ILNews

Former foreclosure lawyer charged with fraud

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana has filed mail fraud charges against a former Indianapolis attorney who resigned from the bar two years ago.

A result of an FBI investigation, U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison on Thursday filed charges against Brian L. Nehrig, 43, who practiced at an Indianapolis law firm before resigning in August 2007. His foreclosure work at the firm between February 28, 2005, and Oct. 11, 2006, is the focus of the case.

His duties were to attend sheriff's sales and place minimum price bids on foreclosed properties for CitiMorgage, so that third-party bidders could then put their offers in and CitiMortgage could recover money from the sale if a property was sold for more than the minimum. But without the client's authorization, Nehrig is accused of intentionally inflating those minimum bidding prices and then completing the sales with third-party bidders, whom he was associated with outside of CitiMortgage's knowledge and permission. Nehrig hid the conduct by sending CitiMortgage a check for its minimum $1 price to make the company believe its property sold at the sheriff's sale in an arm's length transaction, the charging document alleges.

On many occasions, Nehrig directed a law firm employee to alter the titleholder's name on the deeds from CitiMortgage to replace it with the name of the third party with whom he'd negotiated the outside deal, the charges state. The total difference between the funds sent to CitiMortgage and the actual received funds from the deals was $106,122, and he didn't send the money back to CitiMortgage, the document says. Properties listed in the charging document are scattered throughout the state.

Nehrig faces 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.

In August 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded a disciplinary action against Nehrig by accepting his resignation. The Disciplinary Commission had filed misconduct charges against him and asked for his immediate suspension earlier that year.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT