I hate to keep beating a dead horse -- but then, real estate fraud is far from a dead horse. In fact, people are being taken in by crooks more than ever.

Real estate is an especially fertile ground for criminals: Transactions are complex, lots of people are involved and much of the information needed to hoodwink someone is available online. And scammers exploit each of those facets.

West Virginia attorney Kim Gilbert-Toelle helped catch a scammer who forged a death certificate, then tried to use it to open probate on a legitimate homeowner and sell the property out from under him as the administrator of the estate. When Gilbert-Toelle realized the certificate was fake, she worked with the FBI to apprehend the bad guys.

Unfortunately, she says she was told the rotten apples had gotten away with it "a number of times before."

Then there's wire fraud, which takes many forms. In one well-known variant, shortly before homebuyers close on their new property, a miscreant sends them false instructions about where to send their down payment and closing costs. Once the funds are received, they are quickly transferred out of the country, rarely to be seen again.

"Every stage of the real estate transaction is vulnerable," according to a report from CertifID, a wire fraud protection company. "The buyer's cash to close, the seller's net proceeds and mortgage payoffs are all at risk."

Meanwhile, bogus letters are urging homeowners to "renew" a home warranty they never had. I received one labeled as a "FINAL NOTICE," which warned that the (nonexistent) warranty was about to expire.

"Our records indicate that you have not contacted us yet to get your home warranty up to date," the letter said. "Please call immediately, as this will be our final attempt to notify you."

Yeah, right. And this was in addition to the hundreds of emails I receive every month from legitimate warranty outfits trying to sell me a contract.

Meanwhile, in the face of numerous legal challenges, MV Realty -- the Florida firm that allegedly duped hundreds, if not thousands, of homeowners into giving away the right to list their properties with whomever they desire in exchange for cash payments of up to $5,000 -- has shut down its so-called Homeowner Benefits Program and is redrafting its contract.

Under the program, owners can sell anytime they want, but if they do so within the next 40 years, they must list their places with MV Realty. If a seller uses any other broker, the company will still demand its share of the commission. The company also records the contract as a lien against the property.

In exchange, and upon signing a binding contract, owners are paid anywhere from $300 to $5,000, depending on the property's location and other variables.

As of this writing, eight states outlaw these kinds of contracts, which are known legally as Non-Title Record Agreements for Personal Service (NTRAPS). Utah was the first to ban NTRAPS, followed by Colorado, Georgia, Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, North Carolina and Maryland.

In other legal action against MV Realty, Massachusetts has obtained a preliminary injunction blocking the outfit from presenting itself as a real estate company when it actually offers a loan product. The Commonwealth maintains the Homeowner Benefit Program is, in effect, a loan and that the company used "unfair and deceptive marketing and sales tactics" to hide the true terms of the contract.

"MV Realty customers are unaware of the core terms of the transaction and are unwittingly saddled with a mortgage on their home, tying up what is most likely their most valuable asset, restricting their ability to refinance and preventing them from selling without paying a tenfold penalty to MV Realty," said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell in a statement.

For what it's worth, the AG's office also said cash payments under the program were usually less than $1,500.

Attorneys general in Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina also have sued the company, claiming its practices are unlawful. Pennsylvania is also going after MV's founder, Amanda Zachman.

"MV Realty is a scam that exploits Pennsylvanians in vulnerable financial situations, and my office isn't buying it," said Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro in a statement.

Added Attorney General Josh Stein of North Carolina: "My office is taking MV Realty to court to put them out of business because we allege they're preying on vulnerable people to trick them into unfair, long-term agreements."

At the federal level, senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Tina Smith of Minnesota and Sherrod Brown of Ohio have called on the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate the practice of exclusive real estate listing agreements such as those peddled by MV Realty.

Wyden, Smith and Brown urged the consumer watchdog agencies to work with state attorneys general to review whether long-term listing agreements violate federal consumer protection laws, including prohibitions against unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices, and to take appropriate action where violations are found.

