bintananth
behind a desk
The judge didn't determine that $18-27 million number. That's the assessed value assigned to Mar-a-Lago for tax purposes by the county.
Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
The judge didn't determine that $18-27 million number. That's the assessed value assigned to Mar-a-Lago for tax purposes by the county.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Of course it can be.
bintananth
behind a desk
a) not everything is appealable
b) they might not have grounds for an appeal even if they can theoretically appeal it
Besides, this is a civil case. Appealing this partial summary judgement and winning doesn't get the case tossed. It just means the Judge now has to hear both sides argue it out in court instead of reading motions before ruling on the question of fraud liability.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Depends on the appeal grounds. If the appeals court decides that the judge's ruling is bad enough they can and will toss the entire case.
bintananth
behind a desk
This is not a crininal case. If the trial judge for a civil case goofs the appeals court will either correct the mistake or, at worst, hand the case to a different judge for a complete do-over.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Or dismiss with prejudice?
bintananth
behind a desk
That's a judge's way of telling a party to a case "This is complete nonsense which is wasting the court's time. If you try to bring it before the court again there will be consequences and you will not like them at all."
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Er. No. It means you can't bring it up in court again at all.
bintananth
behind a desk
Eh, that's the unwritten implication of my second sentence. Believe it or not: some people do attempt to "bring that shit again".
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
And what are the local laws about tax assessment, vs sale assessment, vs loan collateral assessment? Depending on the weirdities of local law, and when what assessment came from, you can have multiple very different values on paper at the same time.
Because unless Mar-A-Lago is sitting on a radioactive waste pile and is thus unfit for human inhabitance, that much property in that exclusive a neighborhood, especially with beachfront, is not going to be worth less than smaller neighboring plots.
This also does not get into the fact that with loans that large, banks will as a matter of routine have their own assessors check the value before they sign for it.
bintananth
behind a desk
Those quick comparisons w/ neighbouring properties fail to take into consideration that Mar-a-Lago is subject to whole lot of deed and zoning restrictions as to what can be done with the property and how it can be used. Restrictions which lower its value like the one prohibiting all but the most minor of changes from it's current use and physical condition. So, any for potential buyer it's WYSIWYG and you have to keep it that way.
Oh, and that valuation for tax purposes? Trump took steps to get the assessment lowered down to that.
However, this case isn't about the actual specific value of any one property. It's about Trump and co. materially misrepresenting assets on financial statements used to obtain loans &c. That, my friend, is fraud.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
And what did the bank's assessor say about the property that he was using as collateral for loan?
A loan that IIRC, he repaid without incident?
bintananth
behind a desk
To your first question. It doesn't matter what the banks thought because they weren't looking at multiple sets of statements from the same time period with wildly inconsistent valuations. Or, really doing full due dilligence at all because one of them should have noticed that Trump was overstating the size of his unit in Trump Tower by a factor of three - and therefore blatently overvaluing it based on $/sq.ft.
It also dosn't matter if he repaid the loan without incident because that's immaterial to the question: "Was the loan fraudlently obtained?"
IF no party was harmed by this transaction...who's the damaged party?
bintananth
behind a desk
The bank's shareholders, depositors, and other creditors in the form of additional risk. The lender's other (honest) borrowers in the form of reduced loan availability and less favorable terms. The FDIC because they're on the hook if the bank fails. And the list goes on ...
Bigking321
Well-known member
Let's be real.
It's 100% political bs.
It's 100% political bs.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Except that if the loan was paid there is no harm to any of those.
bintananth
behind a desk
Bzzt, wrong. The harm isn't easilty quantifiable in monetary terms.
fr'ex: if apply for a loan I qualify for and don't get one while someone else who lied on their loan application does get one they don't qualify for then I, personally, have been harmed.
Vyor
My influence grows!
So there is no harm, got it.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
The harm is that Trump is the enemy.