E. Jean Carroll's lawyers demand Trump ponies up $83.3 million verdict and say he needs to prove he has the money

Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly; Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

• E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers demanded Trump pay the $83.3 million defamation verdict against him.
• Trump asked the judge if he could appeal without ponying up or posting bond.
• Carroll’s lawyers say he needs to prove he has the money to pay.

Lawyers for E. Jean Carroll asked a federal judge Thursday to deny former President Donald Trump’s attempt to wriggle his way out of paying the $83.3 million jury verdict against him, saying he should be forced to put up the money or obtain a bond as he appeals the case.

In January, a jury found Trump owed Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her when he called her a liar after she accused him of sexual abuse. Earlier this month, Trump’s lawyers asked for an “unsecured stay,” which would allow them to continue to litigate the case in post-trial motions and appellate courts without giving Carroll any money.

Carroll’s lawyers called the request “the court filing equivalent of a paper napkin” and said they couldn’t take Trump at his word that he would eventually pay Carroll. Trump is also struggling to pay a separate $454 million judgment in the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against his company, which he is also appealing.

“He doesn’t even acknowledge the risks that now accompany his financial situation, from a half billion-dollar judgment obtained by the New York Attorney General to the 91 felony charges that might end his career as a businessman permanently,” Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan wrote in Thursday’s filing. “He simply asks the Court to ‘trust me’ and offers, in a case with an $83.3 million judgment against him, the court filing equivalent of a paper napkin; signed by the least trustworthy of borrowers.”

A separate jury, in May 2023, found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. After that case, Trump put the funds in a court-controlled account while he appealed the case. If he loses his appeals, the money would go to Carroll.

Trump could also obtain a bond, which essentially means he could offer up assets as collateral to secure a promise from a third-party company to pay the judgment.

This time, appearing to face a cash crunch as he runs in the 2024 presidential election, Trump wants to keep appealing while he holds on to his money. This week, his lawyers asked a New York state appeals court to accept a $100 million bond in his civil fraud case — a request the appellate judge denied.

Donald Trump at his New York civil fraud trial. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Kaplan wrote Thursday that there was no legal basis to allow Trump not to pay the judgment or post a bond.

“In support of his position, he fails to cite a single controlling (or even persuasive) case,” Kaplan wrote. “Instead, he gestures to a handful of scattered out-of-circuit district court cases, most of which were decided, as teenagers say today, in the ‘last century.'”

Carroll, who is 80 years old, says she wants to spend the money on “something Trump hates.”

Kaplan wrote that Trump should be required to offer a full accounting of his funds, given that his company’s civil fraud trial demonstrated he frequently lies about his finances.

“He offers no proof of what assets he possesses, what they are worth, where they are located, whether they are liquid or illiquid, whether they are unencumbered by debt, or whether they could be used to satisfy the judgment,” Kaplan wrote. “He offers no evidence of other debts he might currently owe or may come to owe in the months ahead.”

Given Trump’s future legal threats — including a criminal trial in New York next month — he can’t be taken at his word that he’ll pay the money, Kaplan argued.

Trump’s lawyers have not yet responded to the motion filed Thursday.

“He provides no demonstration that any of these assets are readily collectible and will remain readily collectible throughout the pendency of an appeal,” Kaplan wrote. “And he says nothing about how developments in his life, including active criminal proceedings and his election campaign (among others), may affect these matters.”