Court record shows that I was always a party as an individual until the trial.
7/29/16 MINV was denied because I did not attach proposed pleadings, not because the judge said I couldn’t proceed as Pro Se.
See 9/29/16 transcript.
My 9/23/16 AFFD was not excluded from the record, but it was not considered as it was late.
My 11/15/16 MINV was Pro Se, had pleadings that all specified that I was applying to intervene as an individual beneficiary as well as the trustee of the GBH Trust. Exhibit 1 contains all the Trust documents.
12/5/16 OPPM – Hong for Jimijack objected to my intervening because he said that the issue was just between Jimijack and NSM and that I could only have standing if I prevailed against the HOA.
12/12/16 Tobin ROPP opposed Hong’s reasoning reasoning to show why if the sale removed the owner’s interest, it also removed the security interest of the lender that held the recorded claim prior to the 8/22/14 foreclosure deed was recorded (BANA or Wells Fargo ). If NSM had standing to file a claim without even having a recorded claim, the owner at the time of the sale certainly had standing.
12/5/16 OPPM – Hong for Jimijack objected to my intervening because he said that the issue was just between Jimijack and NSM and that I could only have standing if I prevailed against the HOA.
12/12/16 Tobin ROPP opposed Hong’s reasoning reasoning to show why if the sale removed the owner’s interest, it also removed the security interest of the lender that held the recorded claim prior to the 8/22/14 foreclosure deed was recorded (BANA or Wells Fargo ). If NSM had standing to file a claim without even having a recorded claim, the owner at the time of the sale certainly had standing.
12/20/16 hearing – court granted Pro Se MINV. Hong’s objection was overruled because the judge said my Pro Se motion to intervene met the criteria to intervene per rule 24.
1/12/17 NEO – I wrote it and circulated it but nobody signed it. My proposed pleadings and every pleading and motion after this filed by any party identified me as an individual party as well as a trustee. The caption in the 1/12/17 order does not have me as a party in either capacity. I didn’t know both, an individual and as trustee, had to be included with my signature on the pleading.
3/22/17 MDSM SCA filed to dismiss my claims per rule 41 for not having an attorney as an individual and as a trustee
3/22/17 offer I offered a deal to SCA to end the litigation at no cost to SCA
3/23/17 Ochoa unilaterally rejected the HOA’s consideration of my offer because my issues were similar to the bank’s
3/27/17 I emailed to ask Ochoa to reconsider forcing me to proceed with litigation without giving me or the Board a chance to resolve the issue informally as required by SCA CC&Rs XVI: Dispute Resolution and Limitation on Litigation.
The 3/22/17 SCA MDSM for no attorney was moot anyway.
3/27/17 Disclaimer 50% Co-beneficiary Steve Hansen had disclaimed his interest.
3/27/17 Nona Tobin became the sole member and beneficiary as well as the trustee of the
8/22/08 GBH Trust, dated 8/22/08 and amended 8/10/11.
I also told Ochoa in the email that I had removed the property from the trust and put the title in my name as an individual.
I attached to the email the 3/27/17 unrecorded quit claim deed and the 3/22/17 offer to settle he had requested.
3/28/17 hearing (see pg 6 lines 14 et seq) resulted in a continuance of the hearing of four open motions. David Ochoa’s wife said he had represented to her that her never got the deed and that was no reason to try to settle.
3/28/17 I filed Steve Hansen’s DISI into the case
3/28/17 I recorded the quit claim deed transferring the GBH Trust’s interest to me as an individual and the statement of value (page 4) on which I noted that by the removal of the property from the trust the GBH Trust was closed
3/31/17 I recorded the 3/27/17 Hansen disclaimer, the 3/8/17 Lucas/Opportunity Homes disclaimer, and the 3/13/17 Lee/f. Bondurant llc disclaimer. which NSM disclosed along with the 3/27/17 deed as NSM 208-227.
4/5/17 ROPP (annotated pgs3, 4, 9, 10, 11I put it into the record again that I had a deed and the other beneficiary had disclaimed all interest so the motion to dismiss was moot
4/10/17 ROPP (page 8) I put it into the record again that I had a deed and the other beneficiary had disclaimed all interest so the motion to dismiss was moot.
4/27/17 hearing (annotated pgs 3-13) the court denied SCA’s motion to dismiss my claims as to the individual and deferred the decision on whether to dismiss the GBH Trust claims for not having an attorney
5/23/17 corporate counsel check – Joe Coppedge appeared without having filed a NOTA and the hearing was continued
5/24/17 NOTA Coppedge for Tobin as an individual and as trustee
5/25/17 hearing – court found that since Coppedge appeared, it was moot to say whether the GBH Trust needed an attorney. Coppedge and Ochoa stipulated that all Tobin’s claims as an individual and as Trustee would be dismissed to go to mediation except for quiet title.
9/19/17 NEO 9/20/17 order did not include the important fact that the court on 4/27/17 had denied SCA’s 3/22/17 MDSM (See 4/27/17 minutes 2nd paragraph from bottom of page 1) to dismiss Tobin as to the individual
SCA’s published quarterly litigation reports (2/14/17-1/23/20) showed they had full knowledge that I was a party to this litigation both as an individual and as the trustee
11/30/18 MAND (see pg. 4, line 16 stated that one of the four purposes of the amendment was to remove myself as an individual party to stop SCA from harassing and retaliating against me for being a party to the litigation. was Coppedge’s only amendment proposed to my 1/31/17 CRCM vs. SCA. Another purpose was to add an unjust enrichment claim against third party RRFS.
1/10/19 hearing the court granted the 11/30/18 MAND but with the specification of new claims and no new parties. Joe did not enter the order.
2/5/19 SCA MSJ was filed only against the GBH Trust (Page 2) and not against Tobin the individual. therefore it would only be a partial MSJ.
3/26/19 hearing (pg. 27) SCA was very specific about the operative pleading in the hearing that the 11/30/18 amended complaint did not exist and the operative pleading was my pro se 1/31/17 CRCM vs. SCA. Note on pg. 19 I am identified as an individual party as well as trustee.
3/12/19 ANEO order stipulating to “reform the caption” did not remove Tobin as an individual from the case
4/17/19 order NEO 4/18/19 was only against the GBH Trust, but in the introduction states that Coppedge
4/23/19 hearing, held ex-parte because Hong served two notices that the 4/23/19 hearing was continued to 5/7/19 where my Pro Se motions were stricken from the record because Coppedge had not filed a motion to withdraw. I was not removed as an individual by the bench orders striking my pro Se motions as rogue. My Pro Se filings were unauthorized because both the individual and the trustee were represented.
4/25/19 PTC hearing (pg. 2, line 23) I was not removed as an individual party.
5/29/19 hearing Mushkin withdrew motion to substitute me as an individual for me as trustee because the court was clear she would not approve it because it was so late and she didn’t think she had ever allowed me to be a party.
6/3/19 calendar call – first bench order to remove me as an individual from the trial
6/24/19 order was the first written order ended per rule 58 that removed me as an individual party and granted quiet title to Jimijack (that never had a valid deed and who had, without telling the court, transferred its interest to Joel Stokes, an individual, on 5/1/19) and to NSM who had no recorded interest in the DOT at the time of the sale and had no recorded interest at the time of the 6/5/19 trial per 6/3/19 Reconveyance.
11/22/19 order was the 2nd order that said I was not a party as an individual based on the false misrepresentations by SCA, NSM and Hong