You are not responsible for racking up gambling debts in California

[chowderhead]

ack ... This ruling is so strange. How is a standard contract unenforceable even if it is for gaming purposes?

Gambling Daly City couple get big court win

A Daly City couple who allegedly wrote $43,000 in bad checks to casinos in California and Nevada got bailed out today by a judge, who said gambling debts are unenforceable in California courts.

People need to take personal responsibility for their actions but this ruling if allowed to stand will allow people to skip out on gambling debts. We are not talking loan-shark types arrangements but normal casino debts. WOW.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

There have been several similar lawsuits linked to using CCs for gambling. Whacko judges ruled that the CC company made the money available under bad faith or such nonsense. In other words it became their //cc// responsibility to make sure people were not using the money wrong or illegally.

Hell we hold bars liable for their patrons, and we have people trying to hold Fast Food establishments responsble for their behaviour. We already hold cig makers responsble for people who got into trouble long after warnings were required.

 

[techs]

Actually the decision seems to only say that "gambling debts are unenforceable in California courts". So it may just be that California won't allow them to sue, they have to sue in the state the debts occurred, Nevada.
It sound like a judge actually following the law.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

He cited a 1993 ruling by a state appeals court in San Francisco that found what the court described as a "critical distinction between public acceptance of gambling itself and California's deep-rooted policy against enforcement of gambling debts -- that is, gambling on credit.''

I'm not sure I share the outrage at this decision. In essence, the state isn't going to act in any way to help you collect a gambling debt. Seems like a pretty clear policy perspective and easy for casinos to comply with . . . don't give people credit, accept personal checks, or allow them to use credit cards if they are from states that will not help you collect.

These casinos would have been better served to just report these people to the credit bureaus, ban them for life, alert other casinos to the deadbeats, and write it off as a loss. They fought it b/c they have a vested interest in getting people to gamble beyond their means.

 

[fskimospy]

Sadly people, the law doesn't always say what you want it to. Of course Shivetya decides to attack the judge here, and call him and others who enforce the law "whacko". If you don't like the law... lobby to have it changed. You shouldn't be shocked when a judge enforces it however.

I will never understand the incredible hostility towards the judicial branch by the right wing.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I will never understand the incredible hostility towards the judicial branch by the right wing.

Laws don't apply to people on the right (or so they think)

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I will never understand the incredible hostility towards the judicial branch by the right wing.

Laws don't apply to people on the right (or so they think)

They suffer from DoAsISayNotAsIDo-ism

 

[Thump553]

Many, many states followed the same policy prior to the explosion in Indian casinos. Perhaps oversimplified here is the rationale: It was a public policy decision-the force of the state hould not be sed to enforce debts that were incurred in violation of the public policy of the state (ie, gambling debts). If the debt arose in a place where gambling was legal (like Las Vegas) then those casinos could protect themselves by only allowing gamblers to incur debt to them to the extent that the casino could enforce it in Nevada courts.

Times have changed, and many states that had this policy through statutes have repealed the statutes. The common law has changed in many other jurisdictions.

Personally, I'm not sure this change is good. I live forty miles away from two of the busiest casinos in the world. At each of them you can literally mortgage your home-AT THE CASINO-to raise cash for your gambling.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sadly people, the law doesn't always say what you want it to. Of course Shivetya decides to attack the judge here, and call him and others who enforce the law "whacko". If you don't like the law... lobby to have it changed. You shouldn't be shocked when a judge enforces it however.

I will never understand the incredible hostility towards the judicial branch by the right wing.

Horay, I hope the right can't stand it as much as possible.

What goes around comes around :laugh:

GG Judge :thumbsup:

 

[Harvey]

It's not just California. Gambling debts have never been enforcable under the laws of contract in most jurisdictions.

Interestingly, I recall from somewhere in my one year of law school that some of those jurisdictions have held that debts arising from poker, bridge, etc. were enforcable because it could be proven that the outcome of game was determined more by the skill of the player than by luck.

 

[LumbergTech]

I wouldn't mind if gambling wasnt legally enforcable..i think its stupid personally..and thats a good way around the legal system having to do anything about gambling period..

if people want to gamble with each other..fine..but no law will help you obtain or get your money back

 

[glenn1]

I have no problem with this decision but it also means that the casinos are not legally required to pay winners from California, since after all, "gambling debts are unenforceable in CA courts."

 

[Moonbeam]

Millions of people should flood into gambling places and clean them out with their winnings and refuse to pay their loses. Gambling casinos are a form of vampirism.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Millions of people should flood into gambling places and clean them out with their winnings and refuse to pay their loses. Gambling casinos are a form of vampirism.

I really don't like the goverment telling people what they can and can't do but........ I do dislike gambling. I play a little poker with friends occasionally or buy the occasional lottery ticket, but that's not gambling. Gambling is when you risk more then you can afford to lose and I have seen it cause a lot of suffering.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I have no problem with this decision but it also means that the casinos are not legally required to pay winners from California, since after all, "gambling debts are unenforceable in CA courts."

Nevada would go belly up if they couldn't get CA cash.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Millions of people should flood into gambling places and clean them out with their winnings and refuse to pay their loses. Gambling casinos are a form of vampirism.

I really don't like the goverment telling people what they can and can't do but........ I do dislike gambling. I play a little poker with friends occasionally or buy the occasional lottery ticket, but that's not gambling. Gambling is when you risk more then you can afford to lose and I have seen it cause a lot of suffering.

Yup, but I am a madman. I know that gambling is bad and I would outlaw it in a flash. I am my brother's keeper and I don't really care whether he knows it or not or wants me to mind my own business. I make other people's business my own. It's how I am. I know I know more than a child or a drunk or an addict. I believe we are required to save people from themselves. Truth is absolute and not relative. Same thing with suicide among young people. I wouldn't let a young person take their life over emotional distress of the usual kinds. I know time heals lots of things etc.