ILNews

COA sides with Lauth in casino suit

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis commercial developer Lauth didn't breach a joint venture contract or any of its duties with other parties by partnering with the Bloomington-based Cook Group on an Orange County riverboat casino project, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In a unanimous holding in Lauth Indiana Resort & Casino LLC v. Lost River Development LLC, et al., 29A02-0710-CV-839, the court ruled on an issue of first impression about when a joint venture terminates in situations where the agreements contain no specific termination date, creating a bright-line rule as it reversed a ruling from Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation that determined there was an issue of fact about whether Lauth had violated the agreement and that a jury should decide that issue.

This case stems from the construction of an Orange County riverboat casino project starting in 2004. Three companies submitted original proposals - Trump Indiana Casino Management, Orange County Development affiliated with Larry Bird, and Lost River that was formed by Merit Gaming Group. After Lost River submitted its proposal, Lauth contacted the developer and they formalized an agreement that provided Lauth would have 50 percent ownership to create a joint venture.

The Indiana Gaming Commission debated between the Trump Indiana and the Lost River/Lauth proposal, ultimately deciding on Trump Indiana. Lauth started contacting other gaming companies and developers to see if anyone would partner with them in case Trump didn't come through; Lauth eventually partnered with the Cook Group to submit another proposal under the name Blue Sky Casino LLC. They won the bid, and the casino opened in Nov. 1, 2006.

As the project was ongoing, Lost River and Merit filed a complaint in late 2005 against Lauth and the Cook Group and alleged they'd entered into an enforceable contract for a joint venture and that, by teaming with Cook Group to form Blue Sky, the Indianapolis developer breached the contract.

Lauth filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2006 claiming that the agreement formed a joint venture at most and that it was terminated when the Gaming Commission chose Trump over Lost River's proposal. At the trial level, Judge Nation dismissed that motion, finding that it didn't contemplate a second bid proposal and that federal caselaw says that a formed joint venture agreement generally "remains in force until its purpose is accomplished or that purpose becomes impracticable."

The Court of Appeals disagreed, and its ruling gives guidance as to when a joint venture agreement ends if nothing is written or specifically detailed about how it ends.

"In conclusion, we hold that if a joint venture is formed for the purpose of submitting a proposal or similar bid, and the joint venture agreement is silent as to when or under what circumstances that venture will end, then the joint venture ends when the proposal or bid is rejected," the court wrote.

In this case, the Lost River joint venture ended as a matter of law when the IGC chose Trump Indiana. As a result, Lauth didn't breach the agreement and the trial judge erred in denying Lauth's motion for summary judgment, the appellate court said.

The case is remanded.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT