An AP investigation last year showed Trump received a $17 million insurance payment for Mar-a-Lago damage in 2005 after hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma hit in two years, but he said in an unrelated lawsuit deposition in 2007 that he didn’t know how much was spent on repairs. He conceded to pocketing some of the money.

Senecal told the AP the roof lost some tiles and some trees were flattened. Town of Palm Beach records showed no permits were issued for major repairs during that period.

He's a criminal from way back

Pocketing insurance money is not insurance fraud. People do it all the time. The insurance is there to repay you for the lost value of your item. People do this all the time. Imagine you get in a fender bender and the insurance company writes you a check. There is nothing illegal if you keep the cash instead of using it on repairs.

that's not fraud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pocketing insurance money is not insurance fraud.
> People do it all the time. The insurance is there
> to repay you for the lost value of your item.
> People do this all the time. Imagine you get in a
> fender bender and the insurance company writes you
> a check. There is nothing illegal if you keep the
> cash instead of using it on repairs.


Libtards are frauds so they assume that everyone else is.

that's not fraud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pocketing insurance money is not insurance fraud.
> People do it all the time. The insurance is there
> to repay you for the lost value of your item.
> People do this all the time. Imagine you get in a
> fender bender and the insurance company writes you
> a check. There is nothing illegal if you keep the
> cash instead of using it on repairs.

That is exactly what fraud is. Just because people do it all the time doesn't change the fact that it is fraud.

You can "cash out" a claim but if you take a payment based on repairing property and pocket the money, that is in fact fraud. Trump may have taken a lesser amount than to repair the damage and "cashed out".

Then he probably got a bunch of illegals to make the repairs and paid them pennies on the dollar.

Did the insurance company file charges? If not stfu.

Bullshit Sandwich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine you get in
> a
> > fender bender and the insurance company writes
> you
> > a check. There is nothing illegal if you keep
> the
> > cash instead of using it on repairs.
>
>

You can do that but it IS fraud. If you receive an amount based on the cost to repair the damage and you dont make the repairs and pocket the money, you have committed fraud. If you want to pocket the money you have to take a depreciated amount (most policies offer replacement cost coverage) and if you have a mortgage or a lien, you cannot do this.

Who cares what trump did or does libfags
We trump supporters are hypocrites and don't care libfags

And Obama wasn't born in America libfags

Moochey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullshit Sandwich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Imagine you get in
> > a
> > > fender bender and the insurance company
> writes
> > you
> > > a check. There is nothing illegal if you
> keep
> > the
> > > cash instead of using it on repairs.
> >
> >
>
> You can do that but it IS fraud. If you receive an
> amount based on the cost to repair the damage and
> you dont make the repairs and pocket the money,
> you have committed fraud.

That's false. You're not under any obligation in that way.


> If you want to pocket
> the money you have to take a depreciated amount
> (most policies offer replacement cost coverage)
> and if you have a mortgage or a lien, you cannot
> do this.

You can, you're just on the hook for the lien.

Ima just make up some shit. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> You can, you're just on the hook for the lien.

Actually no you can't.

If you have a mortgage or a lien, the insurance company is required to put them on the check. The insurance company has a duty to protect the interests of a lien holder or mortgagee. I have heard of instances where mortgage companies have signed off on a check, but usually only for small amounts, not damages in the millions.

The last thing a mortgage company wants is to have to foreclose and then find out the property is damaged and you ran off with the insurance money.

Perry Masonary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ima just make up some shit. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > You can, you're just on the hook for the lien.
>
> Actually no you can't.
>
> If you have a mortgage or a lien, the insurance
> company is required to put them on the check. The
> insurance company has a duty to protect the
> interests of a lien holder or mortgagee. I have
> heard of instances where mortgage companies have
> signed off on a check, but usually only for small
> amounts, not damages in the millions.
>
> The last thing a mortgage company wants is to have
> to foreclose and then find out the property is
> damaged and you ran off with the insurance money.


THIS^

Perry knows of what he writes!

Perry Masonary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ima just make up some shit. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > You can, you're just on the hook for the lien.
>
> Actually no you can't.
>
> If you have a mortgage or a lien, the insurance
> company is required to put them on the check. The
> insurance company has a duty to protect the
> interests of a lien holder or mortgagee. I have
> heard of instances where mortgage companies have
> signed off on a check, but usually only for small
> amounts, not damages in the millions.
>
> The last thing a mortgage company wants is to have
> to foreclose and then find out the property is
> damaged and you ran off with the insurance money.


So you realized that you were wrong about the first part. That's progress.

As I said, you can in the case of the latter but you're on the hook for it if you do. The lien holder doesn't sign off on repairs at a detailed level. If your basement floods and you get money to do the repairs and choose not to replace the carpet or other damaged items, no big deal. If there's some major structural damage and you skirt off with the money, yeah, you'll probably have a problem if that later affects the lien holder. Note that I didn't say that it was a good idea. But you still CAN do it. If you continue to repay the debt as required or otherwise satisfy the lien holder, then you're good. The asset itself is just security for the loan/lien. The obligation itself remains with you.

I've been through this a few times with beach property that my family has. The last time that it got wiped out we decided not to rebuild and just continue to hold the land (which was most of the value anyway). We got the full value for what was damaged. We only had to satisfy the bank for what little we owed at that point that its interests were secured. We were not forced in some way to spend the money to rebuild. The obligation to the bank is separate from the contract with the insurance company. There is no obligation in and of itself forced by the insurance policy to use the money in any specific way.

I hate to inform you, but if you get paid by insurance for "replacement cost" you are obligated to make the repairs. Yes, you can make an ACV settlement (replacement cost less depreciation) and you can walk away from any obligation to the insurance company. But you are still left with dealing with the mortgagee. Look up "Mortgagee Clause".

I knew a guy who wrecked his car. Got the insurance check for the total loss which included the lien on the check. He somehow forged the Bank name on the check and walked off with the money and sold the car for junk. He also must have forged the lien release on the title too.

Anyway, the bank tried to sue the insurance company but they did nothing wrong. They were left with trying to get the money back from the car owner. I dont know how it ended.

Fraud Alert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to inform you, but if you get paid by
> insurance for "replacement cost" you are obligated
> to make the repairs. Yes, you can make an ACV
> settlement (replacement cost less depreciation)
> and you can walk away from any obligation to the
> insurance company. But you are still left with
> dealing with the mortgagee. Look up "Mortgagee
> Clause".
>
> I knew a guy who wrecked his car. Got the
> insurance check for the total loss which included
> the lien on the check. He somehow forged the Bank
> name on the check and walked off with the money
> and sold the car for junk. He also must have
> forged the lien release on the title too.
>
> Anyway, the bank tried to sue the insurance
> company but they did nothing wrong. They were left
> with trying to get the money back from the car
> owner. I dont know how it ended.


I hate to inform you but you're full of shit. Your dumbass friend may well have fucked up otherwise but as I explained above, that has nothing to do with your original claim that you're somehow required to spend insurance money to do repairs. That's an obviously stupid claim. There may not even be any lien holder involved in an insurance claim. "Replacement cost" is for valuation purposes and has nothing to do with how you actually choose to spend the money. If you total a car, then you can take the insurance money, pay off whatever is owned if there is, and then do whatever the fuck you want with the money. That and other similar cases where you might do similar very clearly are not "fraud."

Ima just make up some shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hate to inform you but you're full of shit.
> Your dumbass friend may well have fucked up
> otherwise but as I explained above, that has
> nothing to do with your original claim that you're
> somehow required to spend insurance money to do
> repairs. That's an obviously stupid claim. There
> may not even be any lien holder involved in an
> insurance claim. "Replacement cost" is for
> valuation purposes and has nothing to do with how
> you actually choose to spend the money. If you
> total a car, then you can take the insurance
> money, pay off whatever is owned if there is, and
> then do whatever the fuck you want with the money.
> That and other similar cases where you might do
> similar very clearly are not "fraud."

I hope you seek advice from a lawyer before you try any of this shit. It's clearly fraud and you are a dunb ass.

