Banker husband of ex-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is accused of trying to dupe 70-year-old

Daily Mail ^ | 30 November 2017 | Jose Lambiet

[rdl6989]

The husband of former Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is being accused of trying to rip off an elderly commercial property owner and threatening him in the process, according to a lawsuit recently filed in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Banker Steve Schultz, husband of the scandal-prone U.S. Congresswoman for 26 years, allegedly tried to have 70-year-old investor Frank DiMaria hand over the deed of his troubled $4 million-commercial property in Pompano Beach, Florida, to Schultz personally, according to the complaint obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com.

[rdl6989]

Full Title EXCLUSIVE: ‘I will destroy you...I have the power!' Banker husband of ex-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is accused of trying to dupe 70-year-old investor by 'tricking him into signing over deed of his $4M property to him personally'

[rdl6989]

Well isn’t this interesting.

[Enlightened1]

BTTT

[Enlightened1]

This is getting zero coverage because the FAKE STREAM NEWS is slavishly loyal to the Democrats.

[realcleanguy]

More evidence of the type of person(s) the wassremans are

[CharleysPride]

Yeah, and this Banker’s wife was trying to scam the whole country. Dude’s a piker!

[JusPasenThru]

Fake stream news is the DNC.

[GnuThere]

Have the Awans weighed in?
Seriously, doesn’t that threat sound just like DWS saying to the Capitol Police, “There will be consequences!” when they had her laptop.
#thugfamily

[LostInBayport]

Was he trying to sell her knock-off brand hair mayonnaise?

[Milton Miteybad]

This is getting zero coverage because the FAKE STREAM NEWS is slavishly loyal to the Democrats.

It sounds like Schultz was asking the debtor to sign a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure conveying the property to the bank. It's not illegal for the bank to ask for that, but it may not be in the debtor's interest to do it, either. The bank probably figured they had nothing to lose asking for it. If the debtor doesn't want to sign the deed-in-lieu, then the bank would have to go ahead with the foreclosure as they normally would.

In other words, there may be less to this matter than meets the eye.

[tennmountainman]

Both of the Schultz’s belong in jail.

[rdl6989]

Maybe the will go there real soon.

[Ciaphas Cain]

Both of the Schultz’s belong in jail.

They belong under the jail. Four thousand miles under it. Around the Ninth Circle or so...

[beethovenfan]

What a lovely bunch of people.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Oh whatta crooked web they weave

[vette6387]

“Happy Hanukkah”

[HotHunt]

I read on an earlier thread, that Schultz was trying to convince the guy to transfer the property to him personally, not to the bank.

Something about him not paying on debts he owed the bank that Schultz owned or controlled.

[Milton Miteybad]

But that would just complicate matters for Schultz. If the bank made the loan, the property should go back to the bank in the event of foreclosure, not Schultz. If the debtor signed a deed-in-lieu to Schultz individually, then Schultz is in trouble with the bank, because he would then own a property that had been collateral for a mortgage loan owed to them. If the debtor signs a deed-in-lieu to anybody, if would have to be the foreclosing party, namely, the bank, and not Schultz.

I'm not trying to make excuses for this guy, but if he's a principal in this bank, he must know the problems that can arise from this sort of self-dealing. It looks to me like the debtor (and probably the reporter who wrote the story) may have misunderstood what Schultz was asking for.

[umgud]

Stink must run in the family.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks rdl6989.