ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

In this situation, you'd do well to realize that this is the equivalent of a situation where sophisticated parties are playing chess and Letitia James and that weirdo judge are two pigeons strutting around the chess board kicking over pieces at random and cooing, "checkmate, *****."

---

agreed. It was fairly obvious from day one that Engeron was well over his head.

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

So how do they know he overvalued them?

---

you could start by reading the opinion. It outlines the pattern of deception in great detail.

---

No thanks. Thats why I come here.

What if it sold at auction for more than Trump claimed the value? Would he have standing to sue NYC for fraud?

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

Depends, were they owned by Republicans?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

eric76 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Trump might think about seeking emergency relief on constitutional grounds.

Hire a team of law professors to construct an argument rooted in the 8th amendment, with the key distinguishing factor being that judgment creditor is the State of New York.

We ain't talking about Texaco-Pennzoil here where two companies were fighting with each other over a circumstance of their own making.

Here we are dealing with the State imposing an excessive fine on an individual for the arbitrary reason of prosecuting a political opponent.

---

Isn't the amount for the disgorgement of undeserved profits rather than a fine or punishment? That's a big difference. It's hard to see how the Eighth Amendment would cover such a disgorgement.

And Trump with his bluster and stupid antics makes it easy for the justice systems of the various states and the federal government to go after him. He is hardly not responsible for what is happening.

It might or might not be heavy handed. If so, that is presumably something for the appeals court. Remember that appeals courts look for errors in law -- they don't normally reexamine the facts of the case.

---

There were no undeserved profits. The bank testified it did not rely on Trump's estimation of values when making the loan or setting the rate of interest.

---

That may be, but the award is, I think, listed as a disgorgement, not a fine. If it was written as a fine, then the Eighth Amendment might actually apply. As a disgorgement, I don't think that it would.

---

A disgorgement requires illegal conduct... not just being the target of a partisan AG and a Democrat hack sitting on the bench.

---

Fraud is an illegal conduct.

Whether or not the decision stands remains to be seen, but that does not mean that Trump gets to make that determination.

---

Fraud is also not arbitrarily defined based on the political needs of the court and the DA. If it is so, then all those engaged in New York real estate transactions should be in considerable fear if they have the wrong politics, or are just a valuable or lucrative target.

---

Trump has lived by lawfire most, possibly all, of his adult life. He has reportedly been involved in 3,500 lawsuits, many as plaintiff and many as defendant.

He has used lawfare as bully tactics over and over again. That even includes the case where he wanted to force an older woman to sell her house to the casino so that they could replace it with a parking lot.

So considering his extensive past of refusing to pay people or paying them much less than the agreed amount and of other bullying lawsuits, I don't have the least bit of sympathy for him.

There might be nobody more worthy of the plight that Trump is now facing than Trump.

That said, I didn't follow the trial very close. My tendency is to think that the judge did things correctly and most the remarks on here are just sour grapes. It's the Appeals Court's job to determine if there was judicial error and I'll be happy with their decision no matter what it is.

As for the amount of the bond, that's Trump's cost of doing business. I don't owe any more sympathy to Trump than he would have for me if I was in the same predicament.

aggiehawg said:

---

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

---

I assume that they will be selling them as fast as they can. If they don't get full price, that doesn't relieve Trump of the obligation for the full amount, does it? Won't they just keep seizing and selling assets until the full amount is paid?

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

---

Aren't there some circumstances where the state will take their cut first and the mortgage companies or other lien holders afterwards?

I seem to remember reading something about that in the past for some other instance but don't remember the precise circumstances of that instance. I think it was for taxes, but I'm not positive.

aggiehawg said:

---

stick93 said:

---

I haven't read this entire thread but can someone educate me on my biggest question regarding this whole thing? Why does the judgement go to the state of NY? They make their money on property taxes. They have no skin in the game on commercial loans so why do they benefit from the judgement?

---

Some BS about in the "interest of the public", the fine is paid to the state.

---

Sounds like NY now has a vested interest in using the statute they pretzled for Trump on every single commercial transaction now...they could make BILLIONS disgorging all those ill gotten profits into the state treasury...

eric76 said:

---

I seem to remember reading something about that in the past for some other instance but don't remember the precise circumstances of that instance. I think it was for taxes, but I'm not positive.

---

a tax lien does indeed constitute a pre-existing debt, vis--vis the judgment creditor. Thus, a tax lien would be paid before the judgment lien.

As to whether the tax lien would be paid before other pre-existing creditors (such as the mortgage holder) is probably a matter determined by state law. i've never examined that issue in depth

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

---

I assume that they will be selling them as fast as they can. If they don't get full price, that doesn't relieve Trump of the obligation for the full amount, does it? Won't they just keep seizing and selling assets until the full amount is paid?

---

It is not like the auction will held at Sotheby. It will be a courthouse steps or written bid process most likely the latter with financial terms any bidder would have to provide they can pay that auction amount.

To be clear, that is not a quick process. Not by a longshot. And that is why James' seizure of the properties is dumb while the case is on appeal. That would make the state responsible for maintenance of those properties in the meantime. His buidings have tenants. She has to respect those contracts.

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future...It would be like being fired, suing and winning, and then being told that you were allowed to get your office back...but not your job or paycheck.

Something something irreparable harm...

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

---

I assume that they will be selling them as fast as they can. If they don't get full price, that doesn't relieve Trump of the obligation for the full amount, does it? Won't they just keep seizing and selling assets until the full amount is paid?

---

It is not like the auction will held at Sotheby. It will be a courthouse steps or written bid process most likely the latter with financial terms any bidder would have to provide they can pay that auction amount.

To be clear, that is not a quick process. Not by a longshot. And that is why James' seizure of the properties is dumb while the case is on appeal. That would make the state responsible for maintenance of those properties in the meantime. His buidings have tenants. She has to respect those contracts.

---

I was figuring two or three months per round of seizures. The Appeals Court procedures aren't exactly speedy, are they?

Are they limited by the valuation of the properties when seizing them? What happens if they seize more than enough properties to satisfy the judgment and then reach the judgment before all the properties are sold?

Would they return the remaining properties? Or maybe go ahead and sell all of them and then return the money collected in excess of the judgment?

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

---

I assume that they will be selling them as fast as they can. If they don't get full price, that doesn't relieve Trump of the obligation for the full amount, does it? Won't they just keep seizing and selling assets until the full amount is paid?

---

It is not like the auction will held at Sotheby. It will be a courthouse steps or written bid process most likely the latter with financial terms any bidder would have to provide they can pay that auction amount.

To be clear, that is not a quick process. Not by a longshot. And that is why James' seizure of the properties is dumb while the case is on appeal. That would make the state responsible for maintenance of those properties in the meantime. His buidings have tenants. She has to respect those contracts.

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future...It would be like being fired, suing and winning, and then being told that you were allowed to get your office back...but not your job or paycheck.

Something something irreparable harm...

---

It would certainly seem to be better for Trump to get a bond, but it's not surprising that bonding companies don't want to provide bonds for Trump.

Any left over properties will be placed on hold while they dream up some other charges.

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

---

Won't there be a minimum bid?

Ag with kids said:

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future... Something something irreparable harm...

---

it is a question of state law, and I'm not going to look up New York law for you, but the following is Texas law.

Quote:

---

Sec. 34.022. RECOVERY OF PROPERTY VALUE AFTER SALE. (a) A person is entitled to recover from the judgment creditor the market value of the person's property that has been seized through execution of a writ issued by a court if the judgment on which execution is issued is reversed or set aside but the property has been sold at execution.
(b) The amount of recovery is determined by the market value at the time of sale of the property sold.

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

---

Won't there be a minimum bid?

---

Like a "reserve" in a private auction? I have never seen such a requirement for a sheriff's sale.

Who determines the market value?

Barnyard96 said:

---

Who determines the market value?

---

No one. That is not part of the process.

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Who determines the market value?

---

No one. That is not part of the process.

---

(b) The amount of recovery is determined by the market value at the time of sale of the property sold.

Antoninus said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Leftist NPCs have been waxing poetic about seizing Mar-A-Lago lately.

I'm curious to see how Florida courts react to attempts to domesticate this judgment.

---

Question is what value will NYC put on it?

---

Good Lord. NY does not "value" the property.

They sell it at auction and apply the proceeds first to any outstanding mortgage and then to the judgment debt.

---

Won't there be a minimum bid?

---

Like a "reserve" in a private auction? I have never seen such a requirement for a sheriff's sale.

---

Thanks for answering.
I've never been to a sheriff's sale; do they really stand on the courthouse steps to take bids and actually sell the property even if all they got was a $2 bid on a $200,000 property?

Barnyard96 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Barnyard96 said:

---

Who determines the market value?

---

No one. That is not part of the process.

---

(b) The amount of recovery is determined by the market value at the time of sale of the property sold.

---

apologies. I thought you were talking about "a market value" at the time of the sheriff sale.

under the statute I cited above, about recovering the value of one's property after a successful appeal, if the parties are not able to agree as to the market value at that time, there would be a new legal proceeding to ascertain the value. each side would present evidence, including experts and the like.

A sheriff sale is not a good indicator of "market value," because it is not (almost by definition) a willing buyer and a willing seller. The seller is required by law to make the sale to the highest bidder. he does not have the option of saying "no."

Rongagin71 said:

---

I've never been to a sheriff's sale; do they really stand on the courthouse steps to take bids and actually sell the property even if all they got was a $2 bid on a $200,000 property?

---

I have never seen a disparity that large, because sheriff sales always have three or four people hanging around and hoping to take advantage and scoop up a bargain.

I have, however, seen property sell for very small fractions of what one would expect the market value to be. For example, I saw some real property sell for about $100 an acre, when it was probably worth about $2000. why? There was only one person hanging around to bid.

about 30 years ago, I knew a lawyer that went a sheriff sale every month for one of the counties in the area. He routinely scooped up two or three bargains, and made $10-20,000 for his effort.

no, it does not always happen physically on the courthouse steps. Very often there is a sign posted on the front door of the courthouse, telling potential bidders where on the grounds the actual auction will take place.

So, someone that is rich (like Trump) is sure to have at least one bidder there to operate on his behalf?

Rongagin71 said:

---

So, someone that is rich (like Trump) is sure to have at least one bidder there to operate on his behalf?

---

that is usually the practice, yes. It can serve one of two purposes.

First, that "bidder" could be there to drive up the price and leave someone else purchasing the property, but for a significantly higher price that satisfies more of the judgment. The analogy is not perfect, but think about the youth livestock auction at your county fair. an influential Daddy almost always has someone shadow-bidding on his kids' livestock, to assure that they get a good price.

Alternatively, a friendly bidder could be buying the property to "hold" for the judgment debtor.

this was long before my time, but I seem to recall reading that John Connolly filed for bankruptcy, and absolutely all of his property was purchased by friends at the forced sale. in fact, I would be surprised if there was not rather significant… pressure … placed on independent bidders, to keep them out of the mix. Connolly was a popular guy.

Rongagin71 said:

---

So, someone that is rich (like Trump) is sure to have at least one bidder there to operate on his behalf?

---

So they could seize it, sell it back to Trump, and then repeat?

eric76 said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

So, someone that is rich (like Trump) is sure to have at least one bidder there to operate on his behalf?

---

So they could seize it, sell it back to Trump, and then repeat?

---

how would Trump buy it? The fact that there is a sheriff sale indicates that there were no liquid assets to pay the judgment. How would there be liquid assets to buy the fixed asset?