For its part, MV Realty, which claims to have "helped" 35,000 clients obtain much-needed funds to pay their mortgages, utility bills and the like, say it believes its business practices comply with all laws. It also maintains the terms of the 40-year pacts are clear and legal, and are filed in the land records "only to note" its position as the owner's future listing agent.

Every parent, myself included, who has uttered the immortal words "money doesn't grow on trees" was dead wrong. According to new academic research, money does grow on trees -- to the tune of billions of dollars!

A study by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Bureau of Business Research found that, nationwide, trees collectively add more than $31.5 billion of value to private homes each year. The research, which was sponsored by the nonprofit Arbor Day Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, also says neighborhood trees provide more than $73 billion worth of environmental benefits yearly. To top it off, the business of growing, selling, planting and maintaining our trees employs more than a half-million people and has an economic benefit of $35 billion.

The study doesn't say what trees are worth to individual homeowners, but other studies say "plenty." That's why homebuilders charge a premium for wooded lots, and why some buyers will gladly pay extra for mature trees.

Whether their place came with large trees or not, one of the first things new homeowners do upon moving in -- after putting up curtains and laying down doormats -- is upgrade their landscaping. They might spruce up their flower beds, drop in some bushes and add a tree or two.

If you do it right, landscaping can pay off handsomely: The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers says the value of mature trees runs between $1,000 and $10,000. A study from the Forest Service found that in Portland, Oregon, trees planted near houses increased their sales price by an average of $8,870.

There's an entire science behind establishing the value of individual trees. But you may not need to call in a professional to establish what yours are worth.

Casey Trees, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that is "committed to restoring, enhancing and protecting the tree canopy of the nation's capital," has developed a tool that can help. Its tree benefit calculator (treebenefits.com/calculator) can give you an idea of how much value a particular species, at various circumferences, will add to your property.

Of course, trees' value isn't only monetary: They also clean the air, provide homes for local wildlife and give us cool shade, beautiful springtime flowers and vibrant fall color. But even these can be translated into dollars, to some extent.

In its 1992 book "Growing Greener Cities," the American Forestry Association said that each year, a single deciduous tree can provide $73 worth of air conditioning, $75 worth of erosion control, $75 worth of wildlife shelter and $50 worth in air pollution reduction. Casey's tree calculator measures the value of some of these factors as well.

Generally, there are four main elements that can be measured in dollars:

-- Size. Obviously, the larger the tree, the more it's worth. And after many years of growth, trees become literally irreplaceable.

-- Species. The most valuable trees are hardy, durable, highly adaptable and won't drop debris like nuts or pods everywhere. They will have sturdy, well-shaped branches and pleasing foliage, and require little maintenance.

-- Condition. Of course, a healthy, well-maintained plant has a higher value.

-- Location. A tree in the yard is usually worth more than one growing in the woods. Ditto for one standing alone versus growing in a group. A tree near your house, or one serving as a focal point in your landscape, also tends to have more value.

If you have a hankering to do some landscaping, the American Society of Landscape Architects suggests investing about 5% to 10% of your home's value. Admittedly, that can be expensive, but it's less costly if you put in multiple trees at once, rather than adding them one at a time.

Even so, you don't have to do everything all at once, and you can save big bucks by doing some of the work yourself. Start with smaller trees, say from 5 feet to 15 feet tall, then let them grow in size and value. Anything larger than that will require professional installation.

With a realistic budget in hand, start in the front yard with the largest shade tree you can afford. One that's 4 feet to 6 feet in diameter (measured at a point 12 inches from the ground) will give your place an established look that would otherwise take a half-dozen years to create, and will give the yard a greater visual impact than several smaller trees.

When it comes to junk fees, nobody can hold a candle to landlords. Not even mortgage lenders.

The National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit based in Boston and Washington, D.C., lists 16 "gotcha" fees in a new report on the charges faced by prospective renters.

Admittedly, some are not that onerous. For example, nearly all property managers charge application fees, which they use to pay for credit reports and criminal background checks. But the charges move into the "junk" category when they are nonrefundable, and when the tenants can't use the reports to apply elsewhere.

The NCLC also found some add-ons that were questionable at best, including convenience fees, roommate fees and processing fees. Some landlords charged a "January fee" for no other apparent reason than it being the first month of the new year.

For landlords, it's all about finding ways to monetize whatever they can get away with. For instance, one Tampa firm sends invoices for submetered water and sewer service. Nothing underhanded there; most places charge for utilities. But it also charged a meter reading fee and a billing fee.

The extra charges amounted to only a few bucks. But multiply that by each tenant, and you end up with a nice little profit center.

About that billing fee: Tenants were dunned electronically, not via snail mail, so it wasn't to cover the extra cost of paper and postage. But no matter how the invoice is delivered, why should anyone have to pay to be billed? How can you pay without a bill?

Pure and simple, these are the costs of doing business, and they should be borne by the property owner -- not the tenants.

Here's another ridiculous charge: A Kansas City property demands a $200 one-time fee for pets, plus $15 a month. Again, nothing unusual there; most places charge for cats and dogs. But this place also charges for fish. Not only that, but it prohibits "aggressive" breeds. Of fish.

Meanwhile, some owners are looking to save money by operating their properties without any on-site personnel: no resident manager, no maintenance people, no security staffers. One outfit reportedly already operates several unstaffed properties, and plans to add more.

The NCLC report comes in the wake of an open letter from Marcia Fudge, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who called on the housing industry to address such fees. These charges, she said, raise costs and hit vulnerable people the hardest.

"Many renters today face fees that are hidden, duplicative or unnecessary," Fudge wrote. "These fees limit options for renters and strain household budgets, particularly for renters with low and modest incomes who already face high rental-cost burdens."

In particular, the HUD secretary cited nonrefundable application fees, which she said can run into hundreds or even thousands of dollars for tenants applying at multiple places. She also noted that while landlords use the fees to pay for tenant screening reports, those reports often "have inaccurate information and questionable validity in predicting renter behavior."

Fudge also mentioned such hidden fees as move-in charges, late charges, high-risk fees, security bonds and convenience fees for tenants who pay their rents online. But the NCLC went further, noting that the vast majority of landlords impose excessive late fees and more than half charge other bogus fees.

To compile its list, the NCLC surveyed legal services and nonprofit attorneys about the types of fees they have seen. The survey took place in November and December of last year.

Of the 95 responses from 26 states and the District, nearly 9 out of 10 said landlords collect application fees, and almost 3 out of 4 said they have seen utility-related charges. So far, nothing too dubious. But 87% said landlords also impose excessive late charges. Moreover, 68% had seen processing or administrative fees, 60% noticed convenience fees and 59% reported seeing insurance fees.

A small number (7%) reported seeing fees to report rental payment information to credit bureaus. And the aforementioned "January fee" was reported by two Minnesota advocates -- "for seemingly no reason," the survey said.

Noting that some 19 million households -- nearly half of all renters in the U.S. -- spend more than a third of their incomes on housing, April Kuehnhoff, a senior attorney at the law center and a co-author of the report, said, "There simply isn't room in their budgets for junk fees."

The report calls on the Federal Trade Commission and state legislatures to investigate landlords who impose burdensome fees, calling them "unavoidable and exploitative." The FTC should develop guidance to prevent this practice, it said, and states must limit or ban fees that exceed landlords' costs.

Fudge had essentially the same message in her open letter, urging all housing providers as well as state and local governments to "take action to limit and better disclose fees charged to renters in advance of and during tenancy." Fees, she said, should reflect "the actual and legitimate costs to housing providers."

The secretary's message amplifies the Biden administration's "Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights," which challenges stakeholders to commit to clear and fair leases without hidden or illegal fees.

Since the White House launched the challenge, Fudge wrote, many state and local governments and housing providers, as well as several rental platforms and small property owners, have announced policies aligned with the program. Among other things, they have agreed to limit application fees and allow applicants to reuse their applications multiple times at no extra cost.