I did remember a thing or two about fraud from my business law class:
To determine whether fraudulent misrepresentation occurred, the court will look for six factors:
1. A representation was made
2. The representation was false
3. That when made, the defendant knew that the representation was false or that the defendant made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth
4. That the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it
5. That the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent misrepresentation
6. That the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the fraudulent misrepresentation
I assume the legal logic will be that the first 4 are true and therefore 4 our of 6 factors is the majority and therefor Trump is guilty.
Regarding 4, if the plaintiff is the state of NY, how did the state rely on the representations made to 3rd parties and how did it suffer harm?
Determining damages without showing harm may be impossible in a normal setting.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misrepresentation
As I understand the facts, following your 6 points:
1. Yes - representation was made.
2. You only know if false if you attempt to sell at the stated valuation and can’t meet or exceed that price. The properties weren’t put up for sale, so value is subjective. Therefore, no guilt can be assumed, and it isn’t proven. This test fails.
3. See #2 - can you prove Trump knew the value stated was false? If not, then this test fails.
4. The paperwork for the lenders specifically said DO NOT RELY ON OUR REPRESENTATIONS - DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE. So, no, the intent was clearly not that the recipient rely on the valuation presented. This test fails.
5. The plaintiff is the State of New York. They were not a party to the transaction. The bank (or lender) is not alleging any misrepresentation or loss due to any misrepresentation by Trump. This test fails.
6. The plaintiff suffered no harm. And, even if you wanted to include the bank (or lender) under the Plaintiff heading, they also suffered no harm and no loss. This test fails.
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case for dismissal.