‘Fundamentally misunderstand the facts’: Lin Wood says his ex-law partners are ‘lying’ about his assets in dispute over appellate bond

Onetime attorney L. Lin Wood is vehemently disputing claims by his former law partners over asset values that have taken center stage as he moves to appeal a multimillion defamation verdict against him.

Late last week, Wood filed a reply in support of his motion for approval of a supersedeas bond — a court filing intended to stay the judgment of a lower court while the appeals process plays out, while at the same time providing a full financial guarantee should the appeal fail.

In August, Wood was found liable by a jury to the tune of $4.5 million for defaming his former partners on social media. That sum accounts for damages of $3.75 million and $750,000 in legal expenses.

Since mid-September, both sides in the lawsuit have been arguing over what amount Wood should offer to move his appeal forward, as well as what, if anything, he might offer instead of cash.

With interest, the plaintiffs recently claimed, the amount owed has slightly ballooned to “$4,731,807.61.” That sum, they say, is the amount the bond should be issued to cover.

In his latest motion, Wood insists his former colleagues “fundamentally misunderstand the facts” about certain parcels of Peach State real estate Wood currently owns and recently sold.

In his original motion, Wood offered to post the bond entirely using two Georgia properties as collateral. An attestation filed concurrently by the pro-Donald Trump stalwart cites a lack of liquidity.

“I made an effort to obtain a supersedeas bond. I cannot obtain a surety bond because I do not have the liquid cash necessary for the issuance of a bond,” Wood averred. “In lieu of a supersedeas bond, I pledge Cotton Hall Plantation and the Atlanta House as security.”

In their late September response, Wood’s former partners outright accuse him of “lying to this Court about the property he is offering as collateral for his appeal of a $4.5 Million jury verdict.”

To hear those erstwhile law partners tell it, Wood “grossed just under $6 million in 2023 alone from sales of land” which included several hundred acres of those he offered the court as collateral.

That’s not the whole story, Wood claims.

“Plaintiffs do not know all the facts,” the latest motion reads. “Plaintiffs continue to ignore the reality that Mr. Wood no longer enjoys a lucrative law practice, thanks in no small part to their litigation against him. Plaintiffs point to his sales of property in 2023 that total approximately $6 Million, but are apparently unaware that there had been a $3 Million mortgage to pay off, not to mention capital gains taxes.”

And, the plaintiffs additionally claim, the remaining acreage owned on one particular property is burdened by a conservation easement that restricts development — and, in turn, makes it less valuable.

Wood concedes that one of his statements in the original bond motion was “erroneous” but says his omission of a real estate sale “and the failure to mention the conservation easement was not intentional.”

Rather, he says, his ex-partners are making “alarmist and hyperbolic accusations” to give a “false” impression of the securities offered in order to satisfy the appellate bond.

Wood goes on to say that the value of the property burdened by the easement “is worth the amount” mentioned in the original filing.

But getting to that exact amount might be tricky.

In his original filing, Wood (by way of an appraiser) valued the disputed property at around $5.1 million. Since then, however, as the plaintiffs pointed out and Wood later admitted, the property has diminished in size due to the sale. While the plaintiffs say the property has also diminished in value further due to the easement, Wood says his valuation did take the easement into account.

And, in any event, Wood is also now offering the court a bit more to get his partial supersedeas bond request across the finish line — while still imploring the court not to take his opponents’ claims of dishonesty at face value.

“Mr. Wood has not lied about the property he is offering the Court,” Wood’s attorneys wrote in the latest filing. “Moreover, as this Court will soon find out, property is no longer the only security that Mr. Wood is prepared to offer. As Plaintiffs are clearly aware, Mr. Wood does now have $2.48 Million in cash, $2 Million he proposes as a partial supersedeas bond to supplement his already proposed alternate security.”

In their response, the plaintiffs accused Wood of trying to keep two other properties out of consideration for security purposes. In that motion, they also anticipated one such property might soon be sold.

As if on cue, the property in question, called “Huspah Plantation,” was recently sold for $4 million. This sale was brought to the court’s attention in a late September emergency motion.

Wood takes note of the sale in his latest motion.

“What Plaintiffs do not recognize is that the net proceeds from the $4 Million sale, after payment of an outstanding mortgage and real estate closing expenses was $2.48 Million,” the motion goes on. “Mr. Wood will also need to set aside another $500 thousand to pay his capital gains taxes.”

In sum, Wood is offering to more or less take the plaintiffs up on their prior suggestion of using the Huspah property to satisfy the bond — minus around $1.5 million in expenses.

As for the remaining properties he owns, Wood says the court should allow him to keep them.

“Mr. Wood should not be required to post a supersedeas bond,” the filing continues. “Mr. Wood only has enough liquidity to post a partial supersedeas bond of $2 Million, in the event the Court does not find the security of the two parcels to be adequate, which Mr. Wood contends are. To force Mr. Wood to post a full supersedeas bond, rather than assets as security, would be unjust. Under that scenario, Mr. Wood would effectively have to choose between selling off either his home Tomotley, or his innkeeping of the Inn at Cotton Hall, which is essentially his only source of income.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]