Althouse: "If the government tries to sell before Trump exhausts his appeals, whoever picks up a Trump-seized property will take on an inordinate amount of risk."

March 21, 2024

"If the government tries to sell before Trump exhausts his appeals, whoever picks up a Trump-seized property will take on an inordinate amount of risk."

"If Trump prevails, he could get his buildings back. Which might come only after the buyer has laid down money to inspect the property, pay brokers and attorneys to review paperwork, and figure out the logistics.... Someone who buys a former Trump office tower faces the risk of Trump besmirching their reputation, or even rallying supporters to boycott them. And those interested in the smattering of units he still owns at his branded buildings could face a sort of inverse problem — having to face Trump protesters...."

From "It’s Hard to Imagine Who’d Want to Buy Trump’s Seized Properties" (NY Magazine).

55 comments:

Mr Wibble said...: Would he get them back, or would the State of New York merely have to provide compensation equal to their value?; 3/21/24, 3:26 PM
Mike of Snoqualmie said...: Leticia James will be obtaining a white elephant if she seizes Trump Tower. No one else will touch it with a 10-ft pole, let alone a purchase office. She'll have to take over all the landlord duties, maintenance, and property taxes.

I look forward to what excuse she'll use to not seize the property. Should be lit.; 3/21/24, 3:49 PM
mezzrow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/21/24, 3:50 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: One would hope that Latitia James and the State of New York would face an inordinate amount of risk if they seize the property. If the rather ridiculous judgment gets reversed on appeal--and the State has seized the property--expect the mother of all lawsuits.; 3/21/24, 3:51 PM
tim maguire said...: If Trump gets them back, who is responsible for any damage? I want to see the state have to assume management just to watch them squirm.; 3/21/24, 4:14 PM
Enigma said...: Black female politicians are about to learn that everything they have was given to them by Democratic Party money men. Those money men may have used black women as Woke propaganda, to toy with Trump, or because they truly want black women to succeed in this world. However, the money men care more about money than black women or anything else on planet earth. That is why they are money men.

The money men are looooooooooooooosing money in New York. They will change the rules and the black women will comply.; 3/21/24, 4:22 PM
rhhardin said...: The state has to reimburse Trump for damages too.; 3/21/24, 4:29 PM
Readering said...: Have to believe AG using seize as synonym for attach, as in file writ of attachment. But a bfp at auction would take free of any claim by Trump.; 3/21/24, 4:34 PM
Lance said...: 1. Presumably any seized property would be sold at auction, allowing the buyer to factor in whatever risk is attached.
2. Why couldn't State of New York seize property and indemnify any purchaser in the case of a reversal?
3. Why does there even need to be a purchaser? From the point of view of New York State, the point is to punish Trump, seizing his property is enough to accomplish that, no?; 3/21/24, 4:47 PM
gadfly said...: [I]t’s difficult to overestimate what a profound shock it is to Trump and his countless epigoni in America’s neo-fascist movement that the laws of the United States and the several states might actually apply to him, and to people like them. When the right-wing talks about “losing our country” this is what they mean:

The New York attorney general’s office has filed judgments in Westchester County, the first indication that the state is preparing to try to seize Donald Trump’s golf course and private estate north of Manhattan, known as Seven Springs.

[J]udgment is already entered in New York City where Trump’s properties including Trump Tower, his penthouse at Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, his hotel abutting Central Park, and numerous apartment buildings are located.; 3/21/24, 4:51 PM
Jim at said...: I just shake my head at all this and find it incredible what's actually going on.

And worse? I have family members who are celebrating it. They've lost their fucking minds.; 3/21/24, 4:52 PM
Rusty said...: Mike of Snoqualmie said...
Nobody wants to invest in NY real estate now. Would you? How could you appraise a property in a climate like this? Latitia James devalued all NYC commercial property. Sell it to the Chinese while you can.; 3/21/24, 5:05 PM
Mikey NTH said...: IIRC from my classes, the phrase is "there is a cloud on the title." Few eant to touch that for any money.; 3/21/24, 5:07 PM
J Severs said...: I see little downside for AG James. It will be NY money at risk, not hers.; 3/21/24, 5:37 PM
The Godfather said...: I don't see how the State can convey clear title to the properties, because if Trump wins on appeal, he'd be entitled to get them back (plus compensation for damages while in the govt's hands). Or, at the very least, he'd be entitled to receive -- from the State -- the fair market value of any properties sold by the State. Probably (I'm not and never was a New York lawyer) the tax payers of New York State could be at substantial risk if the politicians' "let's screw Trump" game goes wrong. From what I've read about this case, the judgment against Trump is VERY flaky.; 3/21/24, 5:45 PM
Maynard said...: Anyone with a brain (you all know who that excludes) knows that this is unconstitutional and will be reversed on appeal. Even intelligent lefties know that.

