Doesn’t that defeat point of having to put the money up in order to start the appeal? I thought a big part of doing this was, at least in part, to eliminate the question of whether the other party will actually get the money when the case is over.
I was under the impression that whoever handles the escrow for these appeals (the courts? an uninterested third party?) gets the full amount from the person filing the appeal and holds on to it until the case is over.
What recourse, and as I say that I’m beginning to understand why they’re allowing her the opportunity to object, does she have if they decide not to pay up? Is she really going to take on a multi-billion dollar insurance company located in another country?
As part of her objection can she demand the full amount be placed in escrow so she knows she’ll get it?
She’ll have a legally enforceable promise by a major insurance company. Insurance companies are regulated and required to have a certain solvency. If Met Life, or Liberty Mutual, or Chubb says they’ll pay the money if Trump doesn’t at the end of the case, it’s a pretty good guarantee. But as a civil litigator, I’ll remind everyone, the money isn’t “real” until the check hits your account and clears.
If a company like Chubb stops paying their obligations, they’re finished. It’s their entire reason for existence. Of course some go under now and then (but it’s rare). Like I said, it’s a pretty good guarantee.
She can ask, but I believe the rules allow for a bond to be posted. I doubt the Judge would find Chubb’s promise insufficient.
This. If Trump’s bond was guaranteed by Billy Joe Jim-Bob’s Discount Bonds, or by an individual (say, Mohammad bin Salman), there’d be a greater concern about the money’s availability. If Chubb were to default on paying the bond in this case, as you note, it’d be a disaster for them as an ongoing financial institution.
I’m going to go there, and guess that Chubb was given $90 million by Putin to cover the bond. It could have been funneled in by an intermediary or a series of shell companies.
Whoever put up the collateral, the bond is, I believe, a good thing for Carroll, assuring her the payment if/when Trump loses his appeal, as opposed to having to go through the long, painful process of liening, seizing, and selling enough of his properties to cover the judgment.
I agree but Trump-101 is delay, delay, delay. And this buys him a delay.
Without the delay she’d be seizing Mar-a-Lago (or whatever) during a presidential election.
Now he can appeal which will almost certainly get him past the election. If he becomes president, can you collect against a sitting president? Willing to bet that is another delay.
Even if Trump loses that is more time to fundraise from idiots and siphon money off the RNC to help pay the bill.
ETA: It also seems penalties are always reduced when these things are appealed…I might be wrong…maybe we only hear about the ones that are. I dunno.
Has a bonding company ever withdrawn a bond? Can they? If he cannot get coverage by the day after St. Patrick’s day for the NY ruling, it would end up quite the mess for him. Does this bond remain in place throughout the appeals process, or can Chubb call it in after the first appeal fails?
And if President Trump decides to use all of his presidential resources to not pay? I know people (and I’m one of them) get tired of “What if he/they didn’t” as a reply because it kills debate, but does Chubb have any recourse?
Because under Trump 2.0, his schutzstaffel from the Bureau of Prisons will show up at your door, and you will be sent to a relocation camp pending deportation with millions of other undesirables.
Q: How long will it be until Trump defames Carroll again?
A: Tonight!
Mastodon link with X image:
During a long speech at his rally, attended by @nbcnews, he referenced the $91.63 million bond he posted yesterday to stay enforcement of the $83.3 million judgment Carroll obtained—and said it was “based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn’t know, never head of, I know nothing about her.”
Here’s a 1987 photo of Trump and his wife at a party with Jean Carroll. Trump was shown that picture in court.
After the $83 million dollar verdict, Trump demonstrated that he was perfectly able to control what he said about her. He’s got to understand that he risks an even greater judgment if she were to sue again as I imagine Carroll’s lawyer would argue, “If a combined $88 million won’t get him to stop defaming Ms. Carroll how much do you think it would take?”
Trump is playing a game of chicken. He’s either going to be elected president of the United States or he’s going to crash and burn spectacularly.
She should simply have the legal authority to slam one of those old fashioned desk bells every time he starts again. It should be legally binding.
(Ding!)
Fine is doubled.
In the unlikely event that Loser Donald is elected again, I predict that his second attempt at creating a white Christian herrenvolk state will fail for the same reason the first one did - he’s too lazy to actually do the work involved in being a dictator, the sycophants and yes-men he surrounds himself with will be too incompetent to do it for him, and the institutions of government will resist being co-opted through sheer inertia.
Is that the same one that he said was a picture of his current wife Marla Maples?
