ILNews

High court rules in favor of AG in casino case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the state's attorney general in a suit for constructive trust and unjust enrichment against a for-profit corporation receiving contributions from a casino, finding the trial court erred in dismissing the claims.

Showboat Marina Partnership received a riverboat casino license in East Chicago in 1997. Under the agreement with the city, Showboat agreed to contribute annually 3.75 percent of its adjusted gross receipts with portions of that percentage going to East Chicago, a non-profit education foundation, another non-profit community foundation, and to East Chicago Second Century Inc., a for-profit corporation. Between 1997 and June 2006, Second Century received nearly $16 million from the operation of the casino.

Starting in 1999, the casino went through several ownership changes, which the Indiana Gaming Commission approved. Second Century sought a declaratory judgment in 2005 that the newest owner would be required to make payments to the fund. The attorney general intervened, filing a counterclaim and cross-claim seeking imposition of a constructive trust for public benefit and an accounting of the money paid to Second Century. The trial court dismissed the AG's claims and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Wednesday's ruling in Gregory F. Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., et al., No. 49S02-0808-CV-437, the justices found the attorney general does have the authority to bring the case against Second Century. Whether Second Century qualifies as a public charitable trust is a respectable question, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, but it isn't grounds for dismissal of the claims because Indiana Code Section 30-4-5-12, the trust code, covers multiple entities other than public charitable trusts.

"Given the broad common law and statutory authority conferred upon the Attorney General to protect the public interest in charitable and benevolent instrumentalities, we conclude that it was error to dismiss the Attorney General's counterclaim on grounds that Second Century is a for-profit corporation," he wrote.

A claim for unjust enrichment is available and actionable, the high court ruled, because Showboat entered into a local development agreement with East Chicago, but not one to which the AG or the state were parties. As such, the transaction doesn't bar the AG's claim for unjust enrichment, an equitable remedy. In addition, the agreement was a mode of implementing the casino's obligation to contribute to local economic development and the terms were intended to control the rights and duties of East Chicago and the casino licensee, wrote the chief justice. They weren't intended to control the rights of any non-parties.

Second Century argued the claim for imposition of a constructive trust is defective because the attorney general didn't make any allegations of fraud. While Indiana courts have said on occasion fraud is a prerequisite, the meaning of this isn't confined to fraud as one might define it for purposes of criminal law. Rather the remedy is available when there is standard fraud or breach of duty arising out of a confidential or fiduciary relationship, wrote the chief justice. In addition, the AG's allegations against Second Century state a claim for a constructive trust. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

In a statement released by the attorney general's office, Zoeller said the decision underscores the fundamental concept that a charitable trust is supposed to be used to benefit the general public, not enrich private individuals.

"The bottom line is that being a for-profit trust does not mean you are beyond the reach of the Office of the Attorney General or unaccountable," Zoeller said.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT