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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT