{Converted to html. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 1 of 13
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
(702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345
yli@wrightlegal.net
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Fred Sadri, as Trustee for The Star Living Trust, dated April 14, 1997; Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
In re: JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor.
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN; and all other parties claiming an interest in real properties described in this action.
Defendant.
Case No.: 16-50644-btb
Chapter 15
Adversary No.: 17-_______________-btb
COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
JUDGE: HON. BRUCE T. BEESLEY
COMES NOW Fred Sadri, As Trustee For The Star Living Trust, Dated April 14, 1997 (“SLT”); Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, as Managing Trustees for Koroghli
Page 1 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 2 of 13
Management Trust (hereinafter “KMT” or collectively with “SLT” as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys of record, Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq., and Yanxiong Li, Esq., of the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, and hereby file this Adversary Complaint[1] against Jed Margolin (“Margolin”); Jazi Gholamreza Zandian (hereinafter “Zandian” and collectively with “Margolin” as “Defendants”) and alleges as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
The real properties at issue are multiple parcels of land located in
a. 079-150-09 (Parcel 1);
b. 079-150-10 (Parcel 2);
c. 079-150-13 (Parcel 3);
d. 084-040-02 (Parcel 4);
e. 084-040-04 (Parcel 5);
f. 084-040-06 (Parcel 6);
g. 084-040-10 (Parcel 7);
h. 084-130-07 (Parcel 8);
i. 084-140-17 (Parcel 9).
2. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Adversary Proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
3. This Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (O) and (P), and may be determined by the Court.
4. The statutory predicates supporting this adversary proceeding are 11 U.S.C. §§ 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 et seq., and NRS 40.010.
____________________
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all “Chapter” and “Section” references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be referred to as “FRCP;” the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will be referred to as “FRBP;” Federal Rules of Evidence will be referred to as “FRE;” and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada shall be referred to as “LR.”
Page 2 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 3 of 13
5. Venue for this adversary proceeding is proper in the District of Nevada, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
6.
Fred Sadri (“Mr. Sadri”) is an individual residing in
7. Ray Koroghli (“Mr. Koroghli”) and Sathsowi T. Koroghli (“Mrs. Koroghli”) are individuals residing in
8. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Jazi Gholamreza Zandian (“Zandian” or “Debtor”) was a Clark County, Nevada resident,
and claimed an undivided one-third (1/3) interest in title to the Property as a
co-owner with SLT and KMT. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Zandian has recently relocated to
9. Upon
information and belief, Defendant Jed Margolin (“Margolin”) is an individual residing in
Page 3 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 4 of 13
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
SLT and KMT’s Interest in the Property
10. On or about August 6, 2003, SLT and Mr. Koroghli each purchased a one-third undivided interest in title to the Property.[2]
11. The Grant, Bargain and Sale Deed executed by NV Land and Resources Company identified Fred Sadri as Trustee for Star Living Trust, Ray Koroghli (a single man) and Reza Zandian (a married man as his sole and separate property) each as tenants in common with respect to one-third interest in the Property.[3]
12. On August 6, 2003, Niloo Far Foughani transferred her marital interest in the Property to Zandian.[4]
13. On October 5, 2005, Zandian filed a civil action in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, against, inter alia, SLT and Ray Koroghli in Case No. 05A511131 (“Clark County Action”).[5]
14. On November 3, 2005, Zandian filed a Lis Pendens based on the Clark County Action against the Property.[6]
15. On June 8, 2007, a Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award was entered in the Clark County Action wherein, among other matters, SLT and Mr. Koroghli were ordered to execute Quitclaim Deeds transferring their undivided two-thirds interest to Zandian.[7]
16. Upon information and belief, neither SLT nor Mr. Koroghli executed any of the form Quitclaim Deeds attached to the Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award.
_____________________
[2] A true and correct copy of the GBS Deed recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 2900592 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 1. All other recordings stated hereafter are recorded in the same manner.
[3]
[4] A true and correct copy of the GBS Deed recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 2900593 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 2.
[5] A true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in Case No. 05A511131 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 3.
[6] A true and correct copy of the Lis Pendens recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 3301912 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 4.
[7] A true and correct copy of the Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award filed in Case No. 05A511131 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 5.
Page 4 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 5 of 13
17. Upon information and belief, the respective one-third interest held by SLT and Mr. Koroghli never transferred to Zandian.
18. Upon information and belief, the Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award was subsequently vacated on appeal and replaced by a Stipulated Judgment confirming the two-thirds interest in title belonging to SLT and Mr. Koroghli.[8]
19. On May 12, 2009, a Quitclaim Deed was executed by Mr. Koroghli by which his one-third interest in title to the Property was transferred to Mr. Koroghli and Mrs. Koroghli, as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust.[9]
Margolin’s Purported Interest in the Property
20. On December 11, 2009, Margolin filed a civil action in the First Judicial District Court for Carson City, Nevada against, inter alia, Zandian in Case No. 09 OC 00579 1B (“Carson City Action”).
21. On June 26, 2013, a Default Judgment was entered in the Carson City Action awarding Margolin $1,495,775.74 in damages against Zandian.[10]
22. Upon information and belief, neither SLT nor KMT, or their predecessor-ininterest, were named or participated in the Carson City Action.
23. Upon information and belief, Margolin did not properly record a copy of the Default Judgment at the Washoe County Recorder’s Office in accordance with NRS 17.150 prior to executing upon Debtor’s interest in the Property.
24. Upon information and belief, Margolin did not cause a copy of the Notice of Sale to be served in accordance with NRS 21.130 prior to executing upon Debtor’s interest in the Property.
__________________
[8] A true and correct copy of the Stipulated Judgment filed in Case No. 05A511131 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 6.
[9] A true and correct copy of the Quitclaim Deed recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 3758659 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 7.
[10] A true and correct copy of the Default Judgment filed in Case No. 09 OC 00579 1B is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 8.
Page 5 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 6 of 13
25. Upon information and belief,
pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin
caused Parcel 8 to be sold on April 3, 2015 by Sheriff’s
26. On September 8, 2016, a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded in favor Margolin with respect to Parcel 8.[12]
27. Upon information and
belief, pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused Parcel 4 to be sold on April 3, 2015 by
Sheriff’s
28. On September 8, 2016, a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded in favor Margolin with respect to Parcel 4.[14]
29. Upon information and
belief, pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused Parcel 2 to be sold on April 3, 2015 by
Sheriff’s
30. On September 8, 2016, a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded in favor Margolin with respect to Parcel 2.[16]
_____________________
[11] A true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4456021 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 9.
[12] A true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution of Real Property recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4630134 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 10.
[13] A true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4456032 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 11.
[14] A true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution of Real Property recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4630133 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 12.
[15] A true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4456020 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 13.
[16] A true and correct copy of the Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution of Real Property recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4630135 is attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as Exhibit 14.
Page 6 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 7 of 13
31. Upon information and belief, Margolin claims to be the sole owner of the title interest in Parcels 2, 4 and 8 pursuant to the Sheriff’s Sales described above.
32. A judgment execution sale conducted pursuant to NRS Chapter 21 must comply with NRS 21.130 with regard to service of Notice of Sale.
33. A title interest holder, such as SLT and KMT here, and their predecessors-ininterest to the Property, has a right to satisfy the judgment lien in order to protect their interest in the Property.
34. Upon information and belief, Margolin did not comply with all mailing and noticing requirements stated in NRS 17.150 and 21.130.
35. The Sheriff’s Sales occurred without notice to SLT and/or KMT, or their predecessors, agents, counsels, representatives of the outstanding amount of the Default Judgment.
36. The Sheriff’s Sales occurred without notice to SLT and/or KMT, or their predecessors, agents, counsels, representatives of the time and place of the sale.
37. The Sheriff’s Sales occurred without notice to SLT and/or KMT, or their predecessors, agents, counsels, representatives of their right to protect their interest in title to the Property.
38. The Sheriff’s Sales violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process because they were not given proper, adequate notice and the opportunity to protect their interest in title to the Property.
39. The Sheriff’s Sales were an invalid sale and could not have extinguished Plaintiffs’ interest because of defects in the notices given to Plaintiffs, or their predecessors, agents, servicers or trustees, if any.
40. Alternatively, the Sheriff’s Sales themselves were valid but Margolin took his interest subject to Plaintiffs’ interest.
41. A judgment execution sale must be done in a commercially reasonable manner.
42. Upon information and belief, the amount paid at the Sheriff’s Sales allegedly totaled $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 per parcel.
Page 7 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 8 of 13
43. The Sheriff’s Sales were not commercially reasonable and were not done in good faith, in light of the sale price and the market value of the Property, and the errors alleged above.
44. The circumstances of the Sheriff’s Sales breached the Margolin’s obligations of good faith and his duty to act in a commercially reasonable manner.
45. The Sheriff’s Sales by which Margolin took his interest were commercially unreasonable if they extinguished Plaintiffs’ title interest in the Property.
46. The circumstances of the Sheriff’s Sales of the Property prevent Margolin from being deemed a bona fide purchaser for value.
47. Upon information and belief, Margolin has actual, constructive or inquiry notice of Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property, which prevents Margolin from being deemed a bona fide purchaser for value.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Quiet Title/Declaratory Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 et seq., and NRS 40.010 et seq. versus all Defendants)
48. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
49. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 et seq., and NRS 40.010, this Court has the power and authority to declare Plaintiffs’ rights and interests in the Property and to resolve Defendants’ adverse claims in the Property.
50. Further, pursuant to NRS 30.010 et seq., this Court has the power and authority to declare the rights and interests of the parties following the acts and omissions of the Margolin in executing his judgment lien against the Debtor.
51. Plaintiffs’ Deeds are recorded ownership interest in the Property as intended by and whose priority is protected by NRS Chapter 21.
52. Upon information and belief, Margolin claims an interest in Parcels 2, 4, and 8 of Property through Sheriff’s Deeds Upon Sale recorded in the Washoe County Recorder’s Office as Book and Instrument Number 4630135, 4630134 and 4630133 that is adverse to Plaintiffs’ interest.
Page 8 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 9 of 13
53. Because the Default Judgment did not provide Margolin with authority to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property, the Sheriffs’ Sales could not have extinguished Plaintiffs’ interest or displaced their interest in the chain of title, such that Margolin took subject to the Plaintiffs’ interest, as a co-owner of one-third undivided interest in Parcels 2, 4, 8.
54. In the alternative, the Sheriffs’ Sales are void, invalid and/or should be set aside.
55. Because, upon information
and belief, Margolin failed to provide proper,
adequate and sufficient notices required by NRS Chapter 21, the Sheriffs’
56. Based on the adverse claims being asserted by the parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial determination regarding the rights and interests of the respective parties to the case.
57. A justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants and Plaintiffs have a legally protectable interest in the controversy. The issue is ripe for judicial determination.
58. For all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination from this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 and NRS 40.010, that the purported Sheriff’s Sales did not extinguish Plaintiffs’ ownership interest in the Property.
59. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination from this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 and NRS 40.010, that Plaintiffs each own one-third undivided interest in the Property with Margolin and/or the Debtor.
60. Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination from this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 and NRS 40.010, that Plaintiffs’ ownership interest by virtue of their Grant Bargain Sale Deeds are co-equal or superior to the interests, if any, acquired by Margolin through the Sheriff’s Sales and all other parties, if any.
61. In the alternative, if it is found under state law that Plaintiffs’ interest could have been extinguished by the Sheriff’s Sales, for all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to a determination from this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 and NRS 40.010, that the Sheriff’s Sales were void, invalid and/or should be set aside and conveyed no legitimate interest to Margolin.
Page 9 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 10 of 13
62. Plaintiffs have been compelled to retain counsel to represent them in this matter and have and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Permanent and Preliminary Injunction versus All Defendants)
63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
64. As set forth above, Defendants may claim an ownership interest in the Property that is adverse to Plaintiffs.
65. Any sale or transfer of the Property, prior to a judicial determination concerning the respective rights and interests of the parties to the case, may be rendered invalid if Plaintiffs’ ownership interest was not extinguished by the Sheriff’s Sales.