Doesn't all that imply that Trump owns the properties? That means lien free. Or at least a willingness by bidders to clear the liens.

Seeing that Trump is famous for leveraging assets to acquire more, and that he got into this fix in part by overstating property values to gain bigger loans, could it be that he already owes more on his properties than their current values?

If so, the properties aren't his (and thus the attorney general's) to sell.

No one remembers when John Connally filed for bankruptcy and at auction, all of his and Nellie's stuff was bought and returned to them?

Quote:

---

Won't there be a minimum bid?

---

This is New York and the fix is in. Would not surprise me if Trump Tower goes for $100 and then they would have a great reason for them to seize more of Trumps assets and sell them to their friends for pennies on the dollar. They could take everything Trump owns and he could still owe almost the entire amount he owes now. Everything else about this trial has been a sham, why not the auction too.

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

eric76 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In the late 80s and early 90s I had occasion to try to deal with the Resolution Trust Corporation on office buildings they had from the S&L crisis. They couldn't have cared less about any upkeep on those buildings yet still wanted full price for essentially rotted out buildings with massive roof leaks, broken windows, and all manners of damage..

I doubt Letitia James has any clue about maintenance costs for those massive buildings.

---

I assume that they will be selling them as fast as they can. If they don't get full price, that doesn't relieve Trump of the obligation for the full amount, does it? Won't they just keep seizing and selling assets until the full amount is paid?

---

It is not like the auction will held at Sotheby. It will be a courthouse steps or written bid process most likely the latter with financial terms any bidder would have to provide they can pay that auction amount.

To be clear, that is not a quick process. Not by a longshot. And that is why James' seizure of the properties is dumb while the case is on appeal. That would make the state responsible for maintenance of those properties in the meantime. His buidings have tenants. She has to respect those contracts.

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future...It would be like being fired, suing and winning, and then being told that you were allowed to get your office back...but not your job or paycheck.

Something something irreparable harm...

---

It would certainly seem to be better for Trump to get a bond, but it's not surprising that bonding companies don't want to provide bonds for Trump.

---

See...your problem is that everything is because Trump bad for you'.

There are other reasons...

TA-OP said:

---

Seeing some talk about Trump invoking the 8th Amendment. I think he's finally on to something.

---

Yup. Excessive fines are cruel and unusual.

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future... Something something irreparable harm...

---

it is a question of state law, and I'm not going to look up New York law for you, but the following is Texas law.

Quote:

---

Sec. 34.022. RECOVERY OF PROPERTY VALUE AFTER SALE. (a) A person is entitled to recover from the judgment creditor the market value of the person's property that has been seized through execution of a writ issued by a court if the judgment on which execution is issued is reversed or set aside but the property has been sold at execution.
(b) The amount of recovery is determined by the market value at the time of sale of the property sold.

---

---

And see...this was my question.

This sounds like it's based on the property just being an asset, rather than a revenue source.

So, the future profits from the property (if it had not been seized/sold) would be apparently "disgorged"?

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Since these properties aren't just "value holders" but "revenue producers", what happens if they sell one and Trump wins on appeal?

Do they just give him the money back that they got from the sale? Because that would mean he'd be missing all the revenues past and future... Something something irreparable harm...

---

it is a question of state law, and I'm not going to look up New York law for you, but the following is Texas law.

Quote:

---

Sec. 34.022. RECOVERY OF PROPERTY VALUE AFTER SALE. (a) A person is entitled to recover from the judgment creditor the market value of the person's property that has been seized through execution of a writ issued by a court if the judgment on which execution is issued is reversed or set aside but the property has been sold at execution.
(b) The amount of recovery is determined by the market value at the time of sale of the property sold.

---

---

And see...this was my question.

This sounds like it's based on the property just being an asset, rather than a revenue source.

So, the future profits from the property (if it had not been seized/sold) would be apparently "disgorged"?

---

As I read the statute, those hypothetical revenues would be an irrelevancy under Texas law. Who knows what New York law might be, however?