compulsive gamblers....gambler goes bankrupt still needs to pay mandalay bay the 40,000 credit he lost court rules

Dante · Jul 2, 2003

As the growth of gambling continues to rapidly spread around the world into different sectors, so does the dilemma of the problem gambler. David Williams’ problem gambling cost him his life savings, dumping almost all of it into the slot machines at Casino Aztar in Indiana. Williams, a former state accountant, decided to take action in 2001 and sued Aztar. He claimed the casino knew he was a problem gambler and should have prevented him from wagering. He returned to the casino, the lawsuit argued, due to the fact that Aztar began enticing him with mailings and advertisements on gambling. The first judge to hear the case sided with the casino, but Williams is currently appealing this decision in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Not unlike Williams, Richard Miller, a California resident, traveled to Las Vegas, Nevada, and obtained $40,000 in credit while gambling at Mandalay Bay Casino. After he incurred the debt, Miller petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. Mandalay sought a money judgment against Miller and a determination that his debt was non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court initially dismissed Mandalay’s Complaint after holding that gambling debts are not enforceable under California law. However, upon Mandalay’s Appeal, the 9th Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the Bankruptcy Court erred in dismissing the Complaint due to the fact that although a gambling debt is unenforceable in California, it is enforceable in Nevada. The issue the court then had to look at was whether California or Nevada law applies to the contract between Miller and Mandalay. To determine this, the Court looked to apply the laws of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction and the contracting parties. If the place of negotiation and the place of performance are in the same state, the laws of that state will usually be applied. The Court concluded that due to the fact that Miller traveled to Nevada and sought out a loan there, and the contract between Miller and the casino were negotiated and preformed in a Nevada casino, Nevada law applies, and gambling debts like the one owed to Mandalay in this case, are enforceable under Nevada law. These claims are among a growing number of lawsuits that aim to hold the gaming industry responsible for exploiting compulsive gamblers.@@

max1234 · Jul 2, 2003

The courts are backing the casino's up when it comes to signing markers. The old thought that a gambling debt wasn't enforceable in another state is dying. In Nevada, if you sign a marker and don't pay, it's a bad check charge and a warrant will be issued.

bagoftricks · Jul 2, 2003

You accept a marker then you owe the money fullstop. It is exactly the same as charging back , which directly influences the way offshore and onshore books have to be very careful and not trust a man for his word anymore and most books only take post up action.Sad but true.

Dante · Jul 2, 2003

I agree 100% bag of tricks....I think the law right now is WAY to easy for someone in any state to go belly up..after going on a spending spree,wether it be gambling related or not.

This guy IMO should pay every month whatever the court says for the rest of his life to pay the debt HE INCURRED with mandy

[This message was edited by Dante on July 02, 2003 at 10:47 AM.]

codeworks · Jul 2, 2003

either way it is bad PR for Mandalay Bay.

As Bill Walton once said "what were they thinking !"

bagoftricks · Jul 2, 2003

thanks Dante it is this kind of thing that has genuine players and stand up guys in the offshore game jumping through hoops to get their money because of a few rotten apples that bring down the whole industry.