Journalists have erroneously reported that lenders did not want real estate as collateral for their loans on the Judgment Debtor's appeal bonds, because they "don't like" real estate. They insist on liquid collateral, so the story goes.
Horse puckey.
The lenders approached by the Judgment Debtor for his latest appeal bond, only to be turned down, did not reject the Judgment Debtor's possible collateral because it was real estate. They rejected the real estate as collateral because the real estate is encumbered already. That means that in the event that the appeal was adverse to the Judgment Debtor such that the Judgment Debtor will have to pay the Judgment after all, then the Lender would have to stand in line behind all the other creditors who have preexisting rights on the Judgment Debtor's real property.
The lenders refused to take on the appeal bond because the real property did not really give them collateral for the loan, not because for some reason they "dislike" real estate.
This false story apparently comes straight from the Judgment Debtor's lawyers, who told the Court in their filing that the Judgment Debtor could not pay for an appeal bond because, given this particular Judgment Debtor's real estate holdings that are mortgaged up the wazoo (a legal term), no-one would lend him money so they must not like real estate.
This incredibly goofy story ended up in the news media.
And in 2024, that's the way it is.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2024 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.