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but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.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] 


  • 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).