This is a bit unclear. If there is equity in a property (the market value is greater than the mortgage), the existence of a mortgage or lien doesn’t protect it from a forced sale. It just means those obligations get paid first out of the sale proceeds, right?
I believe this too. Every time another action is taken against him, he sees it as a fresh opportunity to start the whole argument again from scratch. If a bailiff comes to take his stuff away, he’s going to automatically say he didn’t get a trial even though he’s already had and lost two.
One of Carroll’s lawyers was on MSNBC last night, watched the clip of Trump running his mouth and said they see all of this. So yes, they are at the very least aware that Trump is giving them fresh grounds for another lawsuit.
Then it becomes an issue of the law of the exact jurisdiction, and how unsecured creditors can enforce against a secured property. In some jurisdictions, filing a lien by itself just puts it on the title. Forced sales can be difficult. If the person on title is underwater on the equity, then there is no point for an unsecured creditor.
And then you run into the question of proving that the person on title has a positive equity. That could be difficult if that person has a track record of keeping two or three sets of books (just speaking hypothetically, you understand 
.)
I’m just saying that in a major financed building with one or more secured creditors, it can be quite difficult for an unsecured creditor to get a sale quickly, and maybe at all, depending on the stakes of the secured creditors.
However, with the size of the money judgments in issue here, the judgment creditors should be able to line up some sharks experienced debtor-creditor lawyers to take a crack at enforcement.
IANAL.
Does this mesh with what you said? (I really do not know.)
I’m at the limit of my own knowledge. 
I’m just saying that the more complicated the financing and security arrangements in an asset, the more difficult it is for an unsecured creditor to enforce their claim against that asset.
And the one common thread to reports of Trump Org’s business dealings is that they tend to be complicated, according to news reports, with lots of subsidiaries, holding companies, LLCs, and so on.
Here’s an old WSJ article from 2016 that flags the issue. It’s paywalled, but the first three paragraphs are available:
So just because an asset has “TRUMP” on it, and The Donald uses it, and says it’s one of his beautiful properties, doesn’t mean that it’s readily accessible to a judgment creditor.
It’s almost as if he’s trying to shield assets from enforcement …
Understood and I get protecting assets is a common thing.
It just seems to me that if you (general “you”) owes me money there should be no reason for this sort of obfuscation to work. At the end of the day there is a revenue stream that you get by sitting on top of this pyramid.
If you owe me money and cannot pay then that revenue stream is mine. I can collect from it or sell it as I see fit.
I don’t get why it is not that simple.
I think,maybe (guessing here) it’s not simple because you’d have to go through court cases with each of the web of LLC’s that hold interest in the revenue stream, and by the time you were done, you’d be 97 years old.
Take the Scottish helicopter. Suppose Trump has it brought to NY and uses it. Can AG NY or Carroll try to seize it? Highly doubtful, since it’s not owned by Trump or any of the Trump Org entities named in Engoron’s decision.
What about the revenue from the helicopter? That’s earned by the Scottish company. What if that Scottish company just keeps all the helicopter revenue internally, and doesn’t declare a dividend to its Scottish parent company?
Neither of the two Scottish parent companies are listed in Engoron’s order, so they’re not subject to the oversight provisions in the order.
If there’s no revenue stream in a company subject to the order, very difficult for a judgment creditor to try to collect on it.
The Scottish helicopter may be an xtreme example, given the international aspect (and apparently Trump eventually sold it, which means that he gave an order that got transmitted through that web of companies), but it illustrates the difficulty with inter-jurisdictional ownership.
For example, the media often reports on « Trump’s golf course at Bedminster, New Jersey », but what does that mean? Does it mean Donald J Trump is listed as the owner on the title? Highly doubtful. There’s likely a similar network of LLCs and business trusts, probably under New Jersey corporate registries. If Bedminster’s ownership structure is at some remove from the NY Trump Org companies in Engoron’s order, and can make business decisions to retain earnings and not pass them up the chain, then would a judgment creditor have anything they could collect on?
Again, not meant as legal advice, IANAUSL, I don’t know the details of NY and NJ state debt enforcement rules.
But I’ll bet the AGNY and E Jean Carroll are hiring extremely skilled debt collection lawyers and businesses to work on the issues. When half a billion is at stake, there’s room for some really aggressive lawyerin’ to be done.
Why not work from the top down?
Start with Trump. Find his income streams. Take those.
Trump may not own a helicopter but he owns some part of it…even through many steps.
Trump makes money…take that money wherever it comes from when it dumps into accounts he can access to pay for a Big Mac.
(not really arguing with you, just curious)
His lawyer in the first Carroll case, Joe Tacopina, was actually pretty competent, he just had shit to work with. He bailed shortly before the second trial started, I suspect because Trump was demanding to be a witness and Tacopina knew what a disaster that would be.
I doubt it; but the appellate court could take into consideration his continued slanders against her, in determining whether to reduce the award.
Is that the guy who got his retainer up front, in cash?
I think that’s Chris Kise.
I wanna see him hire those guys from the billboards: “In a wreck? Need a check?” I bet THEY’D do a bang up job!
Aren’t those guys usually personal injury lawyers? I’m not sure how well the “we don’t get paid unless you get paid” model is going to work on the defense side.
I think even Jim Adler, “The Texas Hammer” has too much dignity and self- respect.
There is not a Hammer big enough for Trump’s problems.
Jim Adler commercial.
Many years ago, I was managing a vineyard; and was dealing with a business in the area that both bought grapes and sold various things to farmers. Said business was owned and run by one individual.
I owed the business some money for something I’d bought, I don’t now remember what. The business owed me for grapes they’d bought from me. The payment for the grapes was significantly overdue.
The owner started bugging me to pay him. I said I’d pay him after he paid me. He said the two portions of the business were two separate businesses and the payments had nothing to do with each other. I said something along the lines of ‘but they’re both you.’ He said ‘why doesn’t anybody understand that they’re two separate businesses!’ (which I took to mean that he was trying this trick on a whole lot of people, none of whom were taking it well.)
He paid me for the grapes. I then used some of that money to pay what he owed me. I gather that the problem was that he wasn’t rich enough (and couldn’t appear rich enough) to pull the trick off.