A real estate investor and prominent figure in Asheville Watchdog’s series, Equity Erased, has been criminally charged in a long-running state investigation.
Robert Perry Tucker II of Asheville, who is also an attorney, faces two counts each of filing a false lien, a felony, and conspiracy to file a false lien, a misdemeanor.
Also charged with the same counts: Attorney Ilesanmi Adaramola, formerly of Asheville, and Lisa K. Roberts, who had worked with Tucker on real estate deals in Buncombe.
Adaramola and Roberts were arrested in 2022 on other real estate-related charges, which are pending. Roberts faces 43 felony counts of fraud and forgery, and Adaramola, six counts of notary fraud, a felony.
Adaramola’s attorney, Stephen Lindsay of Asheville, said of the most recent charges, “We’ll be prepared to defend it.. . . [We] are pretty firm that we’re going to trial, unless they dismiss the charges.”
Tucker’s attorney, Gregory Newman of Hendersonville, did not respond to messages seeking comment. Jack Stewart of Asheville, who represents Roberts, identified in court filings as Roberts-Allen, declined to comment through his office.
David Shroat, a former law enforcement officer, lost this Arden home and more than $40,000 in a scheme involving Lisa K. Roberts, Robert Perry Tucker II, Ilesanmi Adaramola, and two others, a civil fraud action alleged.
The charges stem from two 2018 mortgages recorded on Buncombe properties, according to grand jury indictments in September. One of the properties belonged to David Shroat, a former law enforcement officer who lost his Arden home and more than $40,000 in a scheme involving Roberts, Tucker, Adaramola, and two others, a civil fraud action alleged.
The indictments allege Roberts, Tucker, and Adaramola filed a false lien against Shroat’s property and one other, “knowing or having reason to know that the lien or encumbrance is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.”
All three were also charged with conspiring with one another “to commit the felony of Filing a False Lien or Encumbrance,” the indictments state.
The North Carolina secretary of state, which brought the charges, declined to comment because the cases are pending, said spokesman Tim Crowley.
Filing a false lien is a Class I crime, the least serious felony, punishable by up to 24 months in prison. Tucker, 62, and Roberts, 63, were released on a written promise to appear in court.
Adaramola, 40, has not yet been served, Lindsay said. She lives in Guilford County and continues to practice law in western North Carolina, according to court records.
Adaramola’s 2022 charges are also Class I felonies, while Roberts’s are Class I and Class H, which are punishable by up to 39 months in prison for each count.
No action has been taken on those cases since July 2023, when the prosecution was transferred from the Buncombe County district attorney to the secretary of state, court records show. Asked about the status of those cases, Crowley said all charges against Adaramola and Roberts “remain active.”
Lindsay, Adaramola’s attorney, said he expects the cases to be consolidated and a trial date set likely in the fall.
The criminal charges were prompted by The Watchdog’s 7-part Equity Erasedinvestigative series that revealed how Buncombe homeowners, many elderly and/or Black, lost years and sometimes generations of property wealth in deals with Roberts and Tucker. For many of the homeowners, their homes were their only assets.
Roberts, who called herself a housing advocate, notarized deeds and negotiated deals for Tucker’s companies to buy properties, often in distress, at a fraction of their market value. Adaramola notarized documents for Roberts and represented her in court.
The secretary of state and three other agencies opened investigations shortly after the series began in late 2021.
‘False liens’ in indictments aided home purchases
The false liens alleged in the 2024 indictments were among a series of real estate transactions in 2018 that led to companies controlled by Roberts purchasing and flipping two properties, including Shroat’s home, records show.
David Shroat // Photo provided by Kelly Southerland
Shroat, a former Asheville police officer and Buncombe sheriff’s detective, had fallen behind on his mortgage payments when a bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in April 2018. Shroat’s former girlfriend, a joint owner of the property, accepted an offer from Roberts that included $3,500 and paying off her portion of the mortgage, as The Watchdog reported.
The property had a tax value of $249,000, and Shroat and his girlfriend owed about $140,000 on the mortgage.
On May 22, 2018, a deed prepared by Adaramola transferred the girlfriend’s 50 percent interest to VLM Investments LLC, Roberts’s company.
Two days later, a new mortgage, prepared by Tucker, was recorded on the property, purportedly a loan to VLM Investments from 740 Biltmore Avenue Group, Tucker’s company, for $125,000. The indictments allege that mortgage, known as a deed of trust, was a false lien.
The mortgage created a public record that likely deterred other buyers from bidding on the property at a sale Roberts forced through the courts, as The Watchdog previously reported.
Roberts’s company owned half of the property but needed Shroat’s half to sell it.
As Tucker had done in several cases, Roberts made use of a Jim Crow-era law that’s been exploited nationwide by investors. The partition law allows any owner of a jointly owned property to ask the courts to order the entire property sold.
Adaramola, on behalf of VLM Investments, filed a partition case against Shroat and obtained a court order to sell the property. At a partition sale with no other bidders, another Roberts company bought the property reportedly for $145,000 and sold it a short time later for $210,000, according to property records.
After costs and fees, Roberts’ company received $40,118, and Shroat, nothing, a closing statement showed.
Tikkun Gottschalk // Photo credit: Law firm of Deutsch & Gottschalk
The partition sale attracted no buyers besides Roberts’s company likely because the purported mortgage between VLM and Tucker’s company made the property appear to be underwater, attorney Tikkun Gottschalk of Asheville previously told The Watchdog.
Gottschalk filed a civil fraud action in 2022 on behalf of Shroat against Tucker, Roberts, Adaramola, and two others, alleging in part that the mortgage “created a false lien.” He told The Watchdog he found no evidence that any money was lent or repaid.
The civil case was settled in 2023. The defendants, who admitted no wrongdoing, agreed to pay $116,000 with proceeds going to a guardianship for Shroat, who suffers from dementia.
Asked about the allegation that the mortgage between Roberts’s and Tucker’s companies was false and recorded to deter other buyers, Adaramola’s attorney said, “I can see that perspective.”
“The question is whether my client was able to see that or whether she was just utilized without knowing everything that was going on,” Lindsay said. “I don’t believe that she was aware of the back story here.”
He said Adaramola was a relatively new lawyer at the time.
“You don’t learn everything in law school,” Lindsay said. “If the people that are guiding you along the way have poor motives, then you’re probably easy prey for somebody who wants to take advantage of it.”
The other false lien identified in the indictment involves a mortgage recorded on a Black Mountain property.
VLM Investments purchased a half-interest in that property for $3,000 in June 2018, according to the deed, and then filed a partition action against the other owner.
On June 19, 2018, a mortgage prepared by Adaramola was recorded on the property between VLM Investments and Tucker’s company, 740 Biltmore Avenue Group, for $190,000. The indictments do not indicate how that mortgage was allegedly false.
On July 24, 2018, VLM acquired the remainder of the property when the other owner sold his half for $3,000. With full ownership of the property, VLM sold it a month later for $110,000, property records show.
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Sally Kestin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. Email skestin@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 14:47:00
(The Center Square) – Called “crypto-friendly legislation” by the leader of the chamber, a proposal on digital assets on Wednesday afternoon passed the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Passage was 71-44 mostly along party lines.
The NC Digital Assets Investments Act, known also as House Bill 92, has investment requirements, caps and management, and clear definitions and standards aimed at making sure only qualified digital assets are included. House Speaker Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the state would potentially join more than a dozen others with “crypto-friendly legislation.”
With him in sponsorship are Reps. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, Mark Brody, R-Union, and Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake.
Nationally last year, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act – known as FIT21 – passed through the U.S. House in May and in September was parked in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Dan Spuller, cochairman of the North Carolina Blockchain Initiative, said the state has proven a leader on digital asset policy. That includes the Money Transmitters Act of 2016, the North Carolina Regulatory Sandbox Act of 2021, and last year’s No Centrl Bank Digital Currency Pmts to State. The latter was strongly opposed by Gov. Roy Cooper, so much so that passage votes of 109-4 in the House and 39-5 in the Senate slipped back to override votes, respectively, of 73-41 and 27-17.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a factual report on the passage of the NC Digital Assets Investments Act, highlighting the legislative process, party-line votes, and related legislative measures. It does not adopt a clear ideological stance or frame the legislation in a way that suggests bias. Instead, it provides neutral information on the bill, its sponsors, and relevant background on state legislative activity in digital asset policy. The tone and language remain objective, focusing on legislative facts rather than promoting a particular viewpoint.
