One line buried in the agreement may be cause for concern for James, according to a new report from The Daily Beast, which described the contact as “bizarre” and “shadier than it looks.”

The contract includes a line that if the judgment is “affirmed” or the “appeal is dismissed,” the defendants in the case “shall pay to Plaintiff…the sum directed to be paid by the Judgment plus interests and costs or any part of it as to which said Judgment is affirmed,” without a guarantee the insurance company would pay.

This essentially means that Trump will be required to pay the judgment if he loses the appeal but leaves questions about whether the insurance would pay if he is unable, essentially leaving James in the same position as before Trump secured the bond, according to the report.

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It would be bad for James in that an insurance company isn’t going to pay $175m if the judgment is affirmed or the appeal dismissed. It’s obviously much easier to cash a check from an insurance company than it is to find assets, domesticate a judgment, and then to levy and sell those assets.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      That’s not bad for James if she can just argue to the court that this bond is blatantly invalid.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s not bad for James if she can just argue to the court that this bond is blatantly invalid.

        Between Knight not being approved in NY, not having adequate cash reserves, and writing a bond that just says Trump will pay, I don’t think that should be a problem.

        That being said, I would still prefer having a valid bond posted. Turning a judgment into liquid assets is not easy, and can be very time consuming.