ReportWire

Tag: deed

  • First round of ‘dirty deeds’ cleaned up in Essex County

    [ad_1]

    BEVERLY — Essex County’s “dirty deeds” containing discriminatory covenants are finally being cleaned up.

    The Southern Essex Registry of Deeds recorded its first round of affidavits Monday to remove discriminatory covenants from real estate deeds in this area of the county. These covenants restricted people of certain ethnic or racial groups, particularly Black people, from buying homes or moving into specific neighborhoods years ago.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%9C@F89 E96 C68:DECJ[ AC@A6CEJ @H?6CD 42? C6>@G6 E96 4@G6?2?ED 3J D:8?:?8 2? 2EE@C?6J’D 277:52G:E E92E :?5:42E6D E96J 92G6 366? >256 2H2C6 @7 E96 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ =2?8F286 2?5 5@ ?@E H2?E E@ <66A :E @? E96:C 5665[ 6DD6?E:2==J 255:?8 :E 2D 2? 2556?5F> E@ E96:C 5665]k^Am

    kAmp ?6H 5665 H:E9@FE DF49 =2?8F286 H:== 36 :DDF65 H96? E96 AC@A6CEJ 😀 @?46 282:? D@=5 @C EC2?D76CC65]k^Am

    kAm“%@52J H6 C64@C565 E96 7:CDE `b 277:52G:ED[ >2C<:?8 E96 368:??:?8 @7 @FC AC@46DD @7 4=62?:?8 6G6CJ 5:CEJ 5665 😕 @FC 5:DEC:4E[” #68:DE6C t:=66? sF77 D2:5 😕 2 AC6A2C65 DE2E6>6?E] “%9:D H2D >256 A@DD:3=6 E92?6D 2?5 E96 }@CE9 $9@C6 }ppr![ H9:49 :56?E:7:65 2AAC@I:>2E6=J e__ ‘5:CEJ 5665D’ 😕 E96 $@FE96C? tDD6I #68:DECJ’D 5:DEC:4E]”k^Am

    kAm%96 AC@;64E H2D 2=D@ DFAA@CE65 3J =2H :?E6C?D 7C@> E96 &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |2DD249FD6EED {2H $49@@= 😕 s2CE>@FE9 H9@ 96=A65 :56?E:7J a__ >@C6 @7 E96D6 5665D[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 C68:DECJ 92D 4@?E24E65 E96 @H?6CD @7 AC@A6CE:6D H:E9 5:CEJ 5665D 3J >2:= 2?5 H:== 4@?E24E E96> @G6C E96 A9@?6 E@ 96=A E96> C6>@G6 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ =2?8F286 7C@> E96:C 5665D[ sF77 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm!C@A6CEJ @H?6CD H9@ 92G6 C646:G65 E96D6 ?@E:7:42E:@?D 7C@> E96 C68:DECJ @C 92G6 BF6DE:@?D @C 4@?46C?D D9@F=5 42== E96 C68:DECJ 2E hfgdca`f__]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By News Staff

    Source link

  • ‘I had fun’: Alleged scammer takes credit for Graceland foreclosure upheaval

    ‘I had fun’: Alleged scammer takes credit for Graceland foreclosure upheaval

    [ad_1]

    A self-proclaimed identity thief based in Nigeria claimed responsibility over the puzzling, and now court-blocked, auction of Elvis Presley’s historic Graceland mansion.

    The thief sent an email to the New York Times claiming to be part of a criminal network that targets the dead and elderly, particularly those from Florida and California, the outlet reported Tuesday.

    The statement, which was sent in reply to questions about the case, came from an email address listed in court documents related to Naussany Investments & Private Lending LLC. Riley Keough, Presley’s granddaughter and owner of Graceland, sued the company earlier this month to stop a foreclosure sale of the Memphis property.

    “We figure out how to steal,” the thief wrote to the New York Times on Friday. “That’s what we do.”

    Naussany Investments presented a deed of trust to the estate in September via the Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming that the late Lisa Marie Presley, Keough’s mother, borrowed $3.8 million from the company and offered Graceland as collateral. Keough fiercely disputed the claims, calling the documents “fraudulent” and “forgeries” in her lawsuit.

    The alleged thief accepted defeat.

    “I had fun figuring this one out and it didn’t succeed very well,” the statement continued.

    Referencing Keough’s legal victories in the case, the message, as reportedly written, continued: “Yo client dont have nothing to worries, win fir her. She beat me at my own game.”

    The New York Times reported that the thief wrote their message in Luganda, a Bantu language of Uganda. The email, the outlet said, was faxed from a North American toll-free number that also appeared in court documents.

    A Tennessee judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the sale at a hearing last Wednesday, in which no representatives from Naussany Investments appeared. Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins said he would proceed with Keough’s fraud lawsuit, which asked the court to declare the deed of trust illegitimate.

    Tennessee’s Shelby County Register of Deeds said last Tuesday that it did not have any filings relating to a Graceland deed, according to broadcast outlet WREG Memphis. The deed also included the signature of Florida notary Kimberly L. Philbrick, who submitted an affidavit stating she had never met Lisa Marie Presley or notarized a document signed by the singer.

    Hours after the Wednesday ruling, a person purporting to be a Naussany Investments representative submitted a statement that said the company intended to drop its claims on Graceland, according to the Associated Press. However, the legal filings have yet to appear.

    Elvis Presley Enterprises, which manages the Presley estate, told The Times in a statement at the time that it agreed with the court’s ruling to block the sale.

    “As the court has now made clear, there was no validity to the claims,” the statement read. “There will be no foreclosure. Graceland will continue to operate as it has for the past 42 years, ensuring that Elvis fans from around the world can continue to have a best in class experience when visiting his iconic home.”

    [ad_2]

    Angie Orellana Hernandez

    Source link

  • FBI reportedly contacts Riley Keough’s team about Graceland case as claim is dropped

    FBI reportedly contacts Riley Keough’s team about Graceland case as claim is dropped

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation may launch a criminal probe into possible fraud allegedly surrounding a now-blocked foreclosure sale of Elvis Presley’s famed Graceland mansion, according to TMZ and Radar.

    The outlets reported Wednesday that the FBI had contacted actor Riley Keough‘s team and Graceland officials on Tuesday, allegedly expressing interest in Naussany Investments & Private Lending LLC, the company seeking to auction off the building.

    The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation told The Times via email that it had not received a request to “investigate from the district attorney general in Shelby County, which would be the mechanism for our potential involvement.”

    Representatives for Keough did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for confirmation and comment.

    Keough filed a lawsuit against Naussany Investments last week, alleging that the company had presented fraudulent documents stating that her late mother, Lisa Marie Presley, had borrowed $3.8 million from the company and “gave a deed of trust encumbering Graceland as security.”

    The “Daisy Jones & the Six” star stated in her lawsuit — which asked a judge to block the auction of Graceland and to declare that the documents were fraudulent — that “Lisa Marie Presley never borrowed money from Naussany Investments and never gave a deed of trust to Naussany Investments.”

    A Tennessee judge awarded Keough a temporary injunction against the sale on Wednesday. The court also said it would move forward with the fraud case, citing a lack of appearance by Naussany Investments representatives at Wednesday’s hearing and the need for additional evidence from Keough’s lawyers.

    After the ruling, a person purporting to be a Naussany Investments representative submitted a statement that said the company would drop its claims on Graceland, the Associated Press reported.

    Elvis Presley Enterprises, which manages the Presley estate, told The Times in a statement Wednesday that business would continue as usual.

    “As the court has now made clear, there was no validity to the claims,” the statement read. “There will be no foreclosure. Graceland will continue to operate as it has for the past 42 years, ensuring that Elvis fans from around the world can continue to have a best in class experience when visiting his iconic home.”

    Keough’s lawsuit, which was reviewed by The Times, said Naussany Investments presented a deed of trust for Graceland and a standard promissory note to the estate via the Los Angeles County Superior Court in September.

    The deed of trust contained the signature of Florida notary Kimberly Philbrick, who submitted an affidavit May 8 saying she had no involvement with the documents.

    “I have never met Lisa Marie Presley, nor have I ever notarized a document signed by Lisa Marie Presley,” Philbrick’s affidavit read. “I do not know why my signature appears on this document.”

    Keough was formally named the sole trustee of her mother’s estate — and, by extension, of Elvis’ estate — in November after settling a legal dispute with grandmother Priscilla Presley, Elvis’ widow.

    [ad_2]

    Angie Orellana Hernandez

    Source link

  • Riley Keough prevails in court to stop Graceland auction — for the moment. Fraud question remains

    Riley Keough prevails in court to stop Graceland auction — for the moment. Fraud question remains

    [ad_1]

    Elvis Presley’s granddaughter landed a partial victory in court Wednesday when a Tennessee judge upheld a temporary injunction blocking an auction and foreclosure sale of the late singer’s famed Graceland mansion. Still to be decided is whether the note and deed of trust in question are fraudulent documents.

    The ruling, confirmed by The Times, comes a day after actor Riley Keough obtained a temporary restraining order against the sale of the Memphis property by Naussany Investments & Private Lending LLC, which she alleged in a lawsuit might not even be a “real entity.”

    The sale had been scheduled for Thursday. Naussany Investments did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment sent to an email address listed on court documents.

    Keough’s lawsuit, which was reviewed by The Times, said Naussany Investments presented documents to the estate via the Los Angeles County Superior Court in September. Those documents alleged that Lisa Marie Presley, Keough’s mother, had borrowed $3.8 million from the company and “gave a deed of trust encumbering Graceland as security.”

    The “Daisy Jones & the Six” star denied the claims, calling the documents “fraudulent” and “forgeries” in her lawsuit.

