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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT