By
On Wednesday, a New York appeals court judge ruled on an emergency motion from former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants in their civil fraud trial. Through that motion, Trump argued that any efforts by New York Attorney General Letitia James to enforce the judgment in the case — including the $454 million judgment against him, which includes still-accruing interest — should be stayed so that he can appeal that judgment and related decisions.
You might be asking, “What exactly would lead Trump to move for an emergency stay?”
Under New York state law, a defendant who is ordered to pay money through a trial court judgment has 30 days to file a notice of appeal, starting with when the defendant is notified that judgment has been officially entered. By filing the notice, defendants also obtain a stay on enforcement of the judgment, pending appeal — so long as they post an “undertaking” (e.g., a surety bond or cash) equivalent to the amount in the order being appealed.
And for Trump, this is no small matter. Staying enforcement of the judgment would not only relieve his two adult sons from a ban on their running the Trump Organization, but it also would prevent the AG from collecting on that $454 million-plus through the resolution of the appeal.
And in Trump’s case, because the judgment was entered on Feb. 23, he now has a little more than three weeks to post the undertaking necessary to obtain that stay.
But because he apparently does not have sufficient liquidity and/or cannot obtain a bond on favorable terms, he asked a New York state appeals court to grant him a stay on different — and more favorable — terms. Specifically, his lawyers conceded something Trump himself likely would never admit:
In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General.
Or put another way, if you force Trump to post a bond worth 100% of the judgment, he’ll likely have to sell off real estate. Therefore, Trump made a counterproposal of sorts: I won’t contest the continued supervision of the court-appointed independent monitor, former federal Judge Barbara Jones, and I’ll also post a $100 million bond. Calling the judgment’s sum “unprecedented and unconstitutional,” Trump argued that requiring him to post an equivalent bond was unnecessary, especially where the monitor’s presence and a lesser bond would ensure that his assets remain intact.
The order entered by Justice Anil Singh on Wednesday, however, didn’t buy that argument. Instead, the judge granted Trump and his co-defendants a reprieve from their bans on borrowing money from financial institutions registered or chartered in New York. He also allowed Trump’s adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, to maintain their leadership of the Trump Organization. But while ordering further briefing for a five-judge panel of the court, Singh also refused to stay enforcement of the monetary portion of the judgment. The AG’s opposition brief is due March 11, and Trump’s reply is due March 18. Singh also set the motion date for March 18, meaning the court could rule as soon as that day, but no sooner.
The bottom line? Unless and until the full panel sides with Trump between March 18 and March 25, Trump will have to post the full $454 million-plus to stave off the AG’s collection efforts.