Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Willis

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 26, 2017

CLARENCE MOSES WILLIS, et al., Defendant(s).


         Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 190). Pro se defendant Clarence Moses Willis (“Willis” or “defendant”) filed an objection (ECF No. 195), to which plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae” or “plaintiff”) responded (ECF No. 201).

         I. Facts

         This case arises from allegations of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, slander of title, unjust enrichment, fraudulent conveyance, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1723(a), trespass, and quiet title to real property against defendants Willis, Ernest C. Aldridge, Geri L. McKinnon, and Creative Solutions 4 U, LLC.

         Plaintiff owns the following eight (8) real properties: 230 Flint Street, Fernley, Nevada 89408 (APN No. 020-323-06) (the “Flint property”); 330 Garden Lane, Fernley Nevada 89408 (APN No. 020-729-15) (the “Garden property”); 5373 Homeria Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 (APN No. 163-28-720-01) (the “Homeria property”); 7240 Mountain Moss Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 (APN No. 163-15-710-093) (the “Mountain Moss property”); 7116 Cornflower Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 (APN No. 138-27-515-029) (the “Cornflower property”); 2523 Palma Vista Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 (APN No. 162-12-310-045) (the “Palma Vista property”); 4912 Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 (APN No. 125-36-814-012) (the “Canadian property”); and 5654 Thunder Spirit Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 (APN No. 163-30-816-006) (the “Thunder Spirit property”) (collectively, as the “subject properties”). (ECF No. 41 at 5-14).

         Plaintiff alleges that over the course of several months, defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to defraud plaintiff of its interest in these eight (8) Nevada properties. Plaintiff further asserts that defendants, without any legal right or authorization by plaintiff, prepared, executed, and recorded deeds purporting to transfer title from plaintiff to defendants.

         It appears that defendants executed all eight (8) schemes using substantially similar patterns. Fannie Mae acquired its ownership interest in a subject property pursuant to a trustee's deed upon sale recorded in the official records for the appropriate county. Then, defendant Aldridge would record and subsequently re-record a quitclaim deed. For each property, plaintiff would purportedly deed the property to defendant Aldridge for the amount of $10.00. Defendant Willis would then sign the quitclaim deed as purported authorized agent for Fannie Mae. The quitclaim deeds would list plaintiff's mailing address as 4912 Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130.

         Plaintiff asserts that defendant Willis is not, nor has ever been, an employee of Fannie Mae and is not an agent or authorized representative of plaintiff in any capacity. Moreover, 4912 Canadian Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 is not plaintiff's mailing address. Plaintiff further claims that it never authorized defendant Aldridge to prepare, execute, or record any quitclaim deed, nor did plaintiff authorize defendant Willis to prepare, execute, or record any quitclaim deed on its behalf.

         Four (4) of the properties, as detailed fully in plaintiff's motions for TRO and preliminary injunction, have had a grant, bargain, sale deed recorded in the records of Clark or Lyons County. (ECF No. 17). “Pastor Ernest C. Aldridge and his successor, a corporate sole, ” has purportedly deeded each of these properties to one of defendants McKinnon, CS4U, or Willis for $10.00.

         On January 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's ex parte motion for a TRO. (ECF No. 19). On January 26, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 32).

         On February 3, 2016, defendant Aldridge filed a 12(b) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 34). On February 25, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contained no changes to parties. (ECF No. 41). The amended complaint alleges nineteen (19) causes of action against the various defendants. (ECF No. 41).

         On July 21, 2016, plaintiff served written discovery requests including interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission on Willis. On August 22, 2016, Willis filed a motion for protective order (ECF No. 86) in regard to plaintiff's written discovery. On September 14, 2016, the court denied Willis's motion and instructed him to respond to plaintiff's written discovery requests by September 27, 2016. Willis, however, did not respond to plaintiff's written discovery. After Willis informed plaintiff that he was not available to attend his deposition scheduled for September 16, 2016, plaintiff rescheduled and re-noticed his deposition to December 21, 2016. On multiple occasions, plaintiff communicated with Willis in regard to his deposition in an attempt to coordinate. Willis did not attend the deposition despite having received notice.

         Plaintiff requests that the court impose sanctions against Willis, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, for failing to provide discovery and for failing to comply with the court's orders. Willis argues that he was not required to “offer information” to plaintiff because plaintiff did not comply with Rule 26. (ECF No. 168 at 2).

         On September 21, 2016, the court denied the following motions: ECF Nos. 47, 66, 74, 78, 80, 81, 83, and 90). (ECF No. 114). On October 25, 2016, the court denied the following motions: ECF Nos. 119, 120, and 121. (ECF No. 131). On March 16, 2017, Willis filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 181), which the court denied on March 20, 2017 (ECF No. 185).

         In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Foley recommends that plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Willis (ECF No. 160) be granted, that Willis's answer (ECF No. 39) be stricken, and that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.