LIES ALL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ima just make up some shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I hate to inform you but you're full of shit.
> > Your dumbass friend may well have fucked up
> > otherwise but as I explained above, that has
> > nothing to do with your original claim that
> you're
> > somehow required to spend insurance money to do
> > repairs. That's an obviously stupid claim.
> There
> > may not even be any lien holder involved in an
> > insurance claim. "Replacement cost" is for
> > valuation purposes and has nothing to do with
> how
> > you actually choose to spend the money. If you
> > total a car, then you can take the insurance
> > money, pay off whatever is owned if there is,
> and
> > then do whatever the fuck you want with the
> money.
> > That and other similar cases where you might
> do
> > similar very clearly are not "fraud."
>
> I hope you seek advice from a lawyer before you
> try any of this shit. It's clearly fraud and you
> are a dunb ass.


What you don't seem to realize is that, unlike you living in your mom's basement and reading about things on the Internet, there are people out in the real world who have actual experience dealing with things like this in real life. All of those people know that you're full of shit.

Ima just make up some shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fraud Alert Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I hate to inform you, but if you get paid by
> > insurance for "replacement cost" you are
> obligated
> > to make the repairs. Yes, you can make an ACV
> > settlement (replacement cost less depreciation)
> > and you can walk away from any obligation to
> the
> > insurance company. But you are still left with
> > dealing with the mortgagee. Look up "Mortgagee
> > Clause".
> >
> > I knew a guy who wrecked his car. Got the
> > insurance check for the total loss which
> included
> > the lien on the check. He somehow forged the
> Bank
> > name on the check and walked off with the money
> > and sold the car for junk. He also must have
> > forged the lien release on the title too.
> >
> > Anyway, the bank tried to sue the insurance
> > company but they did nothing wrong. They were
> left
> > with trying to get the money back from the car
> > owner. I dont know how it ended.
>
>
> I hate to inform you but you're full of shit.
> Your dumbass friend may well have fucked up
> otherwise but as I explained above, that has
> nothing to do with your original claim that you're
> somehow required to spend insurance money to do
> repairs. That's an obviously stupid claim. There
> may not even be any lien holder involved in an
> insurance claim. "Replacement cost" is for
> valuation purposes and has nothing to do with how
> you actually choose to spend the money. If you
> total a car, then you can take the insurance
> money, pay off whatever is owned if there is, and
> then do whatever the fuck you want with the money.
> That and other similar cases where you might do
> similar very clearly are not "fraud."

Please keep us updated from jail LOL

Dad of The Year Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ima just make up some shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fraud Alert Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I hate to inform you, but if you get paid by
> > > insurance for "replacement cost" you are
> > obligated
> > > to make the repairs. Yes, you can make an ACV
> > > settlement (replacement cost less
> depreciation)
> > > and you can walk away from any obligation to
> > the
> > > insurance company. But you are still left
> with
> > > dealing with the mortgagee. Look up
> "Mortgagee
> > > Clause".
> > >
> > > I knew a guy who wrecked his car. Got the
> > > insurance check for the total loss which
> > included
> > > the lien on the check. He somehow forged the
> > Bank
> > > name on the check and walked off with the
> money
> > > and sold the car for junk. He also must have
> > > forged the lien release on the title too.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the bank tried to sue the insurance
> > > company but they did nothing wrong. They were
> > left
> > > with trying to get the money back from the
> car
> > > owner. I dont know how it ended.
> >
> >
> > I hate to inform you but you're full of shit.
> > Your dumbass friend may well have fucked up
> > otherwise but as I explained above, that has
> > nothing to do with your original claim that
> you're
> > somehow required to spend insurance money to do
> > repairs. That's an obviously stupid claim.
> There
> > may not even be any lien holder involved in an
> > insurance claim. "Replacement cost" is for
> > valuation purposes and has nothing to do with
> how
> > you actually choose to spend the money. If you
> > total a car, then you can take the insurance
> > money, pay off whatever is owned if there is,
> and
> > then do whatever the fuck you want with the
> money.
> > That and other similar cases where you might
> do
> > similar very clearly are not "fraud."
>
> Please keep us updated from jail LOL


Please keep us updated from your mom's basement. LOL