66. Plaintiffs have a reasonable probability of success on the merits of this Adversary Complaint, for which compensatory damages will not compensate Plaintiffs for the irreparable harm of the loss of title to a bona fide purchaser.
67. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law due to the uniqueness of the Property involved in the case.
68. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their successors, assigns, and agents from conducting any sale, transfer or encumbrance of the Property if it is claimed to be superior to Plaintiffs’ ownership interest or not subject to Plaintiffs’ ownership interest.
69. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to pay a prorated portion of all taxes, insurance and homeowner’s association dues during the pendency of this action.
70. Plaintiffs have been compelled to retain counsel to represent it in this matter and have and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment versus All Defendants)
71. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege all previous paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
Page 10 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 11 of 13
72. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the benefit of their ownership interest in the Property by Defendants’ actions.
73. Defendants have benefitted
from the unlawful Sheriff’s
74. Defendants have benefitted
from Plaintiffs’ payment of taxes, insurance or homeowner’s association assessments
since the time of the Sheriff’s
75. Should Plaintiffs’ Adversary Complaint be successful in quieting title against Defendants and setting aside the Sheriff’s Sales, Defendants will have been unjustly enriched by the Sheriff’s Sales and usage of the Property.
76. Plaintiffs will have suffered damages if Defendants are allowed to retain their claimed interest in the Property and the benefit of Plaintiffs’ payment of taxes, insurance or homeowner’s association assessments since the time of the Sheriff’s Sales.
77. Plaintiffs are entitled to general and special damages.
78. Plaintiffs have been compelled to retain counsel to represent it in this matter and have and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs.
PRAYER
Wherefore, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against the Defendant as follows:
1. For a declaration and determination that Plaintiffs’ two-thirds ownership interest is co-equal or superior to Defendants’ interest in the Property, and that Plaintiffs’ ownership interest were not extinguished by the Sheriff Sales;
2. For a declaration and determination that Defendants’ interest, and any and all successors’ interest, in the Property, if any, is subject to Plaintiffs’ two-thirds ownership interest in the Property;
3. For a declaration and determination that the Sheriffs’ Sales were invalid to the extent it purports to convey the Property to Margolin free and clear of Plaintiffs’ interest, rights or claims;
Page 11 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 12 of 13
4. In the alternative, for a declaration and determination that the Sheriff’s Sales were void, invalid and/or should be set aside and conveyed no legitimate interest to Margolin;
5. For a preliminary injunction that Defendants, their successors, assigns, and agents are prohibited from conducting a sale or transfer of the Property and representing the sale is free and clear of the Plaintiffs’ ownership interest, unless Defendants tender payment of the value in the Property interest owned by Plaintiffs;
6. For a preliminary injunction that Defendants, their successors, assigns, and agents pay all taxes, insurance and homeowner’s association dues during the pendency of this action;
7. For general and special damages;
8. For attorney’s fees;
9. For costs incurred herein, including post-judgment costs; and
10. For any and all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2017.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
/s/ Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
(702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Fred Sadri, as Trustee for The Star Living Trust, dated April 14, 1997; Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust
Page 12 of 13
Case 17-05016-btb Doc 1 Entered 05/25/17 14:27:12 Page 13 of 13
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
#1
Grant, Bargain and
#2
Grant, Bargain and
#3 Complaint in Case No. 05A511131
#4 Lis Pendens in Case No. 05A511131
#5 Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award in Case No. 05A511131
#6 Stipulated Judgment in Case No. 05A511131
#7 Quitclaim Deed
#8 Default Judgment in Case No. 09 OC 00579 1B
#9 Sheriff’s Cert of Sale (Parcel 8)
#10 Sheriff’s Deed Upon Sale (Parcel 8)
#11 Sheriff’s Cert of Sale (Parcel 4)
#12 Sheriff’s Deed Upon Sale (Parcel 4)
#13 Sheriff’s Cert of Sale (Parcel 2)
#14 Sheriff’s Deed Upon Sale (Parcel 2)
Page 13 of 13