    “Lisa Marie Presley never borrowed money from Naussany Investments and never gave a deed of trust to Naussany Investments,” the lawsuit read.

    The deed of trust presented by the company was “purportedly acknowledged” by Florida notary Kimberly L. Philbrick; However, Philbrick submitted an affidavit stating she had no role in the matter.

    “I have never met Lisa Marie Presley, nor have I ever notarized a document signed by Lisa Marie Presley,” Philbrick’s affidavit read. “I do not know why my signature appears on this document.”

    Tennessee’s Shelby County Register of Deeds said Tuesday that it did not have any filed documents relating to a Graceland deed, according to broadcast outlet WREG Memphis, but a copy of a deed was attached in Keough’s lawsuit.

    Prior to Wednesday’s court hearing, a representative for Naussany Investments submitted a filing asking to continue the litigation, the New York Times. reported. Chancellor JoeDae Jenkins moved forward with the case, citing a lack of appearance by Naussany Investments representatives at the recent hearing and a need for additional evidence from Keough’s lawyers.

    It was unclear when the next hearing in the case would be held.

    Hours after the court ruled, a person purporting to be a Naussany Investments representative submitted a statement that said the company intended to drop its claims on Graceland, according to the Associated Press, which was not able to immediately find new legal filings in online records.

    Naussany Investments couldn’t be verified as a Missouri-based business by CNN, despite the outlet having court documents that gave the firm’s location as being in Kimberling City.

    Elvis Presley Enterprises, which manages the Presley estate, told The Times in a statement Wednesday that it is conducting business as normal.

    “As the court has now made clear, there was no validity to the claims,” the statement read. “There will be no foreclosure. Graceland will continue to operate as it has for the past 42 years, ensuring that Elvis fans from around the world can continue to have a best in class experience when visiting his iconic home.”

    Keough was formally named the sole trustee of her mother’s estate — and, by extension, Elvis’ estate — in November after settling a legal dispute with her grandmother Priscilla Presley, Elvis’ widow.

    Presley had challenged her daughter’s will after the singer-songwriter’s death last January at age 54, questioning the “the authenticity and validity” of a 2016 amendment that named Keough and her brother, Benjamin Keough, as heirs to her estate. Benjamin Keough died in 2020 at age 27.

    The family came to an agreement last May that gave Priscilla Presley burial rights at Graceland, a $1-million lump-sum payment and an advisory role relating to Elvis Presley Enterprises.

    [ad_2]

    Angie Orellana Hernandez

    Source link

  • When Is An “Institution” Not An “Institution”?

    When Is An “Institution” Not An “Institution”?

    [ad_1]

    Sellers of real property, especially developers, often impose restrictions on future use of that real property. They do it to protect other nearby real property from uses that are deemed undesirable. These restrictions amount to a form of privately imposed law. At one point they were used to perpetuate segregation, but that practice was invalidated long ago. Even today, private use restrictions still show up all the time.

    A recent New York case demonstrates what can happen when reality confronts the words of one of these restrictions.

    In 1925, someone conveyed a large site near land that now supports a high-end residential subdivision. The 1925 deed said the deeded property could never be used for a laundry list of prohibited purposes, including a brewery, distillery, dram shop, saloon, bar, etc. The list of prohibited uses also included “any hospital or sanatorium, or any institution, other than a club.”

    Nearly a century later, a French school, “an educational institution operating as a not-for-profit corporation,” wanted to establish a private school and campus on part of the restricted property. The neighbors in the high-end residential subdivision sued. They argued that:

    (1) an educational institution is an “institution”;

    (2) the deed prohibited any “institution”; and therefore,

    (3) the deed prohibited the educational institution.

    The court decided it wasn’t that simple. Somehow the court concluded that the phrase “any institution” is “capable of more than one interpretation.” The court didn’t go into any detail on how “any institution” might support possible multiple interpretations, including one that would allow an institution that was educational. The court didn’t lay out the different routes one might use to get to the various possible interpretations of “institution.”

    Instead, the court simply declared that the language at issue – the prohibition of “any institution” – did not prohibit use of the property for an educational institution. Just because. Or perhaps because the prohibition on “any institution” was nestled among other prohibited uses that were clearly undesirable, so “institution” must mean just an undesirable sort of institution, whatever that might be. Some might say a school is undesirable. Certainly the nearby high-end homeowners didn’t desire it.

    Cases like this one drive lawyers who write legal documents to use more words than one might think necessary. They make each point a few times instead of only once. They make each point more clearly than necessary. They know their document needs to be strong enough to leave no opening for judges to come up with counterintuitive interpretations of ordinary words.

    In other words, whoever wrote the prohibition on “any institution” should have listed every possible type of institution that was prohibited. The list might have included educational institutions. Or the people involved in the matter might have decided that certain institutions are acceptable but others are not. Instead, that decision was left for a judge to make almost a century later. The desire of lawyers to prevent such surprises helps drive longer documents, as well as internal consistencies within documents.

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Stein, Contributor

    Source link