Judge paves way for trial against Donald Trump over Jupiter golf club take-over
Donald Trump is likely to be forced to take a break in his campaign for president next month to appear in federal court in West Palm Beach to explain why he hasn’t returned an estimated $6 million to members of his country club off Donald Ross Road.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra this week paved the way for a trial to begin on August 15 by denying Trump’s request to throw out the lawsuit filed by those who were members of the club before the businessman-turned-TV-celebrity-turned-GOP-presidential-nominee bought it for $5 million in 2012.
In the 12-page ruling, Marra said there were “genuine questions of material fact regarding whether (Trump) breached the contract” with members of Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter by refusing to return their deposits, which ranged from $35,000 to $210,000. That means, he said, the lawsuit must be decided by a jury.
This may cause a 'bit' of a problem for the Trumpster. People who can spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to belong to a golf club are generally seen as the demographic which would vote for Mr Trump, but apparently not in Palm Beach County.
Should be interesting
Do you have a link to the actual lawsuit? Is it Donald Trump they are suing, or one of his companies? It makes a difference. The letter linked in the story that was linked in the story, was from Trump as an officer of a corporation, not as an individual. Again, it makes a difference.
I think this is it. They are suing the golf course.
https://www.pathtojustice.com/wp-content/uploads/hs_files/Trump_Ritz_Class_Certification_Order.pdf
More here: https://www.pathtojustice.com/blog/members-of-trump-national-jupiter-seek-refund-of-deposits/
This may cause a 'bit' of a problem for the Trumpster. People who can spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to belong to a golf club are generally seen as the demographic which would vote for Mr Trump, but apparently not in Palm Beach County.
Should be interesting
Do you have a link to the actual lawsuit? Is it Donald Trump they are suing, or one of his companies? It makes a difference. The letter linked in the story that was linked in the story, was from Trump as an officer of a corporation, not as an individual. Again, it makes a difference.
Yes, it makes a difference if it's the individual being sued or his corporation
Unless the corporation is The Clinton Foundation
Pardon? Who's suing the Clinton Foundation? For what exactly are they being sued? And, what does that have to do with a golf club lawsuit in Florida? I have to give you credit here. Normally your posts like this are pretty transparent, but this one appears to be pretty cryptic. I look forward to hearing how this one unfolds, and how it applies to me and probably some post of mine you've saved in some special double secret folder for later use.
Gee, you really don't understand the connection between excusing Trump because it was his corporation that did something wrong (allegedly) while blaming Clinton because it was their corporation did something wrong (allegedly)?
Yeah but he'll just stiff them on the loan too.If Trump loses the lawsuit...I'm sure the Russians will lend him the $6 million to pay the club members their deposits back.
I see your point, I just don't know what it has to do with me, or my comments in this thread? However - quid pro quo - that's the potential difference if there ends up being one at all.
The part about people who run corporations being responsible for what the corporations do, is too broad a statement to be agreed upon. Corporate officers can only be held responsible where proof or their conspiracy can be shown in court, except for publicly held corporations under certain limitations of SEC regulations.It wasn't meant to be directed right at you. I don't know what your position is about the Clinton Foundation. I should have been clearer about that
But the fact is, people who run corporations are responsible for what those corporations do. And I doubt it's just a coincidence that Trumps corporations have history of ripping people off
The part about people who run corporations being responsible for what the corporations do, is too broad a statement to be agreed upon. Corporate officers can only be held responsible where proof or their conspiracy can be shown in court, except for publicly held corporations under certain limitations of SEC regulations.
Well, I haven't given Trump a personal pass for anything. I was just correcting the record that the OP article was a lie stating that Donald Trump was being sued.
However, given your clarifications, which I appreciate, you're correct that Clinton should not be held personally responsible either for anything her and her husbands foundation did as a separate entity.
The only possibility would be, as I said, a quid pro quo, if one could be proven to have existed while Mrs. Clinton was US Secretary of State. There's no proof, or evidence, or even a legitimate accusation of such a thing happening that I've heard or read.
Gee, you really don't understand the connection between excusing Trump because it was his corporation that did something wrong (allegedly) while blaming Clinton because it was their corporation did something wrong (allegedly)?
This may cause a 'bit' of a problem for the Trumpster. People who can spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to belong to a golf club are generally seen as the demographic which would vote for Mr Trump, but apparently not in Palm Beach County.
Should be interesting
Members claim that Trump changed the rules once he bought the club from the Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa, which had been losing as much as $4.2 million annually trying to keep it afloat. Under the previous rules, members could continue to pay their dues and use the club even after announcing their intentions to resign. Once a new member signed up, however, their hefty deposits were to be refunded.
Shortly after taking over the ailing club in a gated community off Donald Ross Road near Alternate A1A, Trump announced to those on the resignation list: “you’re out.”
In a December 2012 letter to club members, he wrote, the rules had to be changed to assure the club became the “ultra-prestigious club” he envisioned.
Therefore, he explained, “if a person is on the resignation list, the membership does not want them to be an active member of the club — likewise as the owner of the club, I do not want them to utilize the club nor do I want their dues.
“In other words,” he continued, “we are committed to seeing Trump National Golf Club – Jupiter on the list of the best clubs in the world and if you choose to remain on the resignation list, you’re out.”
Shortly after, members said they were barred from using the club. Further, they claim, club officials have refused to return their deposits as they were required to do under their membership contracts with the Ritz.
At a hearing in March, Trump attorneys argued that the disgruntled members were denied entry because they hadn’t paid their dues. Further, they argued, Trump offered them attractive options to remain members.
If they agreed to give up their deposits, their annual dues would drop to $17,500 for three years and they would also get the use of 14 other Trump clubs around the country, including Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach. Those who didn’t “opt-in” would see their annual dues jump to $21,500 and they wouldn’t get the chance to use other Trump facilities, according to the letter.
The options, those who filed suit claimed, constituted a breach of contract because it changed the terms of the long-standing agreement they had when they joined the club.
But, Trump attorneys countered, the club didn’t refuse to refund the deposits. Under another plan, longtime members would get their deposits back once new members signed up. Those who filed suit simply wanted to jump to the front of a very long line, they argued.
Marra said there is a true difference of opinion regarding the new rules. The disagreement turns on various details, such as the definition of such terms as “recall of the membership,” he wrote. That, he said, will be up to a jury to decide.
Gee, you really don't see the difference between a civil suit and criminal charges? Was it not Hillary and Bill collecting those huge speaking fees from countries with business in front of the State Dept.?
Pay attention
We're not talking about the differences between criminal and civil cases. We're talking about whether a CEO is responsible for the actions of the corporation they lead
No, that isn't what this is about.
For clarity...
I think this is it. They are suing the golf course.
https://www.pathtojustice.com/wp-content/uploads/hs_files/Trump_Ritz_Class_Certification_Order.pdf
More here: https://www.pathtojustice.com/blog/members-of-trump-national-jupiter-seek-refund-of-deposits/
Sounds to me like the suing members have a contract with the previous owner and not Trump.
Trumps mistake was trying to work with them thereby accepting them as members.
It's what Beaudreau and I were talking about before you butted in and showed you didn't understand what we were talking about
Except that teh wrong doing being discussed with the Clinton Foundation is Hillary's direct involvement is pay-to-play through the State Department... not really the same as a civil law suit against a corporation.
Like Trump, you're just doubling down after being proven wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?