However, let’s assume those bids for Trump’s property are lowered because of the questions surrounding the forced sale — who would pay full value, not knowing what might happen to the recently acquired property? Then — using your scenario of Trump being paid back “fair market value” of whatever the winning bids were — Trump is given back his money at a reduced rate. Kind of a win/win for Trump’s enemies: if he loses his appeal, they have stripped him of very valuable property/assets; if he wins his appeal, he gets back only a fraction of the real value of the property.
MortMan: “Cutting a check for the amount that NYS is willing to accept for the seized properties does not make President Trump whole. Especially given that the state has already alleged the properties are worth significantly less than he has asserted.”
What NYS thinks the properties are worth is irrelevant. The procedure is that the sheriff advertises the sale, and there’s an auction at least two months later. How much Trump’s debt is reduced depends on how much the winning bid was.
Ray Lomas: “However, let’s assume those bids for Trump’s property are lowered because of the questions surrounding the forced sale — who would pay full value, not knowing what might happen to the recently acquired property?”
That’s not a concern. The sheriff’s sale conveys valid title, regardless of what happens thereafter on the appeal. That’s why Trump would indeed suffer some loss – he couldn’t get the property back, only the sale proceeds.
Without a stay of enforcement, Trump is certainly in a bad situation. My main point was that, if he wins on appeal, he would certainly get the money (even if he couldn’t get back any auctioned properties). The linked article’s scenario of a state-federal confrontation is just hyperventilating. It’s a distraction from the real problem that Trump could face.