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.
A check is payment. A bad check is fraud.
What does it even matter what the check was for? If they wrote the check before gambling or after gambling, it is still payment to cover a gambling loss, and if funds were not available it is a gambling debt.
I'm just amazed that any casino offers credit or accepts checks.
If accepting a check is "extending credit," this is a very bad sign. If nothing else, it should be enforceable under fraud, for knowingly presenting a bad check.
Mark
Evidently you have never been to Vegas.
Those debts would be enforced in tribal court, not state court, and full faith and credit would require the state to enforce the decisions. If the state won't, the tribe can appeal to federal court and make them. An Indian Reservation is an independent sovereignty. It is a peer of the state, not a subject of the state.
I would assume that they wrote the checks to cover lines of credit extended by the casinos.
As to the fraud question, knowingly writing a check when there are insufficient funds to cover it is a crime. If the bank or credit union upon which the check is drawn has FDIC or NCUA insurance, it is a federal offence.
You are correct. I'm strictly small time. A little $2 blackjack in Nevada cow towns and that's about it.
I assumed they would have the instant debit technology used by grocery stores now for checks at the very least.
They still owe the money. The debt is still there. But I could see the fraud charge standing up.
Your delusional. The Indians have their own
Murder, Inc. and you better have a certifiable
check...or a fast horse.. JK
Write a rubber check for a few million carbon credits and sell them to the Hollywood crowd and then disappear back to Boyle Heights.
Like Credit Card companies are any better?
The words are personal responsibility, don't take an extended credit offer if you cannot pay it off.
But those are criminal violations. This was a civil case to collect the money represented by the check. It's a different issue.
Yes. Very true.
I can't say I really blame CA for not wanting their courts tied up with gambling related civil suits.
Courts are not unlimited resources. Gambling undoubtedly generates a lot of such cases, and since CA isn't getting the tax dollars from the gambling, why should their courts have to deal with the lawsuits.
This is a problem that NV has to accept as part of allowing legalized gambling, and it should be dealt with in their courts.
I heard he kinda developed a speech impediment.
I do agree that the distinction needs to be illegal rather than a subjective distinction of being odious.
NV casinos should sue in NV courts, not in CA ones.
Chuck Norris: I'm here to collect a marker you signed for XYZ Casino.
Business Man (indignantly):That's not legally enforceable!
Chuck Norris(with humorless smile): I'm not a lawyer.
"California has a strong and long-standing policy against judicial resolution of civil disputes arising out of lawful or unlawful gambling contracts or transactions. This policy applies to bar actions to enforce gambling debts or to recover gambling losses."
Kelly v. First Astri Corporation
http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/canb/Documents.nsf/0/6ca28fca052a292a88257018005edc63/$FILE/03-4858%20Cianfichi%20v%20Camarillo.pdf
In other words sue in Nevada because in Ca. Homey don't play that.
So, does this also mean that if you win a $2 million jackpot at a casino in California, the casino doesn't have to pay the debt?
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.