Richard Vetstein attorney

A Counterfeit South Carolina Driver’s License, Forged Deed, and a UPS Store In Philadelphia: The Anatomy Of A Title Theft Scam

by Rich Vetstein on September 12, 2024

in Closings, Construction Law, Deeds, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Real Estate Litigation, Title Defects, Title Insurance

FBI Investigation: Scam Artists Use Forged Deed and Counterfeit ID’s to Steal Concord, MA Property; Local Real Estate Agent, Developer, and Attorneys Caught Up In Fraudulent Transaction

Using a counterfeit driver’s license and passport (shown at right), fake e-mail address impersonating the real owner, and a forged deed and notary stamp, scam artists were somehow able to dupe a local real estate agent and two seemingly experienced real estate attorneys, and get to the closing table, where a Concord, MA lot was fraudulently sold to a local developer, and the scammers getting away with nearly $500,000 in stolen sale proceeds. The transaction had red-flags all over the place, yet all the purported professionals seemed to have buried their head in the sand and ignored the clear warnings of fraud, according to a lawsuit recently filed by my office on behalf of the victims. With a looming FBI financial crimes investigation and active federal grand jury proceeding in Boston, my clients are seeking to restore their title and ownership and recover damages for this title theft scam.

Title Theft:  A Brief History

With the proliferation of publicly searchable land records, internet search capabilities, and reliance on electronic communications, “title theft” has become an increasingly prevalent criminal scheme to transfer properties from unsuspecting owners and steal millions of dollars. Property owners across the country have been targeted by scammers who prepare deeds purporting to convey title to property the scammers do not own. Sometimes, the true owners are entirely unaware of these bogus transfers. In other instances, the scammers use misrepresentation to induce unsophisticated owners to sign documents they do not understand.

Massachusetts is no stranger to the wave of title theft schemes.  In 2018, convicted felon Allen Seymour and accomplices orchestrated a complex scheme using forged documents, bogus notary stamps, and fake driver’s licenses to defraud several innocent home owners, buyers and lenders in connection with fraudulent sales of properties in Cambridge, Brookline and Somerville, resulting in over $1.5 Million in losses. I represented several victims in those cases which were successfully prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office, with Seymour sentenced to 6-8 years in prison. 

Scam Artists Target A Vacant Lot in Mattison Farms Subdivision in Concord

My clients are an older married couple now living in South Carolina. Back in 1991, they purchased a 1.8 acre lot in the Mattison Farms subdivision in Concord. They originally intended to build a home on the lot, however, the husband’s practice as a cardiologist took the family out of state for several decades. The couple kept the property and paid the real estate taxes all along, hoping at some point maybe they would move back to Massachusetts or gift the lot to one of their three adult sons so they could someday build a home here. The lot is now likely worth north of $1 Million.

At some point in 2023, using a fake email account, the scam artist contacted a local real estate agent, and convinced him that she was the true owner of the Concord lot and interested in selling it.  Successful, the broker placed the Property on the Multiple Listing Service with a list price of $699,900, advertising that it was “a great opportunity to build your dream home in the ultra-exclusive, sought after and prestigious Mattison Farm neighborhood. One of the only remaining lots and nestled on a 1.84 acre parcel. Close proximity to Concord & Nashawtuc Country Club.” The broker quickly found an interested buyer in a local real estate agent and developer who had his sights set on building a new luxury home on the Property. Using a fake electronic signature, the imposter signed an offer and purchase and sale agreement with the buyer, agreeing to sell the lot for $525,000 – hundreds of thousand of dollars less than the fair market value of the lot.

Red Flags:  Counterfeit South Carolina Driver’s License, U.S. Passport, an Apartment in Dallas, Texas

One of the keys to this successful scam was that the scam artist provided the players involved with a copy of a fake South Carolina driver’s license and US Passport (shown above). However, both identifications display tell-tale signs of counterfeit. The driver’s license and passport both use the same photograph – which is impossible because the state registry of motor vehicles and U.S. Passport Office work off independent systems. The driver’s license layout is clearly fake when compared to a real South Carolina ID, and there’s no evidence of a hologram.

Even more suspicious, despite the ID’s showing a South Carolina residential address, the scam artist suspiciously instructed the seller attorney to send the deed and power of attorney to a nondescript apartment in Dallas, Texas. And when those “signed” documents came back to the seller attorney there were other tell-tale signs of forgery and fraud. Critical portions of the notary clause were left blank; the county of notarization is misspelled as “Tourrant,” instead of Tarrant County, Texas; the notary’s signature is clearly bogus; and the notary stamp was lifted from other documents and transposed using a PDF editing program.

Town Permits and Access

With the real owners blissfully unaware and the professionals apparently not picking up on the fraud, the transaction proceeded forward with the buyer applying for various town approvals for construction. Using a fake digital signature, the scam artist signed various applications for those approvals, which were submitted by the buyer to the Town of Concord. The real owners got a certified letter about the town approvals, and immediately contacted the Concord Natural Resource Director who informed them that the Property was “up for sale.” My client told the director that they absolutely did not list the Property for sale and had no knowledge of any pending sale, and sent her an email demanding that all proceedings be terminated. After that, according to our lawsuit, the director informed the buyer team of my client’s call, however, nothing was done to investigate the potential fraud and stop the approval process. Shockingly, the Town approved the permits without any further inquiry.

Despite All The Red Flags for Forgery and Fraud, the Closing Goes Forward

As of late March into April 2024 – months prior to the scheduled closing – all parties and their attorneys knew or should have known of the existence of irregularities, fraud and/or forgery in this transaction, according to our lawsuit. Yet, none of them put the transaction on pause in order to further investigate whether in fact the transaction involved forgery or fraud, as would be reasonable to do in the circumstances. Despite all of the visible red flags, notice of the true owner’s claim of ownership and likely forgery, the closing of the transaction went forward on May 13, 2024, with the seller attorney executing the closing documents pursuant to the forged power of attorney.

The final and perhaps most telling red flag came at the very end of the closing process with the scam artist instructing the attorneys to send the nearly $500,000 seller proceeds check to a UPS Store address in Philadelphia, PA. So at this juncture we have a South Carolina address on the driver’s license and passport, a Dallas, Texas apartment address for the deed and power of attorney delivery, and UPS storefront in Philly for the proceeds check. As the saying goes, “make it make sense.”  

The scam artist received the check, deposited it into a Charles Schwab account, and the money is now gone, along with the title to my client’s property.

To make matters far worse, there is now a $1.8 Million construction loan mortgage on my client’s title, and the “buyer” is well into site work and construction on the Property. The land has been cleared and graded with numerous trees cut down, a foundation poured and a large house framed out, portions of the septic system installed, and utility service brought in, as shown above.

The Aftermath: FBI Investigation And Superior Court Lawsuit

When my client ultimately discovered that their property had been officially sold and that a house was being built on the land, she started shaking and screaming, and then fainted, spending the next days and weeks riddled with anxiety and nightmares. My clients then went to the FBI, Concord Police and the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office to report the matter. The FBI Financial Crimes Squad in Boston is conducting an active investigation of this matter, and FBI agents have already interviewed the two attorneys involved in the transaction who are cooperating. Grand jury subpoenas have also been issued. The scam artists have not been found as of yet.

On September 11, 2024, we filed the lawsuit below for quiet title, trespass, civil conspiracy, and negligence against the buyers, the developer and the attorneys involved in the transaction. My clients are hopeful that they can restore their ownership to their property and get some measure of compensation for this ordeal, which should have never happened. I will keep you posted as to developments. This story is a painful warning to all real estate professionals to be on the look out for title theft scammers from out of state who target vacant properties or unsophisticated owners. And needless to say, always purchase owner’s title insurance when you buy any real estate! There are also “Title Lock” services which claim to monitor your title and ownership but I cannot vouch for them at all.

The CBS 4 Boston I-Team recently did a segment on the case, below.

Verified Complaint Halla Shami v. Geesey, Middlesex Superior Court (Mass.) CA 2481CV02412 by Richard Vetstein on Scribd

{ 1 comment }

Email Disclaimers: Toothless, Useful, Or A Little Of Both?

by Rich Vetstein on February 2, 2013

in Commercial Real Estate, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Offer To Purchase, Purchase and Sale Agreements, Real Estate Litigation, Realtors, Technology

email-1-354x385

A Simple Email Disclaimer Cannot Hurt & Can Only Help

Boilerplate email disclaimers at the bottom of messages are so ubiquitous that most of us hardly notice them anymore. They certainly take up a lot of text space and can be annoying to some, but are they legally effective or just plain toothless?

In the real estate context, where Realtors and attorneys write in the language of contract everyday, I believe that a short and simple email disclaimer may help, and certainly cannot hurt, the sender (aside from annoying a snarky recipient or two). In this post, I will discuss a few common real estate situations where an email disclaimer could come into play, then give you the disclaimer that I use in my emails. Now I have my own disclaimer here: A court will determine each case individually, and there is no guarantee that any particular disclaimer will be effective in any given case.

Contract Negotiations

The most common situation where an email disclaimer could come into play is during real estate contract negotiations. For many agents and attorneys, e-mail has become the default mode of communication, replacing the telephone and the outdated fax. E-mail, however, can provide the “smoking gun” in litigation because it’s nearly impossible to delete permanently, and people tend to be more casual and less introspective before hitting “send.” And don’t get me started with texting, which is even worse.

Realtors must remember that under Massachusetts agency law they are agents with actual or apparent legal authority to bind their clients to the statements they make in emails and other forms of communication. Like the Miranda warnings given by the police, a real estate agents’ statements “can and will be used against them in a court of law.” The same is true for attorneys.

A case in point: In the recent well-publicized case of Feldberg v. Coxall, a Massachusetts judge ruled that a series of e-mail exchanges between the buyer and seller’s attorney, the last one attaching a revised, but unsigned, offer to purchase, could create a binding contract even though no formal written agreement was ever signed. This is also one of the first cases applying the new Massachusetts E-Sign law to preliminary negotiations in real estate deals. There have been cases in other jurisdictions holding that e-mails can result in a binding contract even though the parties may have assumed otherwise.

Practice Pointer:

“Emails sent or received shall neither constitute acceptance of conducting transactions via electronic means nor shall create a binding contract in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.”

This is the new email disclaimer that I’ve formulated after the Feldberg ruling. It does two things. First, it provides that only a fully signed contract can bind the parties. Second, it attempts to counter the presumption in the E-sign Act of conducting the transaction electronically via email. It has not been tested in court yet, but again, aside from taking up some pixel space, it can’t hurt. Now remember, this type of disclaimer would favor a selling/listing agent, but not necessarily a buyer’s agent, because the buyer’s agent would typically want to enforce preliminary negotiations. So, caveat emptor (buyer beware).

Practice Pointer: “Subject to final client review/approval”

Another best practice that Realtors and attorneys should get in the habit of doing is to write “subject to final client review and approval” or words to that effect in the midst of email contract negotiations and draft agreements being circulated. This could sway a court from determining that a binding deal was formed, and plus, it gives you an “out” in case a client has last minute changes.

Confidential Communications

Attorneys love to use long confidentiality disclaimers in their email. Do they work? Occasionally. Do they matter in real estate? I still think so.

First, the concept of legal confidentiality is limited to those situations governed by legal privilege. There is an attorney-client privilege between lawyers and their clients, obviously. While there is no legal privilege between a Realtor and his/her client as for communications solely between the agent and the client, the attorney client privilege will likely attach to emails and communications between and among the real estate agent, the attorney, and the client provided that legal advice is being given. But a particular email does not automatically get confidentiality protection simply because the attorney is copied on it. Some courts have pointed to email disclaimers as a factor in upholding the confidentiality. But there have been many court rulings where judges have discarded the disclaimers.

While attorneys should absolutely have a confidentiality email disclaimer, do Realtors need one? I say yes, because sometimes emails between attorney and client wind up in Realtors’ inboxes and sometimes they get forwarded on purpose or by mistake when they shouldn’t, and that could waive any privilege which is attached and become the “smoking gun.”

Practice Pointer:

I use this simple email disclaimer:

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.

The best practice, of course, is to cleanse and delete portions of any email with attorney-client or confidential information before forwarding. And of course, THINK BEFORE YOU HIT SEND!

**Thank you to Cambridge MA Realtor Charles Cherney for suggesting this topic!

______________________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney who writes frequently about legal issues facing the real estate industry. He can be reached at [email protected].

{ 4 comments }

Breaking: Massachusetts SJC Issues Another Important Foreclosure Ruling In HSBC Bank v. Matt

by Rich Vetstein on January 14, 2013

in Foreclosure, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

ForeclosureLegal Standing For Mortgage Lender/Servicer Must Be Established To Start Foreclosure

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has issued what I believe to be another very important ruling involving foreclosures in the case of HSBC Bank v. Matt (embedded below). This case is the latest piece in the trilogy of recent landmark foreclosure opinions, starting with U.S. Bank v. Ibanez then Eaton v. Fannie Mae  — which has now come full circle from very limited judicial oversight of foreclosures to a much stricter legal environment for lenders.

In my opinion, the net effect of the HSBC v. Matt ruling is to make Massachusetts somewhat closer to a judicial foreclosure state than a non-judicial foreclosure state, as the ruling requires a foreclosing lender or mortgage servicer to submit actual evidence of legal standing to foreclose when they start a Servicemembers Act proceeding, a requirement that has never existed under Massachusetts law. This new requirement could prove to be potentially problematic to mortgages which are held in complex mortgage backed securitized trusts. However, a portion of the Court’s ruling — that only military members can raise a challenge — could turn out to blunt its impact. In the short-term, the Land Court will have to determine what evidence and documentation is legally sufficient for lenders to establish proper legal standing to foreclose.

