Interesting. But a key point was that interest is only on the dollar value it sold for (according to Popehat, at least).
So suppose they seize Trump Towers. Forbes estimates that it’s worth about $60 million. Let’s say they sell it for $50 million, and Trumps wins his appeal four months later. New York Statutory Interest Rate is 9%, they probably wouldn’t pay anywhere near that much but let’s say they did. That’s only an additional $1.5 million after four months, so Trump is still significantly losing out.
Yeah, that’s part of why this is going to be really hard to untangle. And he doesn’t necessary have the right to sell even what he does own, for certain things.
Yeah, a lot depends on whether the loan was structured to T**** himself, his company, or a company just for developing the building. If it’s either of the former, the bank is probably out of luck. Any assets that T**** holds that aren’t already in default are fair game for seizure, and the bank loses out on any loans that they haven’t already declared in default. And that’s also fair for being dumb enough to loan money to a conman like T****.
If the loans are structured against the building as a company, then the banks have better standing. Still, NY could force a sale and the banks might not get as much as they want out of it. They might opt to buy out T****’s share, now siezed by the state, rather than liquidate an appreciating asset.
I am not a lawyer, either…yet (taking the bar in July). The banks are secured creditors. The state has a judgment here, and they can get a lien based on that judgment, which would then also make them a secured creditor (I think…I got a C is Secured Transactions…I hated that fucking class…I didn’t go to law school to study finance). Anyway, my point is that there are all kinds of laws and rules, mostly from the Section 9 of the UCC, that determine who gets paid first. I would think the banks have the priority on the claim here, but I don’t know for sure. Regardless, someone will probably end up getting screwed.
Oh my gods, this would be the funniest thing ever if Trump delusionally bases his legal strategy on being saved, impossibly, by the Supreme Court, and as a result loses far more than he otherwise would have.
Seems like, in a worst-case scenario where that happens, Trump would still get screwed by this, as the properties would get sold off for less than he could get (and far, far less than he values them), so even with the eventual return of money (with interest), he’d still lose a lot.
‘Not long after the letter landed, Trump’s election campaign called for donations from one million of his backers, warning he could lose his New York properties.
‘“Keep your filthy hands off of Trump Tower!” reads a message to supporters from a joint fundraising committee that allocates the money it collects to his campaign and a separate political committee that has been paying Trump’s legal bills.’
Schadenfreude aside, as a matter of principle, this doesn’t seem fair. Why should someone be punished, even if they win their appeal, just because their assets happened to be illiquid?
I’m not going to lose any sleep over whatever happens to Trump, but this rule doesn’t just apply to His Orangeness. I have to imagine there are undeserving people (who aren’t billionaires) who get screwed by this all the time.
It seems situational, as the nature of some people’s work is illiquid assets, but if you’re protected against seizure from court if you have illiquid assets, then people facing seizure will invest heavily in illiquid assets. Ideally people are able to keep a roof over their heads, and a car if they need it for work, but if you’re a billionaire and can protect your investment or at least delay seizure by buying a building that would take years to sell, that’s what they’ll do. Presumably, there’s routine procedures in place, and despite the unprecedented nature of TFG, for the system and people who have this as their day job, it’s just another day at the office.
Yup, totally fair comment, and Popehat brought it up as well.
But if course this happens all the time. People can lose a criminal trial and go to jail while the appeal is pending, and if they win the appeal they still went to jail, possibly ruining their lives. Unless the prosecutor did something egregious, they have no recourse to sue and try to make themselves whole.
I would suppose that the reasoning is that they’ve already been found guilty. It’s possible that they’ll win an appeal, but of course it’s possible that any criminal will win an appeal. But they’ve lost the presumption of innocence, and are legally guilty until proven otherwise.
35 states (including DC) have systems in place to compensate people who were falsely convicted, but the sums are usually paltry compared to what they’ve been through. it’s 200k per year of wrongful imprisonment in Washington DC, though.
SCOTUS ignoring the 10th amendment and weighing in here? I mean it wouldn’t be the first time they have decided to rewrite the constitution in recent years, but I would be really surprised if these so-called constitutionalists touched this one with a 10 foot pole.
Why would Kushner bail out Trump when there’s a good chance he can add interesting real estate assets to his portfolio at very interesting prices when they are liquidated?
It’s not personal, it’s business.
(Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Kushner isn’t as rich as he says he is and could use a little help to plug some holes in his own ship, so to speak.)
My understanding is that overturning on appeal does not necessarily equate to wrongful imprisonment. If the conviction is overturned on appeals due to errors in the legal process (e.g. improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jurisdiction, etc.) that doesn’t count as wrongful imprisonment, because the appeals doesn’t actually relate to the underlying question of guilt. But if a case is overturned to to new evidence, or perjury of a witness or something, that’s wrongful imprisonment because it addresses the question of guilt.
I’m starting to leave my comfort zone, though, so I should probably stop.
Oh, yes, you’re right. The compensation systems that I am talking about are for when people are exonerated after years in prison. Then again, given how long the appeals process takes, anyone who was wrongfullly convicted would probably be eligible for some compensation.
Here is a legal explainer. The claimaint has to show “a preponderence of evidence” that they did not commit the crime for which they were imprisoned, but the process seems a lot more streamlined than what would be decided in a lawsuit.
