The CEO of a luxury real estate firm claimed in an interview Thursday that former President Trump’s home of Mar-a-Lago could potentially be sold for hundreds of millions of dollars as he tries to pay a nine-figure bond in his civil fraud case.
“Mar-a-Lago, potentially, that could be something that could be sold quickly,” Brown Harris Stevens CEO Bess Freedman told CNN Thursday. “I think the valuation is something in the hundreds of millions and I think there could be a buyer for something like that.”
“There could be plenty of international people who want to buy that property,” Freedman said, explaining that there would likely be great interest in buying Mar-a-Lago from Trump. “There’s properties that are priced at $150 and $200 million that are near that.”
NY AG ASKS COURT TO IGNORE TRUMP CLAIM THAT POSTING $464M BOND IS ‘PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY’
“And Palm Beach is like the Nvidia of real estate,” she said. “It’s just shot up like a rocket. And people do want to live there, they’d move there. So I think that would be the best case scenario as to property. If he’s trying to sell quickly I would encourage that.”
Trump and his legal team have appealed and requested a stay on his $464 million civil fraud judgment. On Monday, his lawyers said that “ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is a ‘practical impossibility,’” amid attempts to approach about 30 surety companies.
The lawyers said the “enormous magnitude” of the bond requirement, which effectively requires cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is “unprecedented for a private company.”
NY AG ASKS COURT TO IGNORE TRUMP CLAIM THAT POSTING $464M BOND IS ‘PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY’
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office has pushed back against Trump’s claim that securing a bond in his civil case is a “practical impossibility.”
In a document filed by Senior Assistant Solicitor General Dennis Fan, the attorney general urged the court to disregard Trump’s request for a stay on his $464 million civil fraud judgment, calling his demand “extraordinary” and “improper.”
“[T]he Court should not consider defendants’ new allegations and arguments — which contend that a full bond or deposit is a ‘practical impossibility’ […] because they are procedurally improper,” the document states.
Fox News’ Timothy H.J. Nerozzi and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