It's harassment and entertainment for the stupid lefties that will then demand Trump be jailed for farting in public (while Uncle Joe shits his pants).; 3/21/24, 6:13 PM
hawkeyedjb said...: J Severs said...
"I see little downside for AG James." I see no downside. She's not going to be managing the property, or even worrying about it. She's not taking title.

The Godfather said...
"...the tax payers of New York State could be at substantial risk." I doubt the NY authorities, including the AG, have any concern whatsoever about any risk to the taxpayers.; 3/21/24, 6:15 PM
boatbuilder said...: "Trump protesters."

Pure projection.; 3/21/24, 6:29 PM
MadTownGuy said...: Is Tar Baby an applicable metaphor, or is it now off limits?; 3/21/24, 6:43 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Trump's properties might be heavily encumbered by debt already, which would mean that the bond issuer would be second, third or fourth in line in the case of a foreclosure. (On a separate note, it would have been useful to know whom he owed money to when he was president — and if not then, now, when he’s running for the office again.)

To do this, the courts will compel that Trump (actually, his accountants) provide a full and forthright detailing of all his properties and encumbrances under threat of additional penalty, including further financial penalties and jail time for contempt of court.

There will be no way to get around this. There won't be a single lawyer or accountant who will refuse to pony up this information. One of the uncounted on side benefits of this verdict against Trump might well be that we finally get to see what a house of cards he has.

I think its possible that some people are looking at this the wrong way. They are focused entirely on wanting Trump to be convicted as quickly as possible because they think that surely at least some people won't vote for a convicted felon who might otherwise have voted for him. But the bottom line is that even getting a conviction(s) against Trump will not result in him being locked up — at least not in the short run.

And I don't think that many people will care if DA Bragg gets a conviction, and that's really the only case that will finish prior to the election.

But even there, we know how Trump operates. He will appeal and try to somehow run out the clock — the ultimate clock being the election, because if he wins the presidency all of the federal charges will go away, and the state ones will be delayed for at least four years.

I suspect that however bad Trump's financial situation is now (and I think it is really bad), getting elected president will change all that. His share in whatever merger happens with truth social will be worth billions — but probably only if he is elected. And I think he will muddle through until at least the election, no matter how dire his finances are. James will pry his possessions from him as fast as she can, but the presidency is his ultimate jackpot. Avoid jail and make billions. If he wins the presidency he will be worth far more money than at any prior time.; 3/21/24, 6:45 PM
MadisonMan said...: "Please don't throw me into the Briar Patch"; 3/21/24, 6:45 PM
Tomcc said...: On yesterday's thread on this topic, Douglas Levene mentioned that a lien against the property might be an option. That seems like a sensible position; the drawback is that there don't seem to be any sensible people involved.; 3/21/24, 6:50 PM
iowan2 said...: I dont see how deeds can transfer in less than 12 months. By then the whole shebang will have been over turned.

If the Judge had been sane and kept the fine to a reasonable number, appeals court may not have overturned on the law. But its easy for a judge to toss the whole thing because of the wildly drunk, excessive fine.; 3/21/24, 6:57 PM
Milo Minderbinder said...: NYC liberals can't run a lemonade stand. The idea they could operate NYC commercial real estate is laughable. I'm getting some popcorn.; 3/21/24, 7:27 PM
Mr Wibble said...: The more I think about it, the less I think it matters. Even if Trump eventually wins, New York will drag its feet for years to fight any payout. They'll gamble that he'll die of old age before getting any money or property returned.; 3/21/24, 7:43 PM
tim maguire said...: gadfly said...[I]t’s difficult to overestimate what a profound shock it is to Trump and his countless epigoni in America’s neo-fascist movement that the laws of the United States and the several states might actually apply to him,

It’s not that the law applies to him, but that it applies only to him.

“Neo-fascist”—a scary term that means nothing. Makes you sound thoughtful because you didn’t just say fascist, and sounding thoughtful is so much easier than being thoughtful.; 3/21/24, 7:45 PM
Breezy said...: Tish salivates at owning 40 Wall St. It’s her dream come true. She’d quit AG, loll about in the lobby, ride the escalators up and down all day long, watch the comings and goings of all the hoi palloi. It’s where she thinks she belongs.; 3/21/24, 8:09 PM
Mark said...: From what I've read about this case, the judgment against Trump is VERY flaky

"From what I've read about this case..." Meaning you didn't actually read the opinion itself.

People, ALWAYS read the original source material, not some second- or third-hand characterization.

From what I've seen of others reactions, very few people have bothered to read the opinion because they don't know what it actually says.; 3/21/24, 8:17 PM
Moondawggie said...: If Letitia James/NY state actually seizes Trump's property, it will certainly provide an amusing spectacle.

I anticipate it would prove to be a move about as smart as a dog, barking madly, who decides to chase a car that's slowly passing by. The dog easily catches it and clamps its teeth down on the rear bumper. Yes!!! She's finally got it for sure!!!

Except...the car has 350 HP, the driver just stepped on the gas, and now the pup is flying down the road at 65 MPH, hanging on for dear life.

At that point I'd like to know how that bumper tastes now, LJ/NY? You still pleased with your decision making?

Be careful what you wish for, LJ/NY. You just might get it...; 3/21/24, 8:22 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Rich has a lot of legal wet dreams that he flaunts before us. Change the sheets Rich!; 3/21/24, 8:26 PM
Moondawggie said...: Rich said..."If he (Trump) wins the presidency he will be worth far more money than at any prior time."

Kinda reminds you of Bill and Hill, or Barack and Michelle, don't it?; 3/21/24, 8:28 PM
Butkus51 said...: Meanwhile Joey is wondering where the ice cream is.; 3/21/24, 8:29 PM
Iman said...: Amazingly, there are lefties here who seem to believe that LeKenan Thompson-James and DA Bragg are acting responsibly, in good faith and are still in possession of an ounce of credibility!

LMAO.; 3/21/24, 10:13 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Mark, I am afraid I haven't read the opinion yet. But if you think there are salient points no one has mentioned so far, mightn't you -- out of courtesy, if nothing else -- enlighten the rest of us lazy buggers? A sentence or two would be enough.; 3/21/24, 10:15 PM
Jerry said...: tim maguire said...

"It’s not that the law applies to him, but that it applies only to him."
---------------

And that's what's so messed up about this. How can they maintain a pretense that this is the 'NORMAL' way the law should work, when they've admitted it's all to get Trump?

What business would trust that they're not going to be next?; 3/21/24, 10:16 PM
Jupiter said...: "a Trump-seized property". Indeed. Would that, perchance, be like a "Jew-seized property"?; 3/21/24, 10:17 PM
Jupiter said...: "epigoni"

Exhibited without comment.; 3/21/24, 10:19 PM
Jupiter said...: Rich said...

That's Rich!; 3/21/24, 10:20 PM
Cameron said...: Isn't a bond paid to support an appeal held by the court - thus any question of disposing of it is academic as ownership rights (and thus the ability to dispose) don't vest until the appeal is rejected or denied ?

The whole concept of a bond is that it is held on trust to guarantee performance. Its only when there is a failure in performance that the bond monies or property can be accessed by the bond holder ?; 3/21/24, 10:37 PM
Rusty said...: Well, Mark. Be useful for once and tell us where we can find it.; 3/21/24, 10:40 PM
effinayright said...: Mark said...
From what I've read about this case, the judgment against Trump is VERY flaky

"From what I've read about this case..." Meaning you didn't actually read the opinion itself.

People, ALWAYS read the original source material, not some second- or third-hand characterization.

From what I've seen of others reactions, very few people have bothered to read the opinion because they don't know what it actually says.
***************

SNORT

When was the last time YOU argued anything "on the merits"?

Can YOU tell us why the case is NOT "flaky", and why that enormous fine is totes OK under the NY state and federal constitutions?; 3/21/24, 10:55 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I accept the challenge, Mark- in the financial fraud case, who was the victim and how much money did they lose due to Trump Organization's fraud?

Be specific- don't pull a Freder, Rich, or Gadfly and ignore the question. I want the fraud victims named and the damages they suffered. If you read the opinion, then you should be able to provide detailed answers.; 3/21/24, 11:13 PM
Gunner said...: There are plenty of leftist millionaires who would pool their money to "own Trump", even at a loss.; 3/21/24, 11:29 PM
Rusty said...: Mark is a no show. Once again.; 3/22/24, 7:58 AM
Kakistocracy said...: @ Yancey Ward — According to this "no losses" theory, nothing with FTX, Theranos, Bernie Madoff, or Enron was a crime or even a civil violation until the entire thing came crashing down. It's perfectly fine to lie about millions of dollars unless it goes bad, then it's retroactively illegal.

I’ve had a few ‘no-actual-loss’ clients who wish Yancey had a lot of no-actual-loss clients who wish Yancey had some remote idea of what the heck he was talking about.; 3/22/24, 9:40 AM
Kakistocracy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/22/24, 9:47 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Rich lying again, I see. In FTX, Theranos, and Enron there were clear losers that were defrauded. I asked Mark, and I am asking you now, to point to the people who lost due the claimed fraud in the New York "trial" that just concluded. Step up to the plate, Rich, and tell us who was defrauded and what were their losses. It should be a simple question to answer, right? Right? So why don't you take stab at it and tell all of us?; 3/22/24, 10:52 AM
Narayanan said...: If Letitia James/NY state actually seizes Trump's property, it will certainly provide an amusing spectacle.
=================
I see Letitia James/NY as Beauty taunting and chastising Trump [Kong] on the Tower; 3/22/24, 11:57 AM
Tomcc said...: I would speculate that the State of NY, by alleging that Mr. Trump got a more favorable interest rate than he was entitled, lost tax revenue from the banks that made the loans.; 3/22/24, 1:51 PM
Kakistocracy said...: @ Yancey — Wasn't Pharma Bro Shkreli claiming this exact thing? That none of the investors were actually 'harmed' by his antics, so he shouldn't have been convicted according to him.

You obviously haven’t done things like reading the text of the New York state law being used here. What strikes me is that I know you must have an MBA — but are acting as if you have no knowledge of the concept of opportunity cost. I can excuse your lack of knowledge of NY state law, but failing to understand extremely basic Econ 101 topics is inexcusable.

You should talk to every person convicted of mortgage fraud and see if the government had to prove the lender lost money.; 3/22/24, 4:07 PM
Yancey Ward said...: You are just fucking full of shit, aren't you, Rich? I asked you to step up and describe in detail exactly what fraud Trump Inc. committed in the case. For your information, I have actually read the laws cited and the case judgment itself, and none of it shows actual proof of fraud or loss of any money by any party involved in the transactions. The entirety of the case came down to the judge's belief that the valuations that were offered by Trump Inc. in applying the for the loans were vastly overstated. However, the lenders didn't even take those valuations on faith and countered with their own, and it was those valuations that ended up in final contract- they are the only ones that mattered- both sides signed on of those values of the collateral.

Again, this comes down to fundamental and inescapable fact- no one actually knows what a real estate asset is worth until it is offered for sale- literally no one. If no one can really know, then no one can be proven to even have lied about it.; 3/22/24, 5:41 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "You should talk to every person convicted of mortgage fraud and see if the government had to prove the lender lost money."

Step up, big guy, and cite us some cases with details to prove your point. I note every time you are asked to provide supporting detail for you claims you never do. It should be really easy for you to do this- to find a single case where a business was found guilty of fraud where no one lost money due to the fraud- just one, Rich.; 3/22/24, 5:44 PM
Rusty said...: Rich. Most of the people convicted for mortgage fraud are..................banks.; 3/22/24, 6:27 PM
Moondawggie said...: Tomcc said...
"I would speculate that the State of NY, by alleging that Mr. Trump got a more favorable interest rate than he was entitled, lost tax revenue from the banks that made the loans."

OK, and by the argument you advanced here, if you as a simple homeowner, took out a mortgage at 5.75% from bank A, rather than the 6.50% offered by bank B, then you too deprived the state of lost tax revenue from the banks that could have made the loan, so you should be found guilty, fined, and have your house seized by the state if you can't immediately pony up money to pay the damages.

Seem fair to you now the shoe is on your foot, bro?; 3/22/24, 10:28 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Rusty; as Warren Buffett recommended, when an FDIC insured bank goes belly up, its CEO and his wife should go bankrupt too. Then you will quickly see an end to reckless greedy behavior.; 3/23/24, 6:02 AM