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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT