Nona Tobin’s Standing in A-19-799890-C
Plaintiff NONA TOBIN, an Individual, (Herein “Plaintiff” or “Tobin”) is the sole successor trustee, beneficiary and surviving member of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, (Herein “GBH Trust”) that held recorded title to the subject property from 8/27/08 until a foreclosure deed was recorded on August 22, 2014, that transferred title to the alleged purchaser at the disputed HOA sale. Tobin claims an individual interest in this property as all the GBH Trust’s claims to the title were transferred to Tobin as an individual via a quitclaim deed, recorded on 3/28/17, at which time, the insolventGBH Trust was closed on 3/28/17 when its sole asset, the subject property, was transferred out of the trust.
EXHIBITS: The Gordon B. Hansen Trust, dated 8/22/08, held the title at the time of the 8/15/14 HOA sale
EXHIBITS: Nona Tobin became the trustee of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust and executed all transactions related to the property leading up to the 8/15/14 disputed HOA sale
EXHIBITS: Nona Tobin became the successor in interest to the Gordon B. Hansen Trust on 3/28/17
EXHIBITS: Nona Tobin, the owner of 2664 Olivia Heights Ave, has been an owner in good standing in Sun City Anthem since 2/3/04
Plaintiff seeks to void the defective HOA sale
- Herein Plaintiff petitions the Court to declare that the disputed HOA sale was unfair, and fraught with fraud and did not extinguish the Gordon B. Hansen Trust’s nor its successor trustee’s rights to title;
- that Plaintiff is entitled to the $57,282.32 excess proceeds of the sale held for five years by Red Rock Financial Services undistributed as required by NRS 116.31164(b)(3)(2013);
- that Plaintiff’s 3/28/17 deed is valid and superior to the 12/27/19 deed currently held by Brian and Debora Chiesti as Joel Stokes had no valid title interest to transfer to Chiesti;
- that Joel A. Stokes and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Jimijack Irrevocable Trust fraudulently conveyed Jimijacks interest in the property to Joel Stokes via the 5/1/19 deed to evade the judicial determination that Jimijack did not hold a valid deed;
- that the 6/9/19 deed of Joel and Sandra Stokes as trustees of Irrevocable Trust was void and did not have the legal capacity to convey title per NRS 111.345 as it was fraught with notarial violation;
- that Plaintiff is entitled to recoup damages, including five years of rental income from Joel Stokes (9/25/14 – 12/27/19);
- that all instruments, encumbrances, and clouds against Tobin’s rights to clear, unclouded title be canceled, expunged, and declared without legal force and effect.
HOA SALE: TABLE OF VIOLATIONS
|STATUTE||PROVIDES||VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO HOA SALE|
|NRS 116.3116||Super-priority||Miles Bauer tendered $825 that SCA agents rejected|
|NRS 116A.640 (8)||HOA Manager can’t: “8. Intentionally apply a payment of an assessment from a unit’s owner towards any fine, fee or other charge that is due.”|| “check (143) for HOA dues” was applied first to fees 10/18/12 by RRFS as partial payment; |
10/3/12 check 143 for $300 submitted & ID’d as “check for HOA dues” to pay $275 assessments and $25 late fee
See SCA 631 11/9/12 applied check 143 as “RRFS collection payment” in Resident Transaction Report SCA
See “RRFS Claims vs Actual”
|NRS 116A.640(9)||HOA Manager can’t: “9. Refuse to accept from a unit’s owner payment of any assessment, fine, fee or other charge that is due because there is an outstanding payment due.”||RRFS refused BANA’s 5/9/13 tender of $825. |
RRFS did not present Nationstar’s $1100 offer to close the escrow opened on 5/8/14 on the $350,000 www.auction.com sale
rejection of BANA tender occurred when only nine months were delinquent as of 4/30/13
NSM $1100 offer rejected as if it was an owner request for waiver
See SCA 416 5/9/13 & 5/10/13 entries
|NRS 116A.640(10)||HOA Manager can’t: “10. Collect any fees or other charges from a client not specified in the management agreement.”||Managing agent FSR (fka RMI) held the NRS 649 debt collection license dba Red Rock Financial Services (RRFS). |
FSR kept a different set of books for the HOA than FSR dba RRFS kept to monitor the collection process.
See SCA 250-262 that includes both the SCA resident transaction report that FSR maintained as SCA’s managing agent and the FSR dba RRFS Account Detail from 9/13/12-8/15/14. These are a double set of books.
See Pg. 6 of the 3/28/14 CONCEALED RRFS pay off demand to Chicago Title which shows one example of RRFS falsifying the record of the SCA Board approval of a $400 fee waiver.
RRFS charged excessive, unauthorized and unearned “collection costs”.
See “RRFS Claims vs Actual”
RRFS retained $57,282.32 of the excess proceeds of the sale & lied about it.
See SCA 217 & SCA 223-224.
FSR/RRFS did not enforce the indemnification clause of the 4/27/12 contract and were unjustly enriched thereby.
See indemnification clause 4/27/12 RRFS debt collection agreement
2/26/10 RMI management agreement
3/31/14 FSR management agreement
|NRS 116.31162 – SCA Board Resolution Delinquent Assessment Policy and Procedure||Can’t file a notice of intent to lien “or take any other action to collect prior to “60 days after the obligation becomes due’.|| lien recorded with no prior notice for $925.76 when only $300 was due |
See annotated SCA 168-SCA 175 SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy
|NRS 116.31162 (4)||Must provide schedule of fees, proposed repayment plan, right to hearing by BOD + procedures||No schedule of fees, repay plan, or hearing was provided ever. |
No exception exists in the law to providing these notices or holding a hearing if an account has been sent to collections as claimed by SCA.
See 3/26/19 RTRAN, pgs. 23-24.
|NRS 116.311635||NOS – publish 3 times. Date & time & place of sale, mail certified to owner,||2/12/14 NOS complied with NRS 116.311635, but the single complaint notice was canceled by notice to Ombudsman on 5/15/14. |
See Ombudsman NOS compliance record of HOA notice published 2/12/14 for a 3/7/14 sale.
No new compliant NOS was published prior to the 8/15/14 sale.
All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were explicitly excluded from notice of the sale and were given no notice after it was sold.
|NRS 116.311365(2b3)||Give NOS to OMB||No 2nd NOS – 8/15/14 sale held without notice to any party with a known interest. |
RRFS did provide a 2nd NOS in two other SCA foreclosures where the 1st NOS was canceled
2986 Olivia Heights Ave on 3/25/14 & 11/5/14
2532 Grandville on 7/6/12 & 11/26/13
|NRS 116.31164(3)(b)||Deliver copy of foreclosure deed within 30 days after sale||8/15/14 sale was held without having a 2nd NOS and without giving the OMB the foreclosure deed EVER |
All parties with a known interest (the owner, the listing agent, the servicing bank, all SCA members and BFPVs whose FMV offers had been rejected by the lender) were not given any notice after the property was sold.
|NRS 116.31164(3)(c)||Manner in which proceeds of sale are to be distributed||On 11/30/18, Steve Scow said that the funds were still in the Red Rock Financial Services account. |
SCA 217 & SCA 223-224 were deceptive.
SCA 224 disclosed a $57,282 check, dated 8/27/14, to Clark County District Court, to create to mis-perception that the funds had been distributed.
In 2014, RRFS misled Tobin so she could not submit a claim for the proceeds through interpleader.
See 10/15/14 Tobin to Leidy email
Tobin has been prevented from making the claim that she is entitled to the proceeds because NSM is not entitled to them as NSM’s claims to be the beneficial owner of the Western Thrift deed of trust are provably false.
|NRS 116.31166||Deed recitals are deemed to be conclusive of a valid sale that removed the owner’s right of redemption||Deed recitals were false. |
The HOA & its agents failed to comply with all legal requirements that were conditions precedent to a valid sale.
The default did not occur as was stated on the 3/12/13 rescinded Notice of default (NOD).
See 3/12/13 NOD. 4/3/13 rescission
Despite the false recital that there were no payments were made after 7/1/13, check 143 was credited as paying all the quarter ending 9/30/12. See SCA 625 10/18/12 entry in RRFS 11/5/12 ledger See SCA 618 Association Allocation Detail
|NRS 116.1113||Obligation of good faith||The Miles Bauer tender of $825 on 5/9/13 would have paid all delinquent assessments through 6/30/13. |
RRFS rejected it unilaterally without notice to the SCA BOD or the owner.
See Doug Proudfit DECL
RRFS misrepresented SCA 302 (NSM 5/28/14 offer of $1100) and called it an owner request for waiver in SCA 295.
See annotated SCA 275-293 for RRFS deception about notices sent.
FSR d/b/a RRFS had a financial conflict of interest serving both as the HOA’s managing agent and as its debt collector.
FSR and RRFS advised the HOA BOD that it was required to handle collections and foreclosure in secret meetings.
See “SCA Board secretly sold a dozen houses in 2014”
FSR/RRFS falsely advised the HOA BOD that all BOD decisions related to “public” auctions of foreclosed properties were confidential by law.
See Pg 4 of Jim Long emails.
FSR/RRFS did not act in good faith when it advised the BOD that there was an exception to due process requirements and owner protections in the law and in the deed restrictions if the proposed sanction was selling a home worth 200 times the alleged debt.
FSR/RRFS prevented the BOD from complying with the requirements for taking valid corporate actions by getting the BOD to make all the decisions leading up to the sale of the property in unnoticed, closed meetings and without giving the owner an opportunity to prevent the sale.
|NRS 116.3102 (m)||(1) (m) May impose reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents of the association only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.||FSR/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that this provision did not apply when the HOA was imposing fines that were mis-named collection costs. FRS/RRFS advised the HOA BOD that selling an owner’s home for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments was not a fine or a sanction.|
|NRS 116.3102 (3)(4)||3. The executive board may determine whether to take enforcement action by exercising the association’s power to impose sanctions or commence an action for a violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules, including whether to compromise any claim for unpaid assessments or other claim made by or against it. The executive board does not have a duty to take enforcement action if it determines that, under the facts and circumstances presented: (a) The association’s legal position does not justify taking any or further enforcement action; (b) The covenant, restriction or rule being enforced is, or is likely to be construed as, inconsistent with current law; (c) Although a violation may exist or may have occurred, it is not so material as to be objectionable to a reasonable person or to justify expending the association’s resources; or (d) It is not in the association’s best interests to pursue an enforcement action.|
|NRS 116.3102 (3)(4)||Enforcement must be prudent, not arbitrary and capricious||4. The executive board’s decision under subsection 3 not to pursue enforcement under one set of circumstances does not prevent the executive board from taking enforcement action under another set of circumstances, but the executive board may not be arbitrary or capricious in taking enforcement action. The BOD was arbitrary and capricious in its decision to make foreclosure decisions based solely on the allegations of its financially-conflicted agents,. The HOA BOD allowed non-uniform enforcement and unjust enrichment of the agents to occur without supervising or auditing the agents’ actions or allowing owners to know what actions the agents were taking.|
|NRS 116.3103||BOD and agents are fiduciaries, business judgment rule, duty bound to act solely and exclusive in the best interest of the HOA||HOA agents were unjustly enriched by usurping the policy authority and duties the SCA Board is prohibited from delegating by its governing documents. |
It is not in the best interests of the HOA for the Board to allow agents to give higher priority to their own business interests than to the interests of the SCA membership given that the HOA a mutual-benefit association that exists solely to protect the common good (common areas and general property values) of the homeowners.
SCA agents have no statutory or contractual authority independent of the association.
The Association owes no duty to its agents, only to homeowners.
|NRS 116.31031 CC&Rs 7.4 Bylaws 3.26 Resolution Establishing the Governing Documents Enforcement Policy & Process||Limits on BOD power to impose sanctions HOA BOD must provide: Notice of violation Notice of hearing and procedures Notice of sanction & chance to appeal Notice of appeal hearing procedures Appeal||SCA alleged it sent a 9/20/12 notice of hearing for proposed sanction of suspension of membership privileges, but there was no hearing and no notice of sanctions alleged. |
See 8/13/14 Notice of Fines insultingly sent two days before the house was sold without notice.
None of the contractually-defined notice requirements guaranteed to all SCA homeowners prior to the imposition of a sanction for an alleged violation of any kind were met:
No Notice of violation (also no quarterly delinquency report as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v))
No Notice of hearing and procedures Notice of sanction & chance to appeal Notice of appeal hearing procedures Appeal hearing held
Check 143 for $300 was submitted on 10/3/12 to pay $275 assessments through 9/30/12 plus $25 late fee authorized (SCA170).
RRFS credited $300 on 10/18/12 to unauthorized fees instead of to cure the delinquency as the owner stated was her intention. (SCA 625)
|NRS 116.310313||An HOA can charge reasonable fees to collect; this provision applies equally to an HOA agent||RRFS claims to have independent authority to charge fees unlimited by this provision. |
SCA BOD has abdicated to that view and memorialized it in SCA Delinquent Assessment Policy (SCA168-175).
|NRS 116.116.3106 (1)(d)||HOA must define in its bylaw which of BODs duties SHALL not be delegated||FSR/RRFS misled the HOA Board|
|SCA Bylaws 3.20/ 3.18a, b, e, f, g, i Adopted pursuant to NRS 116.3106(d)||Can’t delegate (a) budget; (b) levying or collecting assessments, (e) deposit in approved institutions for HOA’s behalf, (f) making/ amending use rules, (g) opening bank accounts and controlling signatories, (i) enforcing governing documents||FSR/RRFS usurped the collection and foreclosure process by asserting total proprietary control over all financial records. |
They structured a system that excluded the HOA Board from the ability to supervise or audit the agents’ work.
FSR/RRFS had signatory control over SCA accounts covering all assessments collected.
SCA maintained no independent records to document that the sale occurred in the manner claimed by FSR/RRFS (or occurred at all).
SCA’s ownership records (Resident Transaction Report) show only two owners of the property (Hansen and Jimijack before 2016 while RRFS shows three owners and Jimijack claims there were four.
SCA has no record that the property was sold on 8/15/14 or on any other date.
The HOA has no record that $63,100, or for any other amount, was collected from selling the property.
The HOA has no records of what happened to whatever money was collected for whatever properties were sold by agents exercising the HOA’s statutory right to foreclose in whatever unknown manner they chose.
|NRS 116.31083||Defines Requires HOA BOD meetings to be open to all owners except in four limited circumstances||No notice to the membership when any decision to foreclose a particular property was made. |
The Board meets in closed session to discuss and act on topics outside the four permissible ones.
11/15/12 NRED Advisory Opinion 12-05.116 re Executive Session Agendas.
No HOA record of votes to authorize the foreclosure
2012 minutes 001-145
2013 minutes 001-133
2014 minutes 001-187
SCA 315 was deliberative deceptive.
|NRS 116.31083 (6) NRS 116.3108(4)||agenda must clearly describe topics||This property was never on any Board agenda for any reason. NRS 116.3108 (4) 4. The agenda for a meeting of the units’ owners must consist of: (a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, including, without limitation, any proposed amendment to the declaration or bylaws, any fees or assessments to be imposed or increased by the association, any budgetary changes and any proposal to remove an officer of the association or member of the executive board. (b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken. (c) A period devoted to comments by units’ owners regarding any matter affecting the common-interest community or the association and discussion of those comments. Except in emergencies, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to paragraph (b).|
|NRS 116.31083 (9)||minutes must include date, time and place of meeting; directors present, substance of matters discussed, record of vote, owners’ comments||Nothing in any minutes indicate the SCA Board authorized this property to be sold. |
No Board vote exists in the HOA records related to this property at all.
|NRS 116.31065||Rules must be uniformly enforced or not at all||SCA asserts that foreclosure is a statutory right that exempts the HOA Board & its agents from providing an owner the notice and due process required by NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 prior to the Board’s imposing any sanction against an owner for an alleged infraction of the HOA’s governing documents. |
Tobin asserts that there is no exception in the law that exempts an HOA from providing all of the notice and due process delineated in NRS 116.31031 and CC&Rs 7.4 when the Board imposes ANY sanction.
It is ludicrous for an HOA Board to assert that the ONLY exception to an owner’s rights to due process was when an unsupervised agent imposed the harshest possible sanction, i.e., permanent revocation of membership privileges, 100% of the owner’s title rights and a fine 200 times the debt, for an alleged violation of the governing documents of delinquent assessments.
|NRS 116.31175 SCA bylaws 6.4 SCA bylaws 3.26||HOA agents do not control HOA records. The Board controls the records and must provide owners access to all BOD agendas, minutes, & all HOA records (with statutorily-defined exceptions), including contracts, court filings when HOA is a party. which must be reported quarterly by name||The HOA and its agents did not put provide any agenda that specified any proposed action to sanction the owner of 2763 White Sage for delinquent assessments or to sell the property to collect. |
SCA did not provide any minutes of meetings where those actions are taken and do not allow access to court records or contracts so they allow people to basically steal.
There is no record of which houses are taken and sold or where the money went SCA withheld compliance records requested in 2016 unless they received a request from the court.
SCA withheld all minutes of Board meetings at which the owner or the property or Nona Tobin were discussed or actions taken to impose sanctions
SCA withheld all the documents requested in discovery.
SCA withheld reports given to the Ombudsman and told Tobin she had to obtain them from the Ombudsman.
Then, SCA told the court that the Red Rock foreclosure file was SCA’s official record, and the Ombudsman’s compliance records were inadmissible.
|NRS 116.31175 SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)||“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…” |
FSR f/k/a RMI, as the HOA’s managing agent, never provided a quarterly delinquency report to the HOA BOD. The absence of this mandated report facilitated FSR d/b/a RRFS’s predatory collection practices which included adding
|NRS 116.31085(4)||BOD SHALL meet in exec session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who is about to be sanctioned requests an open hearing by the BOD. If the person requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted||No hearing was ever provided because no notice was ever given to the owner that the Board intended to impose a sanction of permanent revocation of membership privileges by selling the house. |
SCA alleges that it offered on 9/20/12 a hearing scheduled for 10/8/12 prior to the imposition of a sanction of the temporary loss of membership privileges because, as of 9/20/12, the $275 assessment payment for the quarter ending 9/30/12 had not yet been received.
If such a notice were sent, SCA did not follow through with it after check 143 was received.
|NRS 116.31085(4a)||Owner who is being sanctioned for an alleged violation is entitled to attend all portions of the Board hearing, including the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnesses||No notice to attend a hearing was ever sent to Tobin. |
Tobin was given no opportunity to cure the trivial delinquency.
|NRS 116.31085(4b)||Owner is entitled to due process which must include without limitation the right to counsel, right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel (BOD)||No due process whatsoever was provided. Insulting less due process than was provided when the alleged violation was dead plants.|
See 8/13/14 Notice of Fines insultingly sent two days before the house was sold without notice.
|NRS 116.31085(5)||subsection 4 establishes the MINIMUM protections the BOD must provide before it makes a decision||SCA didn’t provide the minimum protections|
|NRS 116.31085(6f)||any matter discussed in exec session must be noted briefly in the minutes of the Executive Board. The Board shall maintain minutes of any decision related to subsection concerning the alleged violation and upon request shall provide a copy of the decision to the owner subject to being sanctioned or rep||SCA refused to provide any minutes because there was no hearing.|
|NRS 116.31087(1)||right of owners to place allegation of violations of NRS 116 or the governing documents if they give a written request to the BOD||Tobin was blocked multiple times from telling the HOA BOD that their agents were stealing. |
Tobin was told she would have to get a court order to even see the records about the sanctions they took sanctioning for dead trees at the property. See 8/13/14 Notice of Fines insultingly sent two days before the house was sold without notice See “What Lawsuit?” originally published 3/18/17
Plaintiff & Attorney Contact Information
|ADDRESS 1||2664 OLIVIA HEIGHTS AVE|
|ADDRESS 2||HENDERSON NV 89052|
|ATTORNEY 1 NAME||JOHN W THOMSON|
|LEGAL ASSISTANT||KIM VROMAN|
|FIRM||LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. THOMSON, ESQ.|
|NV BAR NO.||5802|
|ADDRESS 1||2450 ST. ROSE PARKWAY|
|ADDRESS 2||SUITE 120|
|ADDRESS 3||HENDERSON NV 89074|
|APPEAL ATTORNEY||A-15-720032-C AND APPEAL 79295|
|ATTORNEY 1 NAME||L. JOE COPPEDGE, ESQ.|
|NV BAR NO.||4954|
|ATTORNEY 2 NAME||MICHAEL R. MUSHKIN, ESQ.|
|LEGAL ASSISTANT||KAREN FOLEY|
|FIRM||MUSHKIN & COPPEDGE|
|NV BAR NO.||2421|
|ADDRESS 1||6070 SO. EASTERN AVE|
|ADDRESS 2||SUITE 270|
|ADDRESS 3||LAS VEGAS NV 89052|