Graceland Fraudster Does the Jailhouse Rock

*^{Riley Keough, inset, with Graceland}*

Lisa Findley, a woman from the Ozarks with a known history of petty crime, was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison last month after pleading guilty to mail fraud. The charge stemmed from a bizarre scheme in which she attempted to secure a $3 million payoff using a fake loan backed by a fraudulent mortgage on Graceland, the former home of Elvis Presley.

Using at least four different alter egos, Findley attempted to convince lawyers for the estate of the late Lisa Marie Pressley¹ and of her daughter, actress Riley Keough², that a non-existent company called Naussany Investments & Private Lending, LLC, had loaned Lisa Marie $3,800,000 secured by the iconic home.

Findley supported the scheme by forging the signatures of Lisa Marie and a real Florida notary on fake loan documents. She even went so far as to threaten foreclosure. While attorneys for the Presley estate grew suspicious minds, Findley escalated her efforts by filing a creditor’s claim against the estate in California and separately recording a fraudulent Note and Deed of Trust in Tennessee land records. Despite making little progress, she pressed the matter by publishing a Notice of Foreclosure Sale in the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

While the Pressley attorneys rushed to obtain an injunction to keep the Jungle Room in the family’s domain, reporters and law enforcement began to close in on what proved to be an easy web to unweave. Perhaps feeling caught in a trap, Findlay’s alter egos abruptly disclaimed any connection to the loan and directed attention to a third alter ego. After some token resistance, this alter ego confessed in an email written in Spanish – don’t ask me why – to that he was really a Nigerian scam artist and that the authorities should seek him in that fine African nation.

This final effort to by Findlay was … not successful. Despite asking the judge to don’t be cruel, she will now spend a blue Christmas in a federal penitentiary for the next several winters.

In all seriousness, this scheme highlights both the growing prevalence of “imposter” frauds and the lengths and doggedness which fraudsters will pursue them. While this imposter chose very poorly in her attempted fraud target, the methods used should be a warning to all real estate professionals of what kind of methods they might run across in a scam. You could see how a less ambitious scheme could have been a little more credible and come closer to success.

[1] Daughter of the King of Rock and Roll, and wife to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson! Plus, her mom was on Dallas! Pure royalty.

[2] Keough was great in the Amazon mini-series ‘Daisy Jones and the Six.’ Definitely worth the watch if you have not seen it.

[3] Foreclosures can proceed non-judicially in Tennessee, which means creditors may in many circumstances sell property without court oversight.

Corporate Transparency Act Whack-a-Mole

I have written many words about the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) over the last couple of years and much of my writing has been rendered obsolete by events. So, it came as no surprise on March 21, 2025, when the world changed again, but even I wouldn’t have thought they’d have done the CTA like they done.

If you want to get to the meat of the latest development, you can skip ahead to the end of this lengthy entry, but for those of you that need a refresher or those that just want to watch me work through my feelings a bit, the next few paragraphs are for you.

Readers of this blog probably know by now that Congress passed the CTA some years ago for the stated purpose of assisting law enforcement agencies in preventing bad guys (foreign and domestic) from laundering money and hiding assets in the United States using shell companies. In its wisdom, Congress decreed that almost any entity registered with a Secretary of State’s office must file a report detailing the significant stakeholders in the entity and where they might be found.

Under the Biden Administration, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, came up with a framework of rules, processes, and penalties covering the duty of entities to report BOI. New companies would have 30 days to report the required BOI information to FinCEN; all existing entities would have to make their report by January 1, 2025.

However, the whole thing did not go off as smoothly as planned for FinCEN. Across the country (but most especially in Texas) plaintiffs filed lawsuits challenging the reporting requirement as unconstitutional or at least very inconvenient and burdensome. Before FinCEN could even think about imposing its first fine, a Texas federal court entered an injunction enjoining FinCEN from enforcing the BOI reporting requirement while the parties litigated the constitutionality of the Rule. Game Off!

The Government appealed this ruling to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which initially removed the injunction. Game On!

But, just a few days later, the same Court of Appeals, reinstated the injunction. Game Off!

The Government (by this time the Trump Administration) remained dogged in its defense of the reporting requirements and appealed the matter to our highest court. There, the United States Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Government and rescinded the injunction in the first Texas case. Game On! However, by this time a second Texas federal district court had entered its own nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Act. Game Off!

More time passed, additional words were written, and additional hearings were held, but eventually this other Texas federal district court decided that despite the impassioned argument of the Plaintiffs it did not have authority to ignore the persuasive authority of the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in a nearly identical case. Subsequently, the Texas court (I would like to imagine) somewhat sulkily rescinded its injunction. Game On! Likely a joyous party continued into the wee hours in the FinCEN offices the day it announced that BOI reporting was back, and that the deadline for reporting would for certain be March 21, 2025.

However, this is the year 2025, and this the Corporate Transparency Act we are talking about, so it was not so simple for the good folks at FinCEN. On February 21, 2025, FinCEN issued a press release indicating that despite the Government’s vigorous effort to defend the Rule all the way the Supreme Court, that it did not plan to enforce the Rule. The press release indicated that FinCEN planned to issue an Interim Rule before the March deadline, but the FinCEN website still promised fines and penalties for anyone failing to comply. Game Off?

On March 21^st, FinCEN issued an Interim Rule that dramatically changed the scope and application of the Rule. First, the Interim Rule specifically exempts United States entities from BOI reporting requirements. Second, the Interim Rule provides that foreign entities registered to do business in the United States need not report any information about its beneficial owners that are United States individuals. Third, the reporting deadline for foreign entities to file BOI reports was extended to 30 days from the effective date of the Interim Rule.

The Interim Rule certainly reduces the theoretical usefulness of BOI reporting to law enforcement as FinCEN’s database will now only contain information about foreign entities that register in the United States and their foreign beneficial owners. Criminals inclined to set up shell companies to hide their illicit assets probably would be well advised to use entities formed in the United States if that isn’t what they were doing before. Perhaps, the Interim Rule is arguably not what Congress intended, but there is a lot of that going around.

Practically, the reduction in the scope of the Rule will diminish the relevance of the CTA to real estate lawyers. Those attorneys that represent foreign entities doing business in the United States will need to be prepared to advise clients of the reporting requirements that go along with registering their foreign entity in the U.S., but those attorneys representing entities formed in the United States can likely breathe a long sigh of relief. At least for the moment.

Following injunction, FinCEN announces compliance with CTA is voluntary

On December 3, the United District Court for the Eastern Division of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction that prohibits the federal government from enforcing The Corporate Transparency Act.

In response, the United States Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced on December 9 that while the injunction is in place, compliance with the CTA is only voluntary.

The Corporate Transparency Act, which went into effect January 1, 2024, requires many companies to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Beneficial ownership information is defined as identifying information about the individuals who directly or indirectly own or control a company. The deadline for entities created before January 1, 2024 was January 1, 2025

Lawyers have been scrambling to grasp the intricacies of the new law and to assist their corporate clients, including homeowners’ associations, in compliance.

Six plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in May challenging the constitutionality of the law. The decision is based on the Commerce Clause, and the statute is based on national security and aimed at enforcing laws against money laundering.

This case will surely go to the Supreme Court, and we will have to wait to see how that Court reacts. It is possible that the rationale for the legislation holds for some but not all entities. Homeowners’ associations seem to be likely candidates to dodge this particular bullet.

In the meantime, your clients are not required to comply with the new law.

Department of Justice takes last-minute action against NAR Settlement

On November 24, just 48 hours before the National Association of Realtors’ settlement agreement headed to final approval, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the lawsuit.

The filing indicated that the DOJ did not participate in the underlying litigation, but it challenged the settlement’s provision that requires buyers and buyers’ agents to enter into a written agreement before touring a home. This provision raises concerns under antitrust laws that could be addressed in multiple ways, according to the DOJ’s statement.

The DOJ suggested rectifying the issue by eliminating the buyer broker agreement requirement or to disclaim that the settlement creates any immunity or defense under the antitrust laws. Otherwise, the court could clarify that the settlement approval affords no immunity or defense for the buyer-agreement provision. The DOJ believes the settlement could limit the ways buyer brokers compete for clients.

The final hearing is scheduled for November 26 in Missouri. The NAR said in a statement that it will advocate for a final settlement that day. The statement suggested that the settlement is not what the NAR wants, but that it is preferable to continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict.

We’ll see lots of news on this topic this week and next week!

In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving wishes for you and your family!

SC Legislature provides fix for MV Realty problem

This blog has previously discussed MV Realty, as title examiners reported finding “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” or “Exclusive Listing Agreements” filed in the public records as mortgages or memoranda of agreement. The duration of the agreements purported to be forty years, and searches revealed hundreds of these unusual documents filed in South Carolina. The documents state they create liens against the real estate in question.

The company behind these documents is MV Realty PBC, LLC which appeared to be doing business in the Palmetto State as MV Realty of South Carolina, LLC. The company’s website indicated the company would pay a homeowner between $300 and $5,000 in connection with its Homeowner Benefit Program. In return for the payment, the homeowner agreed to use the company’s services as listing agent if the decision was made to sell the property during the term of the agreement. The agreements typically provided that the homeowner may elect to pay an early termination fee to avoid listing the property in question with MV Realty.

The company has been the target of litigation and legislation in many states, and, thankfully, Governor McMaster signed South Carolina Code §27-28-10, et seq., into law on May 20. This legislation effectively bans these long-term listing agreements.

The legislation defines a real estate service agreement as a “written contract between a service provider and the owner or potential buyer of residential real estate to provide services, current or future, in connection with the maintenance, purchase, or sale of residential real estate.” Under the new law, a real estate service agreement is “unfair” and void if it is intended to be effective for more than one year; 1) expressly or implicitly purports to run with the land and bind future owners of the property; 2) allows for the assignment of the services contract without notice or consent of the owner; or 3) creates a lien, encumbrance, or security interest on the property.

Under the legislation, any recorded unfair real estate services contract is no longer effective as a lien, encumbrance or security interest against property. The recording of this type of document no longer serves as constructive notice to any interested party in the real estate. And no additional filing is necessary to void the unfair agreements or to clear the public records.

Further, the property owner of the real estate may collect actual damages, costs and attorneys’ fees resulting from the filing of the contract. Such contracts are expressly stated to be in violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Contact your friendly title insurance company underwriter if you have questions about these documents, but these documents should no longer create title problems for South Carolina dirt lawyers. Some things do work out as they should!

Representing elder clients can be tricky

Dirt lawyers may be in the best position to protect elders in real estate transactions

Elderly persons should be treasured, not abused! And, as real estate lawyers, we may be in a particular position to guard against abuses.

Elder abuse often happens at the hands of family members or “friends” who, because of the vulnerabilities associated with age, such as mental impairment, are able to employ methods such as theft, fraud, forgery, extortion and the wrongful use of powers of attorney to separate an elderly person from property or funds.

Reflect upon the numbers of stories you have heard in your community about elderly persons falling prey to telephone scams. Those same individuals would not have succumbed in their prime. Even with all mental facilities in place, they don’t hear as well, they don’t keep up with changes in technology, and they are unable to keep up with fraud trends we all hear about every day.

Here are some signs of elder financial abuse that you may be able to detect in your office:

Sudden changes in an elderly person’s estate planning documents;
Changes made in the title to properties in favor of a “friend;
Home health aide, housekeeper or other person is added to the accounts of an elderly person or is receiving an assignment of proceeds;
Family members or trusted “friend” discourages or interferes with direct communications with an elderly person involved in a transaction;
The older person seems unable to comprehend the financial implications of the transaction;
The older person signs documents without seemingly knowing or understanding what is being signed;
A power of attorney is involved. I’ve told this story many times, but I know a wonderful claims attorney who called powers of attorney “instruments of the devil”. Powers of attorney are extremely useful tools in the real estate world, but we should always exercise caution when they are used, especially when an elderly person is involved;
Anyone seems to be forcing the elderly person to act;
Numerous unpaid bills may be a clue that someone is diverting the money designated for the daily living of the elderly person;
Promises of lifelong care in exchange for property;
The elderly person complains that he or she used to have money but doesn’t understand why the money is no longer available;
The caregiver is evasive about the specifics of the transaction in the presence of the elderly person;
The elderly person seems fearful or reticent to speak in front of a family member, friend, loan officer, real estate agent or anyone involved in the transaction.
The accompanying family member or caregiver attempts to prevent the elderly person from interacting with others.
The elderly person and the family member or caregiver give conflicting accounts of the transaction, the expenditures or the financial need.
The elderly person appears disheveled or without proper care even though he or she has adequate financial resources.

Be mindful of these common-sense suggestions when any of your real estate transactions involve elderly persons. Think of them as you would want someone to think of your parents or aunts and uncles. Be careful to protect their interests. Proceed with caution!

Elders may also be the victims of predatory lending. Elders who own their homes and have built up equity over time become targets of predatory loan originators who pressure them in to high-interest loans that they may not be able to repay. Older homeowners are often persuaded to borrow money through home equity loans for home repairs, debt consolidation or to pay health care costs. These loans may be sold as “miracle financial cures” and are often packed with excessive fees, costly mortgage insurance and balloon payments.

Always discuss transactions directly with your elderly clients. Ask them pointed questions to make sure they understand the transaction.

And, as always, employ your instincts and your common sense.

Update on NAR broker compensation litigation

This blog has previously discussed the March 15 proposed settlement by The National Association of Realtors (NAR) of four large antitrust suits involving buyers’ broker commissions. The monetary settlement was set at $418 million. The settlement also involves a new rule prohibiting offers of compensation to buyers’ brokers on the MLS.

