Posted on 02/13/2004 3:50:49 PM PST by Hon
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Now that raises some interesting questions. Perhaps Kerry and Heinz don't own the property as tenants by the entireties, in which case, the bank can go after Kerry's interest in the property. On the other hand, if the property is owned by the entireties and the bank lent the money to Kerry without Heinz co-signing the loan, it is essentially an unsecured loan. Lastly, perhaps Heinz co-signed the loan.
In these last two scenarios, it would seem that either the bank or Heinz made a campaign contribution to Kerry in violation of the law. I don't believe banks can legally make contributions, and Heinz would be limited to the individual donor limitation.
If there had been any hanky-panky concerning the title to the property, it would have been splashed all over the papers by now. I seem to recall some deadline as having passed sometime in 2003 for Teresa to have transferred assets to Johnny Boy, in order for them to have been considered his property for liquidation or pledging purposes. I presume the house transfer either from her to them, or to them from an outside party to have been done prior to this date.
Sure is nice to have a line of credit when you're down on the ropes!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.