Tobin-Leidy emails never mention it.
RRFS lied about sending this letter and the one in SCA 286 to Tobin’s residence and there are many documents that prove the falsity of this claim beyond the fact that neither RRFS nor SCa disclosed any proofs of service.
See also SCA 286alleges RRFS sent a letter to 2664 OH stating the BOD “has denied your request for a settlement of $1,000.” Tobin has said under oath she never received this. Tobin-Leidy emails never mention it or the ledger in SCA 287-292. Obviously, she never signed the blank owner request form in SCA 287 and SCA 279.
7/2/14 SCA 280-285 RRFS allegedly sent this ledger to Tobin at 2664 Olivia Heights Ave and to the vacant property at 2763 White Sage. There are no proofs of service. There are no returns to sender like RRFS got when a notice was sent to the vacant property on 8/15/13 (See SCA 401 and 403. Notably, RRFS does not charge for any collection activity, any mailings, any sale guarantee, nothing after 2/11/14.
See annotated SCA 275- SCA 293.There is no document that shows how NSM was informed that SCA 302 was rejected.
Also, see on SCA 285 RRFS did not charge $150 to produce pay off figures requested by Chicago Title on 3/18/14 (SCA 310). RRFS and SCA both concealed that RRFS demanded $3,055.47 in a letter to Chicago Title, dated 3/28/14. SCA 285 does not include the $400 fee waiver requested by Leidy and authorized by the SCA Board on 3/27/14 that is accounted for on pg 6 of the 3/28/14 demand.
8/1/14 8/1/14 Emails
8/5/14 SCA 271 Jean Capillupo signed to approve the sale of 2763 White sage subject to the conditions set forth in the permission for Publication of foreclosure Sale and Authority to conduct foreclosure sale. No record of any BOD action to authorize her signing this.
8/6/14 8/6/14 “Supporting Documents“
8/15/14 SCA 242 Sent at 10:12 AM to report to Christie Marling, RRFS, that the property had been sold at an auction conducted at 10:11 AM at which three people allegedly bid and 45 people were in attendance
8/21/14 SCA 217 and SCA 224 $57,282.32 check #49909, made out to Clark County District Court on Red Rock Financial Services Trust Account 4775 W. Teco Ave suite 140 #121201694 153751166148. USBank 94-0169/1212
Steven Scow had no legal authority to retain the proceeds of the sale after Christie marling instructed him to interplead them. If not distributed according to NRS 116.31164(3)(2013), they should have been given to the HOA Board for distribution. SCA bylaws prohibit the HOA Board from delegating proprietary control of these funds to Red rock or to Scow.
Steven Scow failed to distribute the proceeds of many sales. This is an example of a Spanish Trail foreclosure that was litigated in case A-14-710161-C. The proceeds wee not distributed until after the owner died, and it only happened then after five years of litigation.
Links to Other Documents Disputing RRFS file disclosed as SCA 176-643 and RRFS 001-425.
RRFS concealed that notice was given to the Ombudsman that the sale postponed to 5/1514 was cancelled. RRFS never provided a deed to the Ombudsman within 30 days after the sale as required by NRS 116.31164 (3)(b) (2013). This was not an innocent error. It allowed the enforcement officials to be duped as there was no record that the 8/15/14 sale occurred without a published notice of sale in effect.
4/20/19 Tobin DECL in support of motion to reconsider (23 pages not filed vs 12 pages in attachment to 4/29/19)
This ledger was concealed in discovery and SCA 255 below shows why.SCA 255 was also produced as RRFS 076. They both show that RRFS or Steven Scow falsified the accounts. See NRS 205.405 Falsifying accounts.
10/14/14 email excerpt re proceeds and lack of notice for the sale
8/13/14 Notice of Sanction was the only notice Tobin received related to 2763 White Sage after the 2/12/14 notice of sale was cancelled.
SCA concealed this and all other compliance documents related to 2763 White Sage.
See 9/14/16 email exchange where the HOA manager said a court order was required to provide any documents.
Tobin’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.
8/17/12
Tobin’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
On 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.
SCA 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.
9/20/12
SCA 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
Per 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.
10/3/12
Page 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..
10/8/12
RRFS 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.
10/8/12
SCA 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.
10/10/12
The 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.
10/18/12
RRFS 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
10/18/12
SCA 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.
10/18/12
RRFS 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.
10/31/12
Balance 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.
10/31/12
On 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
SCA 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.”
11/5/12
SCA 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.
11/9/12
Per 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.)
SCA 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..
12/5/12
On 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.
12/20/12
On 12/2012, Ticor Title
requested payoff figures from RRFS to be paid out of Sparkman 8/10/12 escrow
1/1/13
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/13
1/1/13
According 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.
1/1/13
On 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.
1/3/13
RRFS 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.
1/3/13
1/3/13 SCA 587 LIEN SENT TO
OWNER
1/3/13
1/3/13 SCA 587 “LIEN SENT
TO OWNER”
1/9/13
1/9/13 SCA P/O DEMAND
RECEIVED1/16/13 SCA 578 P/O DEMAND SENT
1/16/13
On 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.
RRFS 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
3/27/13
Effective 3/27/13, RRFS
rescinded the 3/12/13 notice of default.
As 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.
4/16/13
SCA 525 4/16/13 “Payoff Demand Received”. See SCA 415-416 for RRFS work log entries related to RRFS refusal of Miles Bauer tender.
4/17/13
SCA 527 4/17/13 Request reviewed
4/30/13
$25 late fee was assessed for 4/1/13-6/30/13 delinquent installment
SCA 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.)
5/16/13
5/16/13 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.
If 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.
$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.
7/10/13
Tobin 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 handwritten 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.
8/15/13
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 Return to Senders
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 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.
10/1/13
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 12/31/13
10/1/13
Balance per RRFS account detail
in SCA 254
10/1/13
Assessments due for 10 /1/13-12/31/13
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
10/31/13
$25 late fee due
1/1/14
Balance due per FSR on SCA
resident transaction report to bring account current to 3/31/14
1/1/14
Balance per RRFS account detail
in SCA 254
1/1/14
Assessments due for
1/1/14-3/31/14
1/31/14
$25 late fee due
2/11/14
Effective 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.
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. This fee waiver is not included in SCA 255, RRFS account detail from 2/11/14-8/15/14
3/28/14
On 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.
3/28/14 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
4/1/14
Balance 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
SCA 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.
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 that is on the
bottom of the page SCA 277
7/2/14
unsent RRFS ledger falsely alleged to have been sent to 2664 OH and 2763 WS
Collection payment entered to pay Gordon Hansen’s account in full on Page 1336
9/25/14
Page 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.
The HOA sale was void as payments and tenders after 7/1/12 were rejected, misappropriated, misrepresented, and/or concealed. Default did not occur as described in the 3/12/13 Notice of default or as recited in the 8/22/14 foreclosure deed. See Exhibit 2: The sale was void for rejection of assessment payments.
Bank of America never was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust, but committed mortgage servicing fraud, refused to let two fair market value sales close escrow, refused to take the title on a deed in lieu, took possession without foreclosing, and used attorney Rock K. Jung to covertly tender delinquent assessments to circumvent the owner’s rights under the PUD Rider remedies (f) to confiscate her property without foreclosing. See Exhibit 7: Neither Bank of America nor Nationstar ever owned the disputed Hansen deed of trust, but tried to steal the property.
Many examples of RRFS’s corrupt business practices exist of keeping fraudulent books, scrubbing page numbers from ledgers, combined unrelated documents to rewrite history, scrubbing dates from emails, not documenting Board actions, and much more. See Exhibit 8: Examples of Red Rock’s corrupt business practices.
All opposing counsels in all the litigation over the title to this one property made misrepresentations in their court filings and made oral misstatements of materials facts and law at hearings. See Exhibit 9: Attorneys’ lack of candor to the tribunal.
