Trending
Donald Trump won’t have to post the full $454M bond
Former president has 10 days to post reduced $175M
Former president Donald Trump will not have to post the full bond for the $454 million judgment against him in New York. But he’s not off the hook entirely.
A panel of appellate court judges ruled that Trump could instead pay a $175 million bond as he appeals the ruling against him in his civil fraud case, the New York Times reported. Trump has 10 days to secure the bond, which multiple sources told the publication should be feasible.
It’s a compromise of sorts. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who did not immediately respond to the appellate court’s ruling, argued against any reduction or delay of Trump’s bond posting. His legal team, meanwhile, was looking to post a smaller bond, $100 million.
A week ago, Trump’s team informed the appellate court that it was a “practical impossibility” for Trump to obtain a bond for the full amount, saying they approached 30 different surety companies through four separate brokers. The biggest issue is that bond companies aren’t interested in real estate collateral, where much of Trump’s wealth is tied up.
The ruling in Trump’s favor came in the nick of time, as Monday marked the initial deadline for Trump to post bond. After the day passed, James was positioned to start securing liens against his properties in Westchester County, where the judgment against Trump was registered. That could’ve meant the seizure of the Seven Springs estate and the Trump National Golf Club.
James previously said she would be willing to chase his properties as a means to collect damages after the Trump Organization was found liable for fraud.
Should Trump pay the reduced bond in the next 10 days, James will not be able to collect the judgment against him until the appeals process plays out, which could take months.
The appeals court decision also presses pause on some of the other punishments facing Trump and his clan, including his inability to obtain a loan from a New York bank and a three-year ban on him running a business in the state.
The extended appointment of an independent monitor was not held off by the appellate court.