There is movement in a related matter between the NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Last month, a District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals panel of judges reversed a lower court decision to set aside a 2021 investigative subpoena from the Antitrust Division of DOJ. That subpoena had been issued in a previously closed investigation into NAR commission policies.

This ruling effectively held that a case being previously closed does not prevent its being reopened, allowing the DOJ to continue its antitrust investigation.

Several news sources are reporting that in a status hearing in a Massachusetts case, the DOJ made its first public comment since the NAR settlement this week. An attorney for the DOJ apparently stated that the DOJ believes offers of compensation to buyers’ agents should not be made anywhere, and certainly not on the MLS.

This dirt lawyer does not have the legal ability to discuss the antitrust issues involved in this litigation. The speculation about how this settlement will ultimately affect the housing industry is widely varied among experts in several professions.

The impetus for the original complaints was to lower housing costs artificially inflated by commissions which seem to be set in stone at six percent. Some experts suggest that our housing market will be completely remodeled, with the end product being lower home prices.

Other experts suggest that buyers will be crippled by having to either forego the assistance of a real estate agent or by agreeing to pay commissions out of pocket. Some of these writers suggest that home prices will increase as a result of these machinations. I’ve even heard that only wealthy buyers will have broker representation.

I’ve seen several suggestions that home buying will remain virtually the same by use of several work arounds. But I’ve seen other experts suggest that the proposed work arounds may also violate antitrust laws.

Some suggest that buyers, sellers and real estate agents will simply negotiate commissions.

One thing that is not in question is that the settlement must be approved in court. The settlement suggests that the new rules will become effective in July, but settlements in these large cases often take months to approve, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see delays beyond this summer.

The industry may be in transition as all the experts digest the settlement and as we await court approval. There is no shortage of articles on the topic. I encourage dirt lawyers to keep their fingers on the pulse of these issues as the litigation dust settles. Any activity from the DOJ will be particularly noteworthy.

Richland County passes short-term rental regulations

Richland County passed an ordinance on April 9 to attempt to regulate short-term rentals. The ordinance requires Airbnbs, VRBO and other short-term rentals to obtain business licenses and pay a 3% accommodation tax monthly.

The ordinance applies only to unincorporated areas of Richland County, but the City of Columbia previously passed a similar ordinance. Other South Carolina jurisdictions have similar regulations.

Short-term rentals are described as being 30 days or less in duration. The properties will be subject to safety inspections, according to the ordinance. The properties will be required to have at least two parking spaces, and the operators will be required to keep records of all guests who have stayed at the properties during the past two years. The records must include the contact information of the guests.

The County has estimated that it will have no more than 100 short-term rentals particularly since they are only allowed in a handful of mixed-use and commercially-zoned areas of the county. They are not allowed in single-family neighborhoods. The cost of the business licenses will be determined by the annual revenue of the property.

Is your insurance company spying on your house?

This blog has discussed several times the difficulty of getting and maintaining homeowner’s insurance in some locations, especially coastal areas. This appears to be an extremely difficult issue in Florida, and I have heard similar concerns along South Carolina’s coast.

The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that insurance companies are increasingly using aerial images from drones and balloons as a tool to cancel insurance on properties deemed as higher risk. You can read the article here. Googling the topic also reveals several related stories.

Apparently, angry homeowners are reporting losing coverage because of images reflecting damaged roofs, debris in yards, and undeclared hazards such as swimming pools and trampolines.

Consumer advocates object to this tactic on privacy and other grounds. For example, the images could be outdated or otherwise inaccurate. Time frames for correcting the problems may be too short. And the secrecy of the “inspections” may be deemed to be unfair.

State law may require inspection reports to be delivered to the consumer, and some state laws may limit the reasons insurance companies may use to fail to renew coverage.

According to the articles, insurance companies find the use of aerial images is an efficient way to capturing data. The technology is sophisticated and continues to improve. The companies also claim that weeding out risky properties through visual inspections helps everyone by decreasing claims.

Of course, this issue arises as we are seeing increasing premiums in homeowner’s coverage. Count on homeowner’s coverage continuing to be in the news.

National Association of Realtors announces $418 million settlement

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) announced a proposed settlement on March 15 of four large antitrust suits involving buyers’ brokers commissions. The monetary settlement is set at $418 million. The settlement also involves a new rule prohibiting offers of compensation to buyers’ brokers on the MLS.

This dirt lawyer does not have the legal ability to discuss the antitrust issues involved in these lawsuits. The speculation about how this settlement will ultimately affect the housing industry is widely varied among experts in several professions.

Other experts suggest that buyers will be crippled by having to either forego the assistance of a real estate agent or by agreeing to pay commissions out of pocket. Some of these writers even suggest that home prices will increase as a result of these machinations.