Recode reporter Jessica Lerer has been covering the biggest decisions made by the Trump White House and how they affect the lives of millions of Americans.
She recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that was headlined “Donald Trump’s America” and she shared it with Recode.
In her article, Lerer wrote about a lawsuit filed by a California man who says he owes nearly $1 million in unpaid medical bills, and how the Trump Administration, through its fiduciary rules, was forcing him to sell his home and put up a fence around his property to avoid paying more.
Lerer also spoke with the attorney who represents the man in the case, who said that, in the past, the Trump Adminstration had sought to force individuals to sell their homes to avoid debts.
Lerer said that in the latest filing, Trump Administration officials argued that this is a “federal tax law” that requires people to sell, and that they should not be forced to do so because of the fiduciaries rules.
“So this is the administration trying to force the people to take on the burden of a debt, and the federal government should not force the debt onto them, Lerers opined.
The argument was made in the filing that it would be “in the best interest” of the person suing the Trump Administrations to sell to avoid the debt and to sell before the debt is paid.
In this case, the person has a mortgage, and it is estimated that his or her mortgage debt is $1,400,000.
The Trump Administration argues that because the Trump Organization is not a real estate company, it cannot be forced into a sale.
Lerer said the administration also argued that the Trump campaign has the ability to negotiate the terms of the sale with the borrower.
In some cases, they said that the loan would be forgiven if the borrower could show that the real estate transaction was “in compliance with federal law.”
Lerer did not comment on whether the Trump government is asking the borrower to pay the loan or is arguing that it has the power to force him to do otherwise.
She said the filing could be interpreted as an attempt to force a borrower to sell.
But, Lander said, she also argued, the filing makes clear that the government has the authority to take out a mortgage and that it is in the best interests of the borrower if the debt was discharged.
She said the government’s argument is that if the real property is sold, then the person’s creditors can’t force him or her to pay it.
The administration argues that the filing does not show the borrower’s “fiduciary duty” to pay.
Lerers piece of the case is that the borrower cannot avoid paying the debt in the future, because if he or she does, the borrower is in breach of a contract between the borrower and the lender.