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.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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
      ·
      7 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.