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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT