Tag: sanctions

Nona Tobin’s Motion for Summary Judgment vs. Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar, & Wells Fargo

Link to downloadable PDF

Comes now, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin, an individual, in proper person, to hereby move for summary judgment vs. counter-defendant Red Rock Financial Services, a partnership, and cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo and moves that relief be granted to Nona Tobin as requested, including punitive damages and sanctions, pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(2)(3) and/or(4), NRS 18.010(2), NRS 207.407(1), and/or NRS 42.005.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 2/16/21 Red Rock served complaint with one cause of action: interpleader to distribute the proceeds of the 8/15/14 sale of 2763 White Sage.
  2. On 3/8/21 counter-claimant/ cross-claimant  Nona Tobin filed NONA TOBIN’S (Herein “AACC’) 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. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
  3. As there has been no timely responsive pleading from Red Rock, Nationstar, or Wells Fargo denying Tobin’s allegations, the court has the discretion to deem their silence as admission.

 (“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)

(“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)

(“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)

However, out of an abundance of caution, Tobin moves herein for summary judgment and sanctions to obtain relief instead of filing a notice of intent to take default.

Due to the seriousness of  the allegations and the high level of declaratory relief, sanctions and punitive damages sought, counter-claimant/ cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests a hearing to allow defendants an opportunity to reply and to show cause why the relief, sanctions and punitive damages requested should not be imposed.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Counter-claimant/cross-claimant Nona Tobin requests the court judicially notice the Requests for Judicial Notice Tobin filed into this case on 3/15/21 (APN 191-13-811052 Clark County complete property record), 4/4/21 (unadjudicated administrative complaints and civil claims), 4/7/21 (relevant laws, regulations and HOA governing document provisions) and 4/9/21 (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record).

NRS 47.130(2) (b) permits courts to judicially notice facts “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, so that the fact is not subject to reasonable dispute.”

Pursuant to NRS 47.150, a “judge or court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.”

Pursuant to NRS 47.160 “A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter to be noticed.”

Nona Tobin’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed into this case on 3/15/21, 4/4/21, 4/7/21 and 4/9/21, are proper for judicial notice because they were 1) recorded against the property and are part of the Clark County Recorder’s Office records, or 2) were filed at some point into the court records of prior proceedings, or 3) fit the definition of NRS 47.140 (matters of law), and 4) are timely pursuant to NRS 47.150.  Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

  1. The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud. Red Rock, Nationstar and Sun City Anthem withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.
  2. Defendants, acting alone or in conspiracy with others, covered up the fraud and successfully suppressed Tobin’s evidence so the courts acted on false evidence to rule against her and deny her access to the appellate courts.
  3. On 6/24/19 she lost title by being denied access to the trial and all documentary evidence excluded. See A-15-720032-C case summary without stricken documents vs. annotated summary and annotated 5/4/19 case info file.
  4. On 9/10/19 the Supreme Court denied her individual right to appeal.
  5. On 11/22/19 Tobin’s 7/22/19 motion for a new trial pursuant to NRCP 54b and NRCP 59a(1)ABCDF and 7/29/19 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 38.310 were stricken unheard along with all her pro se filings and motions stricken by 4/23/19 ex parte bench order
  6. On 4/30/20 the Supreme Court denied her access to appeal anything as an individual into appeal 79295.
  7. On 7/1/20 Sun City Anthem, Nationstar and Jimijack filed a joint respondents’ brief that was based on the false evidence from the Red Rock foreclosure file (RRFS 001-425) and (SCA 176-643 ignoring SCA 168-175) in response to the Gordon B. Hansen 12/19/19 opening brief.
  8. On 12/3/20 her A-19-799890-C complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds of res judicata/non-mutual claims preclusion and three of her lis pendens (recorded on 8/7/14, 8/14/19, and 8/14/19) were expunged as if they had never been recorded.
  9. Dismissal of her A-19-799890-C complaint occurred after two order imposing sanctions on her for filing a quiet title complaint as an individual, , had been entered on 10/8/20 and 11/17/20 ($3,455 to Joseph Hong pursuant to EDCR 7.60(1) &/or (3) and $12,849 to Brittany Wood per NRS 18.010(2))
  10. On 3/8/21 NONA TOBIN filed her ANSWER, AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER-CLAIMS & CROSS-CLAIMS the are summarized and expanded on below.
  1. Tobin’s AACC ANSWER basically denied that Red Rock had any proper purpose for filing a claim for interpleader after holding the funds, without legal authority, all the while obstructing Tobin’s multiple efforts for over the six years to stake a claim.
  2. Related to Tobin’s opinion of Red Rock’s motives, Tobin published on her blog SCAstrong.com: “Interpleader complaint was filed with an ulterior motive” and “Cause of Action: Abuse of Process” and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation”

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Tobin’s AACC had nineteen affirmative defenses:
  1. Failure to state a claim
  2. Estoppel
  3. Fraud NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35), NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 205.330, NRS 205.405, NRS 111.175,
  4. Illegality NRS 207.230
  5. Waiver
  6. Failure to join a necessary party
  7. General and equitable defenses
  8. Priority
  9. False claims to title (NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377)
  10. Violation of Covenant of good faith (NRS 116.1113)
  11. Equitable doctrines (unclean hands, NRS 207.360 (9)(30)(35)
  12. Acceptance (distribution of proceeds)
  13. Waiver and Estoppel (Red Rock & Nationstar)
  14. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment NRS 205.405, NRCP 11(b)
  15. Failure to mitigate damages
  16. Unconstitutional (Due process clauses)
  17. Statutory violations (NRS 116.31031, NRS 116.31162 – NRS 116.31168 (2013), NRS 116.3102, NRS 116.31083, NRS 116.31085, NRS 38.310
  18. Rejection of two super-priority payments (SCA 513 and SCA 302)
  19. Violations of HOA CC&Rs owner protections (CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement; CC&Rs 16: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation

ANSWER

COUNTER-CLAIMS

Tobin’s AACC had five causes of action in the counter-claim vs. RRFS: 1) Interpleader: distribution of the proceeds plus penalties and interest; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; 3) Fraud; 4) Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil; and 5) Racketeering. See also published “Nona Tobin’s claims against Red Rock Financial Services”.

First Cause of Action: Interpleader

The controlling statute for the distribution of proceeds is NRS116.31164(3) (2013) which defines the after-sale ministerial duties of the person who conducted the sale.

There is no legal authority in the controlling statute for Red Rock Financial Services to claim $3500 in fees for filing this interpleader action.

Using the Nevada legal rate of interest table, total amount due to Nona Tobin is $87,115.31, of which $57,282.32 was the original principal that Red Rock identified as “excess proceeds”

Alternatively, if the calculation is done based on the amount of the proceeds Red Rock actually unlawfully retained, the amount due to Tobin presently is $91,855.11, of which $60,398.96 is the total undistributed portion of the $63,100 proceeds from the 8/15/14 sale. See Interest calculation on both principal amounts.

Tobin’s 3/28/17 deed is the sole current recorded claim.

No other defendant filed a claim into interpleader for a portion of the proceeds.

Second COA: Conversion

See the published “Cause of Action: Conversion” and “Cause of Action: Misappropriation of money” and “Cause of Action: Civil Conspiracy”

Third COA: Fraud

See the published “Cause of Action: Fraud” and “What’s being human got to do with it?”

See the published “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014”

See the published “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock”

See the published “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent”

See the published “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148”

See the published “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws”

See the published Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )

See the published “Due process is required before a person’s property can be confiscated”

Fourth Cause of Action: Alter-ego piercing the corporate veil

See Exhibit 22 Excerpts of 1/31/17 cross-claim vs. HOA and its agents

Fifth COA: Racketeering

See the published “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering”

Red Rock’s response to subpoena (RRFS 001-425) was unverified, incomplete, inaccurate, and contained some falsified documents.

Sun City Anthem disclosed the same unverified, uncorroborated Red Rock foreclosure file (SCA 176-643) and misrepresented it to the court as the HOA’s official records of the collection and foreclosure process.

Sun City Anthem concealed all the HOA’s records of what actually occurred, including but not limited to all the SCA Board agendas and minutes, un-doctored Resident Transaction Reports for 2763 White Sage, and all the HOA’s compliance and enforcement records for the foreclosures conducted by Red Rock under the HOA statutory authority.

See 4/9/21 Request for Judicial Notice  (NRCP 16.1 disclosures and subpoena responses from discovery in case A-15-720032-C and disputed facts in the court record) which contains:

EXHIBIT 3: DAVID OCHOA PROFFERED FOR SUN CITY ANTHEM

Both Sun City Anthem and Red Rock concealed in discovery the applicable 4/27/12 Red Rock debt collection contract which has an unenforced indemnification clause that is favorable to the HOA.

In addition to refusing to provide HOA records of probative value to Tobin’s case, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson required Nona Tobin, as an elected, sitting member of the HOA Board to recuse herself from all SCA collection matters, past or present, instead of relying on NRS 116.31084 (Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.) See 6/5/17 recusal acknowledgement.

Because Tobin was a party to this quiet title litigation, Sun City Anthem attorney/debt collector Adam Clarkson deemed her elected Board seat vacant “by operation of law” and removed her from her elected Board seat without an NRS 116.31036 removal election.

See 8/24/17 Clarkson letter that accused Nona Tobin of profiting from her elected seat on the Board by being party to this quiet title litigation.

See 8/16/17 Complaint to the Nevada State Bar vs. Clarkson and 9/12/17 rejection letter.

See the 9/7/17 Complaint to NRED Ombudsman and 8/9/18 rejection letter.

See the published “Why can’t I be a candidate for the Board?” and “HOA collection practices cost us all more than you think” and “Fire the debt collector” and “Elder Abuse: Part II – SCA Agents” and “On the advice of counsel is no defense”.

SCA attorney/debt collector has ruled without legal authority (NRS  that Nona Tobin is ineligible to run for election or return to her elected Board seat as long as the quiet title litigation is in the appellate courts, even if Sun City Anthem is not a party. See Clarkson “notice(s) of ineligibility” dated 2/9/18, 2/12/19, 2/06/20, and 2/12/21. See also 11/9/20 Tobin email to the HOA Board to fill vacant Board seat with 2017-2020 timeline and links. See the published “No 2021 Board election”

SCA attorneys Adam Clarkson and David Ochoa published quarterly litigation reports that falsely claimed that Nona Tobin had been removed from her elected Board seat “for cause”.

See also the published “Election committee was inhospitable, angry even. Nevertheless I persisted”

SCA disclosed, and RRFS provided in response to Tobin’s subpoena, misleading and falsified documents to deceive the court into concluding that the sale had been fair and properly noticed and the proceeds properly handled, including but not limited to SCA 276, SCA 277, SCA 278, SCA 286, SCA 635, SCA 642 , SCA 643. SCA 277, SCA 628, RRFS 071-083 (SCA 250-262), RRFS 047-048 (SCA 223-224), RRFS 119 (SCA 302), RRFS 128 (SCA 315), RRFS 238-244, RRFS 218-219 (SCA 415-416), RRFS 298-299, RRFS 312-326 (SCA 513-530), RRFS 398-399; RRFS 402 (SCA 618), RRFS 409-423, RRFS 424-425, RRFS 123, RRFS 124,

CROSS-CLAIMS

Tobin’s AACC had three causes of action vs. cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo: 1) Racketeering; 2) Unjust enrichment and/or conversion; and 3) Fraud.

See “Nona Tobin’s cross-claim vs. Nationstar and Wells Fargo” See “Nationstar Mortgage’s Fraud” and “Black letter law: anti-foreclosure fraud”

See “Cause of Action: RICO damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 Racketeering”

Cross-defendant Nationstar’s fraudulent misrepresentations and presentation of false evidence to two district courts obstructed a fair adjudication of Tobin’s claims in prior proceedings and before the Nevada Supreme Court.

Cross-defendant Nationstar’s ex parte meeting with Judge Kishner on 4/23/19  damaged Nona Tobin and caused her pro se filings to be stricken unheard.

See Complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

Cross-defendant Nationstar recorded false claims to steal Nona Tobin’s property.

Cross-defendant Nationstar is judicially estopped from claiming that it ever was the beneficiary of the Hansen deed of trust. See Complaint against Melanie Morgan

PRAYER

Nona Tobin’s AACC Prayer for relief is quoted here with links added to laws, regulations, documentary evidence or argument to support claims for relief and punitive damages.

See the published “Nona Tobin’s, Red Rock’s & Nationstar’s prayers for relief”

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

Pursuant to Nevada law, COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s may recover her attorney fees as special damages because she was required to file this suit as a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’ intentional conduct.

(Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass’n, 117 Nev. 948, 958, 35 P.3d 964, 970 (2001), citing American Fed. Musicians v. Reno’s Riverside, 86 Nev. 695, 475 P.2d 220 (1970).

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

  1. that the disputed HOA sale is void due to fraud in the execution by Red Rock Financial Services;
  2. that the disputed HOA sale did not extinguish the GBH Trust’s, nor its successor in interest’s rights to title; See “Nona Tobin’s declaration under penalty of perjury” and Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law“?
  3. that Nona Tobin is entitled to the $57,282 undistributed proceeds of the sale with six+ plus years interest and exemplary penalties pursuant to NRS 42.005. (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  4. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its fraudulent conduct of HOA foreclosures sales; See “RRFS claims vs. actual $$ due“
  5. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its falsification of records to evade detection of misappropriation of funds; See “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent“
  6. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its retention of proprietary control of the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject property, and of approximately a dozen other Sun City Anthem 2014 foreclosures, when RRFS knew, or should have known, that the HOA Board was prohibited by Sun City Anthems bylaws from delegating proprietary control over funds collected for the sole and exclusive benefit of the association; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18 and “NRS 116.31164(3)(2013) vs. NRCP 22: Interpleader vs. HOA bylaws prohibiting delegation“
  7. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its failure to distribute foreclosure proceeds timely after the sales, as mandated by NRS 116.31164(3): (See 4/12/21 Tobin motion to distribute)
  8. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for Koch & Scow’s unsupervised, unaudited retention of the funds of many, many HOA foreclosures allowed attorney trust fund violations to go undetected; See SCA bylaws 3.20/3.18
  9. Koch & Scow’s filed its unwarranted 6/23/20 motion to dismiss, its 8/3/20 reply in support, and its 12/3/20 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.)
  10. that sanctions are appropriate vs. RRFS for its misappropriation of funds, covert rejection of assessments, falsification of records that allowed the unjust enrichment of undisclosed partners and co-conspirators; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  11. that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages for the fraudulent confiscation of the subject property, valued on 12/27/19 at $505,000 property pursuant to NRS 207.470(1) as RRFS’s actions on the dozen 2014 unnoticed foreclosures constitute racketeering; (See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014” and “SCA Board did not properly authorize any foreclosure conducted by Red Rock” and “Red Rock foreclosure file is false, falsified and fraudulent” and “Deceptive disclosures: 12/5/13 meeting vs. SCA 315 & RRFS 148” and “SCA Board did not comply with HOA meeting laws” and Ombudsman’s Notice of Sale records for 17 foreclosures )
  12. 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;
  13. that Nona Tobin, an individual’s, 3/28/17 deed is the sole valid title claim;
  14. that Jimijack’s defective, 6/9/15 deed was inadmissible as evidence to support its title claim pursuant to NRS 111.345; (See 1/17/17 Tobin DECL re notary fraud)
  15. that the Joel Stokes-Civic Financial Services “agreement”, recorded on 5/23/19, and misrepresented to Judge Kishner on 5/21/19 as the Nationstar-Jimijack settlement was fraud on the court and sanctionable conduct pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4);
  16. that sanctions are appropriate vs. Nationstar and its Akerman attorneys pursuant to NRCP 11 (b)(1)(2)(3)(4) (misrepresentations in court filings), Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing counsel), 3.5A (relations with opposing counsel), 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) and ABA (1992) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions  6.1 (False statements, fraud, and misrepresentation).
  17.  To declare that Joel Stokes’ deed, recorded on 5/1/19, was void as Jimijack had no interest to convey and that this transfer prior to the 6/5/19 trial was for the corrupt purpose of deceiving the court into allowing Joel Stokes and Nationstar to perpetrate a fraud on the court;
  18. That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup treble damages pursuant to NRS 207.470 and
  19.  That Nona Tobin is entitled to recoup damages, five years of rental income from Jimijack;
  20. that Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (Herein “NSM” or “Nationstar”) claims to own the beneficial interest of the disputed Western Thrift Deed of Trust (Herein “DOT”) are false and sanctionable under NRS 205.395, NRS 205.377, NRS 207.400 and that Nona Tobin is entitled to treble damages by their misconduct pursuant to NRS 207.470 and 480; See “All Declarations under penalty of perjury support Nona Tobin” and “Nationstar Mortgage’s fraud” and “Why Nationstar’s attorneys must be sanctioned and pay damages” and “Complaint against Melanie Morgan” and “1st complaint to the Nevada AG” and “2nd complaint to the Nevada Attorney General“
  21. that all instruments, encumbrances and assignments, and expungements of lis pendens that were improperly and/or unlawfully notarized, executed, or recorded to create false claims, or were done for the improper purpose of abrogating Tobin’s rights during the pendency of litigation, and/or prior to the adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this instant action, are cancelled and declared without legal force and effect; and See 4/7/21 request for judicial notice of relevant laws and “What is lis pendens?” and
  22. that attorneys pay Tobin’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to NRCP 11(b)(1)(3) and/or NRS 18.010(2)

Tobin’s 3/8/21 AACC had 22 Exhibits

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

LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT

Motion for summary judgment.

MSJ must be granted because counter and cross defendants didn’t file a responsive pleading.

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Summary judgment is therefore appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion,” and can do so in either of two ways: by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. A ‘genuine issue’ of material fact arises if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Conversely, where the evidence could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue exists for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)).

The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2006). The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987). The nonmoving party must instead set forth “significant probative evidence” in support of its position. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting First Nat’l, 391 U.S. at 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575).Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630–31. Accordingly, if “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” summary judgment will be denied. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250–51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Turner v. Haw. First Inc., 903 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1042-44 (D. Haw. 2012)

4/7/21 Request for Judicial Notice of the relevant laws, regulations & HOA governing documents

Tobin’s 4/7/21 RFJN has 10 exhibits

ARGUMENT

Defendants’ presentation of false evidence to the courts damaged Nona Tobin and caused her to lose

The falsification of accounts, the charging  of excessive, unauthorized fines, wrongly called “collection fees, the misappropriation of funds, and the related conspiracy are part of a pattern and practice of corrupt organizations.

Nona Tobin is entitled to damages that occurred to her as a direct result of racketeering and fraud on the part of counter-defendant Red Rock and cross-defendant Nationstar:

(“Like their federal counterparts, Nevada’s anti-racketeering statutes provide for a civil cause of action for injuries resulting from racketeering activities under which a plaintiff may recover treble damages, attorney’s fees and litigation costs.”)

Hale v. Burkhardt, 104 Nev. 632, 0 (Nev. 1988)

(“Pursuant to NRS 207.470 and NRS 207.400, a civil RICO cause of action may be based upon proof that the defendant engaged in at least two crimes related to racketeering that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents….

Demarigny v. McCormick (In re Receivership of Sw. Exch., Inc.), 381 P.3d 626 (Nev. 2012) 

NRS 207.390 (emphasis added). ”)

  • NRS 207.360 (30) defines “offering false evidence” as a crime related to racketeering.
  • A partial list of the Counter-Defendants’, Cross-defendants’ and third-party defendants’ Predicate Acts show a pattern of corrupt business practices under the definition of NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation;
  • Violations of  NRS 205.377 Multiple transactions involving fraud or deceit in course of enterprise or occupation are defined as racketeering under NRS 207.360 (35)

Nationstar LLC and/or Nationstar LLC dba Mr. Cooper recorded false claims

on 12/1/14, 1/22/15, 8/17/15, 1/13/16, 6/7/16,  3/8/19 rescind and 3/8/19 assign, and 6/3/19.

Red Rock Financial Services recorded false claims

on 12/14/12, 3/12/13, 4/3/13, 4/8/13, and executed the foreclosure deed Thomas Lucas recorded on 8/22/14.

Joseph Hong’s clients recorded false claims

on 6/9/15, 6/9/15, 12/1/15, 5/1/19, 5/23/19, 5/28/19, 7/24/19, 12/3/19, 12/27/19, and 12/27/19 and aided and abetted false claims to be recorded on 6/3/19, 6/4/19, 7/10/19, 7/17/19,  12/27/19, 2/6/20, 2/6/20,  and 12/4/20.

Attorneys aided and abetted mortgage servicing fraud

of both Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage by filing into these quiet title civil actions statements known to be false and disclosing false evidence Edgar Smith (NV bar #5506)on 1/11/16, 4/12/16, DECL, 4/12/16, 5/10/16, 6/2/16, 6/3/16, 6/10/16, 3/27/17 DECL , 3/27/17, 11/9/17, 2/9/18, (Dana Johnson Nitz NV Bar #0050, Michael Kelly NV Bar #10101).

Akerman LLP (Melanie Morgan NV Bar #8215, Karen Whelan NV Bar #10466, Donna Wittig NV Bar #11015). 5/15/18, 2/7/19, Thera Cooper NV Bar #13468, 2/12/19, 2/12/19,  2/20/19, 2/21/19, 2/21/19, 2/27/19, 2/28/19, 2/28/19, 3/7/19, 3/12/19, 3/12/19, 3/18/19, 3/21/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/12/19, 4/15/19 (SAO signed 4/10/19), 4/19/19,  4/23/19, 4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/3/19, 5/21/19 RTRAN, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 5/31/19, 6/24/19, 6/24/19, 6/25/19, 7/1/19, 7/22/19.

Joseph Hong (NV Bar #5995) filed written false statements

filed frivolous unsupported harassing pleadings, knowingly made false verbal statements, made fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts, concealed/failed to disclose material facts, conspired with others, received proceeds, on these dates, 6/9/15 DEED, 6/16/15, 6/8/16, 8/12/15, 10/16/15, 8/30/16, 9/29/16 RTRAN, 12/5/16, 12/20/16 RTRAN, 3/13/17, 3/13/17, 3/13/17, 12/5/18,  3/25/19, 3/26/19 RTRAN, 4/15/19, 4/22/19, 4/23/19 minutes,  4/23/19 RTRAN, 4/23/19 RTRAN annotated, 4/25/19 RTRAN, 5/1/19 DEED, 5/3/19, 5/21/19, 5/23/19 Agreement, 5/24/19, 5/29/19 video, 5/29/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 RTRAN, 6/3/19 video, 6/5/19, 6/5/19 video, 6/5/19 RTRAN, 6/5/19 video, 6/6/19 RTRAN, 6/24/19, 6/28/19, 8/7/19, 8/13/19, 9/3/19 RTRAN, 9/3/19 video, 6/25/20, 7/1/20,  8/3/20 annotated,, 8/11/20 video, 8/11/20 RTRAN, 10/8/20, 10/8/20 annotated, 10/16/20 OST, 10/16/20 NEO, 10/29/20 RTRAN, 10/29/20 video, 11/3/20 video, 11/3/20 RTRAN.

Suppression of Nona Tobin’s evidence and misrepresentation of her standing by defendants prevented a fair adjudication of her claims.

Excerpt from Bar complaint vs. Brittany Wood

1.              Over the last five years of litigation I was forced into…I have been attempting regain title to a house that was wrongly foreclosed and secretly sold in 2014 by Red Rock Financial Services.

This complaint, and the multiple other new and pending complaints to the discipline panel, I have and will be filing, stem from my personal horrifying litigation experience.

I, Nona Tobin,  am filing this complaint to the Nevada State Bar Ethics & Discipline Panel as the President of the newly-formed Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc. I make all statements herein based on my personal knowledge under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada. I am filing this complaint without representation, but I am seeking counsel to represent me, and Fight Foreclosure Fraud, Inc., on complaints to the Nevada State Bar, the Nevada Attorney General, the Nevada Mortgage Lending Division, the American Bar Association Ethics & Discipline Panel, the Nevada Real Estate Division Commission for Common-Interest Communities.

VIDEO 1:20-minute VIDEO How did Nona Tobin lose the $500,000 house she inherited from Bruce Hansen?

4:52-minute VIDEO “How lenders cheat owners out of their houses”

Over the last five years, no judge has looked at any evidence.

Over the last five years, every opposing counsel lied to the court presented false evidence, concealed and misrepresented material facts, and obstructed a fair adjudication of my claims on their merits. 

Actual damages to me personally

The consequences of this successful fraud were perpetrated primarily by attorneys:

  1. the title to a $500,000 house was taken from me by a fraudulently conducted-unnoticed foreclosure sale,
  2. Nationstar stole from me the $389,000 outstanding Western Thrift & Loan debt of deceased borrower Gordon Hansen that I did not owe and was not owed to Nationstar.
  3. Joel and Sandra Stokes kept $100,000+ in rental profits that belong to me,
  4. Red Rock attorneys Koch & Scow retained $60,000 that they refused to distribute to me in 2014 and has now accrued plus six years of interest and costs to pursue my claim against massive obstruction
  5. I have been forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars on litigation costs and thousands of hours of personal time to attempt to recover what was stolen from me.
The HOA sale was invalid to remove Tobin’s rights to title as it was non-compliant with foreclosure statutes, did not comply with the HOA governing documents, did not provide mandated due process, and involved fraud.
Defendants withheld, concealed, misrepresented and/or falsified records to conceal the fraud.

The PUD Rider Remedies (F)

  • Nationstar disclosed the disputed Hansen deed of trust as NSM 145-161. NSM 159-161 is the PUD Rider which includes the Remedies section (F) on NSM 160.
  • Nationstar has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the adjudication of my claim that the PUD Rider gives lenders only the option to add any delinquent HOA fees they pay on behalf of the borrower to the outstanding balance with interest and does not allow the lender’s payment to become a de facto foreclosure without complying with the foreclosure requirements of NRS Chapter 107.  
  • Neither Bank of America nor Nationstar ever recorded a notice of default on the Hansen deed of trust and instead chose to duplicitously tender the super-priority portion of the HOA’s lien while obstructing the HOA assessments from being paid out of the escrow of fair market, arms-length sales.
  • See 5/20/19 Doug Proudfit Declaration.
  1. This is a rejection of a second super-priority tender that would have voided the sale, but Nationstar concealed it and falsely claimed, without evidence, that the sale was valid to extinguish Tobin’s rights but not to extinguish Nationstar’s baseless claims.
  2. Because both Red Rock and Nationstar concealed Red Rock’s covert rejection of Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s offer, Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder, based on false evidence and misrepresentation of the facts and the law, succeeded.
  3. See also Nationstar’s 3/21/19 MSJ vs. Jimijack where the misrepresentations are repeated despite the fact that on 3/8/19 Nationstar rescinded its recorded claim to be Bank of America’s successor in interest.
  4. RRFS did not inform the SCA Board of the NSN 5/28/14 offer of $1100, one year of assessments, to close escrow on the 5/8/14 $367,500 sale to high bidder MZK. This is a rejection of a second super-priority tender that would have voided the sale that Nationstar also concealed
  5. Because both Red Rock and Nationstar concealed Red Rock’s covert rejection of Nationstar negotiator Veronica Duran’s offer, Nationstar’s 2/12/19 joinder, based on false evidence and misrepresentation of the facts and the law, succeeded.

CONCLUSION

Red Rock Financial Services secretly sold 2763 White Sage for $63,100 three months after Nona Tobin had sold it on auction.com for $367,500. Red Rock kept $60,398.96 without any legal authority for over six years while actively obstructing Nona Tobin’s ability to claim it.

Defendants egregious conduct in this case is indicative of a pattern and practice of corrupt business practices of debt collectors, attorneys, and banks that have damaged many, many homeowners and Homeowners Associations in Nevada and other states in the nation. See “We can learn a lot from this Spanish Trail HOA case”

 Red Rock’s deceit was aided and abetted by multiple parties, including cross-defendants Nationstar and Wells Fargo, as well as multiple attorneys who are named in her not-yet-served 3/22/21 third-party complaint against attorneys who failed in their duties under the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.

See 4/7/21 RFJN laws and regulations exhibit 6

SANCTIONS & DAMAGES


Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (as amended through 10/19/19)

Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct excerpts related to the instant action

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended 1992)

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions – excerpts

Defendant Nona Tobin respectfully moves the court to grant her motion for summary judgment against Red Rock Financial Services, Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo,

Tobin prays for the relief punitive damages and sanctions requested and for any and all further relief as the court deems appropriate.

Request for Judicial Notice: Laws & Regulations Exhibit 6 Sanctions & damages

Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (as amended through 10/19/19)

Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct excerpts related to the instant action

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (as amended 1992)

ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions – excerpts

NRCP 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(b) Representations to the Court.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

NRCP 11(b)
(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred for presenting or opposing the motion.

(3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a

penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

NRCP 11(c)

 NRS 18.010  Award of attorney’s fees.

      2.  In addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute, the court may make an allowance of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party:

(b) Without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party. The court shall liberally construe the provisions of this paragraph in favor of awarding attorney’s fees in all appropriate situations. It is the intent of the Legislature that the court award attorney’s fees pursuant to this paragraph and impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure in all appropriate situations to punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses because such claims and defenses overburden limited judicial resources, hinder the timely resolution of meritorious claims and increase the costs of engaging in business and providing professional services to the public

NRS 18.010(2)(b)

NRS 42.005  Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. Except as otherwise provided in this section or by specific statute, an award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant to this section may not exceed:      

(a) Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more;

3.  If punitive damages are claimed pursuant to this section, the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed. The trier of fact shall make a finding of the amount to be assessed according to the provisions of this section. The findings required by this section, if made by a jury, must be made by special verdict along with any other required findings. The jury must not be instructed, or otherwise advised, of the limitations on the amount of an award of punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1.

NRS 42.005 (1) (3)

NRS 41.1395  Action for damages for injury or loss suffered by older or vulnerable person from abuse, neglect or exploitation; double damages; attorney’s fees and costs.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, if an older person or a vulnerable person suffers a personal injury or death that is caused by abuse or neglect or suffers a loss of money or property caused by exploitation, the person who caused the injury, death or loss is liable to the older person or vulnerable person for two times the actual damages incurred by the older person or vulnerable person.

2.  If it is established by a preponderance of the evidence that a person who is liable for damages pursuant to this section acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice, the court shall order the person to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the person who initiated the lawsuit.

4.  For the purposes of this section:

      (b) “Exploitation” means any act taken by a person who has the trust and confidence of an older person or a vulnerable person or any use of the power of attorney or guardianship of an older person or a vulnerable person to:

             (1) Obtain control, through deception, intimidation or undue influence, over the money, assets or property of the older person or vulnerable person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property; or

             (2) Convert money, assets or property of the older person with the intention of permanently depriving the older person or vulnerable person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of that person’s money, assets or property.

      (d) “Older person” means a person who is 60 years of age or older.

NRS 41.1395
 “Legal Issues Related to Elder Abuse: A Desk Guide for Law Enforcement” American Bar Association

Request for Judicial Notice: Laws & Regulations Exhibit 2 Limits on HOA Board’s authority to impose sanctions

Nevada laws

NRS 116.1104         Provisions of chapter may not be varied by agreement, waived or evaded; exceptions.

NRS 116.1108         Supplemental general principles of law applicable.

NRS 116.1112         Unconscionable agreement or term of contract.

NRS 116.1113            Obligation of good faith

NRS 116.3102         Powers of unit-owners’ association; limitations.sociation; limitations.

NRS 116.3103         Power of executive board to act on behalf of association; members and officers are fiduciaries; duty of care; application of business-judgment rule and conflict of interest rules; limitations on power.

NRS 116.31031   Power of executive board to impose fines and other sanctions for violations of governing documents; limitations; procedural requirements; continuing violations; collection of past due fines; statement of balance owed.

NRS 116.3106         Bylaws.

      1.  The bylaws of the association must:

      (d) Specify the powers the executive board or the officers of the association may delegate to other persons or to a community manager;

NRS 116.3106(1)(d)

NRS 116.31065          Rules

NRS 116.3108         Meetings of units’ owners of association; opening and counting of ballots for election of members of executive board required; frequency of meetings; calling special meetings; requirements concerning notice and agendas; requirements concerning minutes of meetings; right of units’ owners to make audio recordings of meetings.

NRS 116.31083       Meetings of executive board; frequency of meetings; notice of meetings; periodic review of certain financial and legal matters at meetings; requirements concerning minutes of meetings; right of units’ owners to make audio recordings of certain meetings.

NRS 116.31084       Voting by member of executive board; disclosures; abstention from voting on certain matters.

NRS 116.31085       Right of units’ owners to speak at certain meetings; limitations on right; limitations on power of executive board to meet in executive session; procedure governing hearings on alleged violations; requirements concerning minutes of certain meetings.

NRS 116.31087       Right of units’ owners to have certain complaints placed on agenda of meeting of executive board.

Sun City Anthem Governing Documents

SCA third amended & restated CC&Rs 2008

SCA Third Amended and Restated Bylaws, 2008

Sun City Anthem CC&Rs 7.4 Compliance & Enforcement

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.15 Open HOA Board meetings

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.15A Executive session HOA Board meeting

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.17        Powers of the HOA Board

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.18. Duties of the HOA Board

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.20. Management; Defines what HOA Board duties SHALL not be delegated

 Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.25. Board standards. Directors are fiduciaries

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.21 (f)(v) Delinquency reports must be published quarterly

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.21      Accounts and reports: delinquency report

(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 ( any assessment or installment thereof shall be considered to be delinquent on the 15th day following the due date unless otherwise specified by Board resolution).

SCa bylaws 3.21 (f)(v)

Sun City Anthem bylaws 3.26. Enforcement procedures

Counter-claim vs. Red Rock Financial Services

Factual allegations

  1. 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: APN 191-13-811-052 Clark County Property Record and allegations of fraud vs. all parties
  2. 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.
  3.  The Default was cured three times, but RRFS kept pursuing the predatory path to unwarranted, unjustly profitable foreclosure. See Exhibit 3: the alleged default was cured three times.
  4. There was no valid authorization of the sale, but RRFS disclosed deceptive and falsified documents to create the misrepresentation of reality. See Exhibit 4: The HOA Board did not authorize the sale by valid corporate action.
  5. Required notices were not provided, but RRFS falsified records to cover it up. See Exhibit 5: Required notices were not provided, but it was covered up by falsified records.
  6. 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: The HOA Board imposed the ultimate sanction for an alleged violation of the governing documents with NO due process.
  7. 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.
  8. 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. 
  9. 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.
  10. 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: The proceeds of the sale were not distributed pursuant to NRS 116.31164(3) (2013)
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Attorneys have knowingly presented false evidence into the court record in discovery. See Exhibit 14: Presented false evidence to cover up crime.
  15. 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: Civil conspiracy to cover up racketeering warrants punitive damages.
  16. Exhibit 16 Republic Services lien releases
  17. Exhibit 17 Nona Tobin’s standing as an individual
  18. Exhibit 18 Relevant statutes and regulations
  19. Exhibit 19 Relevant HOA governing document provisions
  20. Exhibit 20 Administrative complaints
  21. Exhibit 21 Nevada court cases regarding the wrongful foreclosure of 2763 White Sage
  22. Exhibit 22 Nona Tobin’s 1/31/17 cross-claim vs Sun City Anthem, DOEs & ROEs excerpts: statement of facts, 5th cause of action: unjust enrichment, identification of parties

First cause of action: Interpleader

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.

Second cause of action:

Unjust enrichment or Conversion

1. Link to HOA bylaws restriction on delegation of control over funds collected for the HOA
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.
5. Link to Red Rock’s duplicitous 6/23/20 motion to dismiss my quiet title and unjust enrichment claims per NRCP 12(b)(5) and NRCP 12(b)(6)
6. Link to Red Rock’s duplicitous 2/15/21 interpleader complaint

Third cause of action: Racketeering

  1. 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;
  2. 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;
  3. 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;
  4. 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;
  5. COUNTER-CLAIMANT AND CROSS CLAIMANT NONA TOBIN’s injuries flow from the defendant’s violation of a predicate Nevada RICO act;
  6. NONA TOBIN’s injury was be proximately caused by the defendant’s violation of the predicate act;
  7. NONA TOBIN’s did not participate in the commission of the predicate act; and
  8. 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).
  9. 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

  1. 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. 
  2. This counterclaim has been necessitated by the COUNTER-DEFENDANT RRFS’s AND CROSS-DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR’s bad faith conduct. 
  3. 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).