A Nenana jury is deciding whether a mother and daughter defrauded their elderly neighbor of her property in 2019.
The case hinges on whether 67-year-old Vickie Verdilla Moyle and her daughter, 48-year-old Annie Margaret Williams, knew that $65,000 in back property taxes could not legally be collected on Mae Jensen’s home before Williams purchased the property for $6,533.67 in September 2019. Moyle and Williams each face charges of felony scheme to defraud more than $10,000 and felony first-degree theft of more than $25,000.
The city of Nenana had not collected property taxes for approximately 30 years when Mayor Joshua Verhagen took office in 2018. In March 2019, the city sent out statements of back taxes owed, showing that Jensen owed $69,000 on her property — an amount nearly equal to its estimated value of $71,000.
Investigator testifies to timeline and confusion over tax status
The last witness, retired financial crimes investigator Andrea Jacobson, was adamant that Williams and Moyle knew no back taxes were due when they purchased the property. However, she agreed with the defense that it was misleading for the city to send out back tax statements implying collectability, despite a six-year statute of limitations preventing enforcement.
Jacobson traveled to Nenana in October 2019 after learning about the real estate dispute from a Village Public Safety Officer.
The jury listened to audio recordings of Jacobson’s interviews with Williams and Moyle on Wednesday afternoon.
“We went over to city hall and they weren’t sure how much of back taxes they could exempt,” Williams told Jacobson in October 2019.
Williams explained that had back taxes not been owed, they would have arranged a payment plan with the city once the city gave a “definitive answer” about the amount owed. She said the city could not guarantee no balance was due.
Moyle acknowledged a lien on the house from the Interior Regional Housing Authority at the time.
“It was Mae and I who did the deal,” she told Jacobson.
According to Moyle, Jensen believed the city would foreclose on her home. Moyle said she was told $64,000 was owed in back taxes, and they purchased the home under the impression taxes were due.
Moyle told Jacobson that the city informed them only after the transaction that no taxes could be collected.
“When they found out that the taxes weren’t what we thought they were going to be, they felt like ‘We stole the house from Mae’,” she said. “The idea that there was any kind of malfeasance is just no.”
Jacobson testified that it appeared the agreement was for the assessed value of the property, minus the assumed back taxes.
City’s role and conflicting statements scrutinized
During Jacobson’s interview with Mayor Verhagen in November 2019, he confirmed the city could not legally enforce old taxes but still asked residents to pay them voluntarily.
“That caused confusion on Mae’s part,” Jacobson testified.
Jacobson said Moyle and Williams inquired about the senior tax exemption in 2019. Assistant Public Defender Patrick Roach noted that the exemption lowered the debt to about $65,000, which affected the sale price. Jacobson responded that the adjusted amount was due to a correction by the city.
When presented with a November 2019 email from the city clerk to a title company stating that Jensen owed 27 years of back taxes, Jacobson responded, “It doesn’t even make sense.”
“I do think they (the city) were under a lot of pressure but this was certainly not the way to handle it,” she said.
Jacobson said she wasn’t aware until testifying that the Small Business Administration held the deed to Jensen’s home when the quitclaim deed was signed. The IRHA agreement granted Jensen a loan for home improvements that would be forgiven if she lived there for five years. Jensen only lived there three years and still owed approximately $18,000.
Prosecution: ‘Actions speak louder than words’
Assistant District Attorney Jeff Roe argued that Moyle and Williams knew the true value of the home when they purchased it for $6,533.67 on Sept. 9, 2019.
“The question then becomes, how much did they intend to purchase Mae Jensen’s house for?” Roe asked the jury.
According to Roe, Moyle and Williams were the first to bring up the statute of limitations in May 2019 — four months before the sale. Moyle later raised the senior tax exemption with the mayor, and Williams returned multiple times to city hall to clarify the taxes.
Williams’ daughter and her boyfriend moved into the home that fall and began renovations. Law enforcement launched an investigation into the deal in October 2019.
“Annie Williams and Vickie Moyle didn’t have to be criminal masterminds to defraud Mae Jensen out of her home,” Roe said. “They didn’t have to have an elaborate scheme ... All they had to do was take advantage of an elderly woman.”
Roe questioned Williams’ claim that she didn’t know the property’s tax status: “It was news to her ... but dollar for dollar, penny for penny, that May 2019 tax statement was subtracted from the value and they went forward with a purchase for a home? And she didn’t know?”
Defense shifts blame to city mismanagement
Williams’ attorney, Patrick Roach, accused Mayor Verhagen of deflecting responsibility.
“The mayor’s office has a clear motive to blame what happened here on Annie and Vickie,” Roach told jurors. He argued that the confusion over taxes was “not a good look for a city office” and that the city was roughly $10 million in debt when it began sending out tax statements.
Roach called the $69,000 bill sent to Jensen the “origin” of the dispute, and said Jensen turned to Moyle, a close friend, for help.
Roach said the only state evidence came from Verhagen and former clerk Hannah Filardi and pointed to Verhagen’s admission that the city would have accepted payments even without legal obligation.
“The mayor wanted to have his cake and eat it too,” Roach said.
Roach maintained the city had the legal authority to enforce taxes through foreclosure, and Williams relied on information from Filardi.
“It wasn’t like they were getting money and skipping town,” Roach said. “They stayed. That was always their intention.”
Roach said the women later attempted to negotiate a fair sale price with Jensen but couldn’t complete the deal because Jensen did not hold title.
“She (Jensen) sold her house at 1⁄10 of the assessed value because everyone involved believed the city,” Roach said. “The reason an Alaska Native elder lost her home was because of the city. That is not a good look for a politician. They all start pointing fingers, and they point them at Annie and Vickie.”
Moyle’s attorney: ‘No evidence of a crime’
Moyle’s attorney, Robert John, told jurors the state did not meet its burden.
“We have a he said/she said situation, completely,” John said.
He pointed to inconsistencies in Verhagen’s statements, alleged tension between Williams and one of Jensen’s friends, and a dispute between Moyle and Verhagen over the senior center.
“There was no evidence of the city’s claims in writing,” John said. “Mae Jensen really appears to be kind of a pawn for political interests and personal vendettas. It’s a shame it’s gone on this long ... what started out as a good deed has become kind of a long, drawn-out process that’s been in no one’s best interest.”