politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I've heard that if there is a mortgage on a property and it is seized by the government that they don't need to pay the mortgage. Supposedly the lender would have a new claim against for the remaining amount on the mortgage.
I don't know if this is true, it is not from a verified source.
I've read that too, but I very much doubt it. It would screw over the lender big-time. In any other circumstance, they would get paid first on any sale of that property. Why should they get cut out if it gets seized? That leaves suing Trump directly as their only recourse. And in case you haven't noticed, that all takes time and is very expensive. It seems wrong for the State to saddle Trump's creditors with that.
Plus, it would effectively give more "credit" to the person whose property is being seized than they are due. If there is a $100M property that has $80M in liens, and he sells it on his own, he will only have $20M left. Why should that change if the State has to seize it and sell it? That would o ly give Trump incentive to force the State to take the properties: he would lose control of fewer properties that way.
The Guardian was reporting that mortgages take priority
They're quoting Adam Leitman Bailey, a great real estate lawyer. His Wikipedia page is interesting, he was involved in some controversies, resulting in him not being allowed to do his work for 4 months.
In the article he comments about the Trump case. Which I find odd as lawyers usually stick to what they know.
A bit of an odd person that they're quoting.
The loss that the lender takes on a seized mortgage counts as income for the borrower.
This is the case. Government always gets paid first.
Sounds legit. Newsweek will run the headline this afternoon.