Posted on 03/06/2007 10:34:29 AM PST by SmithL
Daly City, Calif. - Two casinos who claim a Daly City couple wrote $43,000 in bad checks to cover gambling debts cannot use California courts to collect, a judge ruled.
San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp dismissed a lawsuit against Manuel and Mercedita Luna on Monday, citing California's "deep-rooted policy" against enforcing debts owed to casinos that extend credit to gamblers.
A collection agency sued the couple in 2005, claiming the couple bounced a $15,000 check to the El Dorado Hotel Casino in Reno, Nev., and a $28,000 check to Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County.
"Enforcement of such claims is prohibited" in California despite growing acceptance of gambling in the state, wrote Kopp, a retired judge who continues to hear cases under a state program.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Back to Gudeo enforcement?
So accepting a check is offering credit?
I imagine the casinos will just collect using older, time-tested methods....
"I wonder what that means for gambling establishments in the state's Indian reservations."
Don't accept personal checks for $15,000 or $28,000.
While the article doesn't say, I'd guess that the wrote a check to clear out lines of credit.
The same judge would have no problem taxing gambling winnings, I bet.
The Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County is an Indian casino.
Never use a retired judge to collect your money. However there is a large Samoan gentleman who lives in San Pedro who will be only too happy to collect your money for you.
I'm guessing the player asked for a marker. The casino did a credit check, gave the player the marker.
Probably.
But, in truth, it's a fairly sensible public policy. Courts shouldn't be used to enforce odious debts. IE - a drug dealer can't sue to get drug money, a pimp can't sue if a prostitute doesn't cut him in on the take.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not against gambling - but I think that extending massive "lines of credit" to compulsive gamblers is an immoral practice.
OR, they played on credit and then wrote a bad check to cover it. THINK man!!!
JULES
You remember Antwan Rockamora? Half-
black, half-Samoan, usta call him
Tony Rocky Horror.
VINCENT
Yeah maybe, fat right?
JULES
I wouldn't go so far as to call the
brother fat. He's got a weight
problem. What's the n----- gonna
do, he's Samoan.
"But, in truth, it's a fairly sensible public policy."
IIRC, most precedent is against casinos using the courts to collect from losers.
Dear furquhart,
"Courts shouldn't be used to enforce odious debts."
That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure I disagree with you. But your examples don't illustrate it:
"IE - a drug dealer can't sue to get drug money, a pimp can't sue if a prostitute doesn't cut him in on the take."
These debts aren't unenforceable because they're odious, but because they're incurred as the result of illegal acts.
sitetest
It should not matter what the money was for, the fact they use an insttrument like a check to commit fraud should be plenty for the court to hear it.
Interesting legal issues and questions---
The indian reservations have their own laws and collection agencies. Something tells me they don't have this problem.
Well gambling is prohibited in California except with certain exceptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.