Servicemembers (f/k/a Soldiers & Sailors) Civil Relief Act

The case involves the Servicemember’s Act proceeding which protects active military members from foreclosure. In Massachusetts, after a lender issues default notices, it will commence a Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act in the Land Court to ensure that the borrower is not on active military duty and to cut off any rights to challenge the foreclosure based on military status. Although a Soldiers and Sailors Act proceeding is not mandatory in order to legally foreclosure, the customary practice in Massachusetts is for lenders to go through the proceeding in order to ensure clear title to the foreclosed property. A Soldiers and Sailors Act proceeding has historically been perfunctory, but in recent years with the mortgage meltdown, borrowers have increasingly tried to challenge foreclosure in the Soldiers and Sailors Act proceeding.

Jodi Matt, represented by noted foreclosure defense attorney, Glenn Russell, Esq. (who also brought the Ibanez case), challenged HSBC Bank’s ability to foreclose in the Soldier’s and Sailors proceeding, arguing that HSBC could not establish that it held the right to foreclose as the trustee of the securitized trust which purported to hold Matt’s mortgage. The Land Court rejected Matt’s challenge on the grounds that Ms. Matt was not in military service. The SJC took the case on direct appellate review.

SJC Changes The Foreclosure Landscape Yet Again

Although it recognized that Ms. Matt was not in the military service — and ruled that borrowers not in the military cannot bring challenges under the Soldiers & Sailors Act  —  the SJC reached the question whether HSBC Bank had legal standing to start the foreclosure process in the Soldiers & Sailors Act proceeding. Following its prior landmark rulings in Ibanez and Eaton, the Court held that HSBC Bank lacked standing under the Act because it merely claimed to have the contractual option to become the holder of the mortgage. The SJC said that wasn’t good enough, and going forward a foreclosing lender must provide actual evidence to the Land Court that it is the actual holder of the mortgage or a duly authorized agent on behalf of the mortgagee.

When this decision is read together with the Court’s opinion in Eaton, which held that foreclosing lenders must hold both the promissory note and the mortgage, and in the context of securitized mortgages, the Matt ruling starts looking like a very BIG decision. Because of the extremely complex manner in which securitized mortgage trusts were organized by Wall Street (outside the scope of this post), there is an inherent problem in ascertaining which entity within the trust framework actually holds the mortgage and the underlying indebtedness, and therefore, the power to foreclose. As a result of this ruling, foreclosing lenders and mortgage services may have a much more difficult time in foreclosing.

What type and the quality of evidence that lenders need to submit will be left to the Land Court justices, as gate-keepers, to decide in future cases. That is a huge unknown question. The Land Court is presently overwhelmed with pending foreclosure petitions, quiet title actions and other matters given recent court budget cuts. Rest assured, this may play a factor in how they handle foreclosures post-Matt.

I will continue to monitor this ever-changing area of the law.

{ 4 comments }

Fiscal Cliff Bill Saves Home Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction and PMI Tax Deduction

by Rich Vetstein on January 2, 2013

in Condominium Law, PMI, Real Estate Taxes, Tax Credit, Taxes

mortgage-interest-deductionBoon for Massachusetts Homeowners

More good news for Massachusetts homeowners coming out of Congress’ late night passing of the Fiscal Cliff Bill. The mortgage interest tax deduction — which was reportedly on the Congressional chopping block — was untouched by Congress, leaving it in place. This is huge for the middle class, and especially for house-poor Massachusetts homeowners who tend to have larger mortgages than the rest of the country.

Congress also extended the tax deduction for private mortgage insurance (PMI) payments through December 31, 2013. Homeowners who were not able to put 20% down must typically pay for private mortgage insurance which protects lenders in case of a borrower default. PMI payments remain tax deductible for 2013 under the Fiscal Cliff bill, providing another tax break for Massachusetts homeowners.

_________________________________________________________

100316_photo_vetstein (2)Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney who writes frequently about new legislation concerning the real estate industry. He can be reached at [email protected].

{ 2 comments }

Break Out the Shovels and Ice-Melt: New Massachusetts Mandatory Snow and Ice Removal Law

by Rich Vetstein on December 30, 2012

in Commercial Real Estate, Landlord Tenant Law, Leasing, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Premises Liability, Rental Housing, Safety

Ice slip drink

Blizzard Warning Issued For 2/7/13

This post will provide you with frequently asked questions concerning Massachusetts snow and ice removal law.

I am a homeowner and rental property owner. Am I legally required to clear snow and ice after a storm?

The law now in Massachusetts is that all Massachusetts property owners and landlords are legally responsible for the removal of snow and ice from their property. In 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled 125 years of legal precedent which protected property owners from “natural accumulations of ice and snow,” and announced this new rule. My prior post on the case can be read here. The rule applies across the board, to homeowners, landlords, commercial business owners, restaurants, everyone.

I am a landlord. How long do I have to shovel snow and ice on my rental property?

There is no clear cut answer to this question, and juries and courts will ultimately decide what is reasonable. The City of Boston’s policy is to give businesses 3 hours to clean snow, and 6 hours to residents. My advice is to shovel and treat snow and ice early and often. Even a thin coating of black ice can cause someone to slip and fall and seriously hurt themselves. (Admit it if you’ve dumped on your rear end like I have!). If you are an out-of-town landlord, you must hire someone to shovel your snow.

My lease states that the tenant is responsible for snow shoveling. Will that protect me from liability?

Probably not. A person who is injured due to untreated snow or ice will likely sue both the property owner and the tenant. The property owner must ultimately ensure that the property is safe for visitors. The landlord may bring a claim for contribution/indemnification against the tenant.

L_ice_meltI live in Boston, and I heard I have to shovel the public sidewalk in front of my house after a storm. Is that true?

Yes. On top of their added responsibilities, property owners in several Massachusetts communities, including Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Lynn, and Worcester, are required by local ordinances to clear municipal sidewalks in front of their residences or businesses. The City of Boston mandates clean sidewalks within 6 hours of a storm; Worcester is 12 hours.

Will my homeowner’s or CGL insurance policy cover any injuries from slip and fall on snow/ice?

Yes, usually. The standard Massachusetts homeowners insurance policy and commercial general liability insurance policy (CGL) will have liability coverage for slip and falls on property. Make sure you have ample liability coverage of at least $500,000 to 1 Million. (You can never have enough insurance!). As with any insurance question, it’s best to contact your personal insurance agent.

If you have additional questions, please ask them in the comment forms below!

Resources: City of Cambridge Snow Removal Policy, City of Boston Know Snow Fact Page

___________________________________________

RDV-profile-picture-larger-150x150.jpgRichard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who advises property owners and landlords as to liability issues. Please contact him at 508-620-5352 or at [email protected].

{ 16 comments }

ABA Journal Names This Blog In Top 100 Blog List

by Rich Vetstein on November 26, 2012

in Blogging

The Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog Selected To American Bar Association Journal’s Top 100 “Blawg” List

I’m honored to receive a major accolade in the legal blog publishing world:  Top 100 Blawg by the American Bar Association Journal (click the link for the full listing of Top 100 Blogs). This blog was the only real estate blog chosen out of hundreds of entries. Thank you to my dedicated readers, friends, and especially my wife and Mom, who voted for me numerous times under assorted aliases!

I’m flattered for the recognition and to be part of such a distinguished group of legal writers. The ABA has a nice quote about the Blog from a well-known industry professional:

“An excellent example of how to explain complex real property law and property use law to both interested law professionals and the lay public,” Ruth Dillingham, special counsel at First American Title Insurance Co. in Hyannis, Mass., wrote us. “Everyone cares about real estate.” Another reader praised the blog for keeping the state’s legal community up to date on the Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association case.

Now that the editors have made their picks, the ABA Journal is asking readers to weigh in and vote on their favorites in each of the 6th Annual Blawg 100’s 15 categories. Click here to register and vote. (You need to register with the site in order to vote — to prevent cheating). Voting ends at close of business on Dec. 21, 2012.

Some of my favorite fellow nominees are:

CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Board) Monitor 
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog 
SCOTUS (Supreme Court) Blog
iPhone J.D.
Litigation & Trial by Max Kennerly, Esq.

~Rich

{ 0 comments }

We Cracked The Top 100!

by Rich Vetstein on March 12, 2010

in Blogging

As reported through PR NewsWire, the Massachusetts Real Estate Law Blog is now ranked #95 of all legal blogs according to Avvo.com and Alexa rankings! As far as I can tell, this puts us Numero Uno in Massachusetts for all substantive legal blogs focusing on Mass. law.

Much thanks to all of you — our readers — who have made this blog so much more than I could have ever imagined. In the next few months, this blog will see more contributors, more guest bloggers, and will even get a bit of a design face-lift. So stay tuned…

More coverage here, here,  here.

{ 4 comments }