RRFS concealed the 4/27/12 debt collection contract that requires RRFS to indemnify the HOA and has been unjustly enriched thereby well over $100,000 in fees and considerably more in undistributed proceeds. RRFS did not participate in NRS 38.310 mediation in good faith. See Exhibit 11: Red Rock’s fraud, unfairness and oppression
In case A-19-799890-C, Brody Wight knowingly filed a motion to dismiss Nona Tobin’s claims pursuant to NRCP (b)(5) and NRCP (b)(6) that was totally unwarranted, harassing, disruptive of the administration of justice, not supported by facts or law, and filed solely for the improper purpose of preventing discovery of the crimes of his law firm and its clients. See Exhibit 12: Attorney interference in the administration of justice.
None of the opposing counsels have acted in good faith in compliance with the ethic standard of their profession. All have failed in their duty of candor to the court, wasted millions of dollars in judicial resources, and have engaged in criminal conduct to further the criminal conduct of their clients. See Exhibit 13: Lack of professional ethics and good faith.
The court must find that the proceeds of the 8/15/14 must be distributed to the only claimant, Nona Tobin, immediately with interest, sanctions and penalties for failure to comply with the statutory requirement to distribute the proceeds immediately after the sale.
Red Rock did not comply with the statute
RRFS’s agent/employee Christie Marling was the “person who conducted the sale”.
NRS 116.31164(3) (2013) defines Christie Marling’s ministerial duties following the sale
RRFS 052 shows Christie Marling COMPLIED with 3(a) and sent a foreclosure deed to the purchaser.
Ombudsman’s records show that Christie marling DID NOT COMPLY with 3(b) as no foreclosure deed was sent to the Ombudsman following the unnoticed 8/15/4 sale.
RRFS 047 and RRFS 048 show that Christie Marling TRIED TO COMPLY with 3(c) by instructing Steven Scow to deposit the funds with the court for interpleader.
Steven Scow DID NOT COMPLY with 3(c) and did not deposit the funds with the court as instructed by the person who conducted the sale.
Steven Scow DID NOT COMPLY with SCA bylaws to deposit the funds in an account controlled by the SCA Board when he did not deposit the funds with the court and he did not distribute them according to the statute.
2. Page 1336 Resident Transaction Report 8/27/14 ledger entry $2,701.04 paid the HOA in full, but RRFS provided falsified ledgers in response to subpoena.
3. Excerpt of 10/15/14 email shows RRFS rebuffed my attempt to make a claim for the excess proceeds by saying it was deposited with the court.
4. Link to 4/27/12 RRFS debt collection contract that was concealed in discovery that contains the unenforced indemnify provision that Red Rock has unjustly profited from at the expense of Sun City Anthem homeowners.
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR engaged in racketeering activities as defined in NRS 207.360 and a racketeering enterprise as is defined in NRS 207.380;
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR, acting directly, and in conspiracy with one another or through their syndicate(s), participated directly in racketeering activity by engaging in at least two crimes related to racketeering;
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s activities have the same or similar pattern, intent, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events;
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR acquired or maintained directly or indirectly an interest in, or control of, any enterprise, or defendants are employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate directly or indirectly in the affairs of the enterprise through a racketeering activity;
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s injuries flow from the defendant’s violation of a predicate Nevada RICO act;
NONA TOBIN’s injury was be proximately caused by the defendant’s violation of the predicate act;
NONA TOBIN’s did not participate in the commission of the predicate act; and
NONA TOBIN’s is entitled to institute a civil action for recovery of treble damages proximately caused by the RICO violations. NRS 207.470(1).
COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS conspired with, aided and abetted CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR, and many other lenders, to perpetrate a fraud on the court with a quid pro quo of Nationstar’s (and fill-in-the-blank OTHER LENDER’S NAME)’s not asserting a claim for the excess proceeds so Koch & Scow could keep whatever proceeds they wanted without fear of audit or challenge.
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.[1]
COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN petitions the Court to declare:
that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title;
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.
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds;
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;
that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3):
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;
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).
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;
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;
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;
that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345;
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 ;
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).
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;
That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 (1) and (4);
That Nona Tobin is entitled to is entitled to recoup damages equivalent to five years of rental income from Jimijack;
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;
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
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)
[1] 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).
