A $500K BJ Debt Advantage Play?

#1


Vegas Casino Loses House Edge on Blackjack Debt

By TIM HULL Tuesday, January 11, 2011


(CN) - A California gambler got a lucky break from the 9th Circuit on Tuesday in his fight against the Venetian casino in Las Vegas, which has been trying to collect on a $500,000 gambling debt that the man rang up in one day of blackjack.

Amine Nehme signed a casino marker for a $500,000 loan at the Venetian on Labor Day 2005. By the end of the day, Nehme had exchanged the entire marker for chips and lost them all playing blackjack.

Several months later the Las Vegas Sands dba Venetian Resort Hotel Casino billed Nehme for the loss, and filed suit in 2007 when Nehme refused to pay.

The district court received evidence from Nehme that suggests the casino should not have extended Nehme's line of credit, but the judge ruled to exclude the evidence and granted summary judgment to the Venetian.

Nehme's motion for summary judgment, which was rejected by the trial court, included an unsigned letter that predated the unpaid marker by seven months.

The Feb. 5, 2005 letter, which is attributed to Leon Bennett, a purported attorney for Nehme, directed the Venetian to cancel Nehme's credit account - which had been paid in full since Nehme opened it in 2004 - and not to renew it under any circumstances.

Along with the letter, Nehme presented a return receipt from the U.S. Postal Service suggesting that the Venetian had received the letter.

Since the casino extended the $500,000 credit to him in 2005, Nehme said it had breached the parties' credit application agreement. He argued that he should be released from the debt because the Venetian was legally obligated to cancel his line of credit after receiving the letter.

On appeal, the three-judge federal appeals panel in San Francisco chided the district court for refusing to consider the letter or the postal receipt, which the lower court deemed were not properly authenticated.

"Because the district court excluded the unsigned Bennett letter and its return receipt under an incorrect legal standard, and because under the correct legal standard those two items might be received in evidence - and if so, raise triable issues of material fact - as to Nehme's affirmative defense against the Venetian based on an alleged material breach of their credit application agreement, we reverse and remand to the district court to apply the correct legal standard," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the panel.

The district court excluded the letter and receipt because they could not be authenticated by "a competent witness with personal knowledge of their authenticity." But Nehme was not required to authenticate the documents in this way, the panel found.

"The Bennett letter was attached as an exhibit to Nehme's opposition to the Venetian's motion for summary judgment, and the return receipt for that letter was attached as an exhibit to Nehme's cross-motion for summary judgment," Bea wrote. "Neither was attached as an exhibit to an affidavit of a person offering his personal knowledge of how the document was prepared as the basis for the court to find the document is authentic. Thus, the district court applied an incorrect legal standard because ... the Bennett letter and its return receipt could have been authenticated by review of their contents if they appeared to be sufficiently genuine."

The panel remanded the case to district court to determine, "whether the Bennett letter and its return receipt are admissible ... and if so, whether Nehme can prevail on his affirmative defense against the Venetian based on an alleged material breach of the credit application agreement."

xxx
 
#3
alwayssplitaces said:
The Venetian gave him $500,000 of chips and they got their chips back. They didn't lose anything at all!
i read that differently.

anyways, interesting case. so it goes back to the lower court...i'm going to guess that the introduction of the letter doesn't make much of a difference in the outcome.
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#4
victorino said:
i read that differently.

anyways, interesting case. so it goes back to the lower court...i'm going to guess that the introduction of the letter doesn't make much of a difference in the outcome.
Read between the lines! They DID get all the chips back (in the rack)!:laugh:

Good one, ASA's!
 

Billy C1

Well-Known Member
#5
victorino said:
i read that differently.

anyways, interesting case. so it goes back to the lower court...i'm going to guess that the introduction of the letter doesn't make much of a difference in the outcome.
Let's hope not. Low lifes like this guy cost the rest of us. When the casinos lose they make it up somewhere.
To me, this sounds like a concocted plan in advance to be used for this purpose!
I have no time for scum like this.

BillyC1
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#6
Billy C1 said:
Let's hope not. Low lifes like this guy cost the rest of us. When the casinos lose they make it up somewhere.
To me, this sounds like a concocted plan in advance to be used for this purpose!
I have no time for scum like this.

BillyC1
While I agree that this may cost us in the long run however not necessarily because of the loss of revenue but rather casino paranoia. If casinos were smart, we all know they're not, they would improve their games to then improve their bottom line. The money one counter could make vs. the amount the corresponding 1,000 ploppys contibute will not hurt a casino. Spend more time dealing and less time shuffling and you'll make more money.

And on a side note, who is to say that this is not an AP move as ZG suggests in the title? There are certain individuals here (you know who you are:laugh:) who may be worthy of such a move.
 

Billy C1

Well-Known Member
#7
HockeXpert said:
While I agree that this may cost us in the long run however not necessarily because of the loss of revenue but rather casino paranoia. If casinos were smart, we all know they're not, they would improve their games to then improve their bottom line. The money one counter could make vs. the amount the corresponding 1,000 ploppys contibute will not hurt a casino. Spend more time dealing and less time shuffling and you'll make more money.

And on a side note, who is to say that this is not an AP move as ZG suggests in the title? There are certain individuals here (you know who you are:laugh:) who may be worthy of such a move.
Please reread my post and note that I said it looks like a pre-concocted plan!

BillyC1
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#8
Billy C1 said:
Please reread my post and note that I said it looks like a pre-concocted plan!

BillyC1
BC1: I read you post correctly, surprisingly since my wife says I never read things carefully. My point is that rather than being scum this person may have pulled off a brilliant, however risky, AP move.
 

Billy C1

Well-Known Member
#9
HockeXpert said:
BC1: I read you post correctly, surprisingly since my wife says I never read things carefully. My point is that rather than being scum this person may have pulled off a brilliant, however risky, AP move.
In my opinion, that type of AP still fits the scum level. You may not feel that way.

BillyC1
 
#10
Billy C1 said:
In my opinion, that type of AP still fits the scum level. You may not feel that way.
You seem to be overly critical of someone using whatever trick necessary to get out of paying a CASINO marker? If his certified mail trick works will you not commend him? This is different than a private debt... AND his trick was already strong enough to stop any threat of criminal bad check charges. zg
 

moo321

Well-Known Member
#11
Billy C1 said:
In my opinion, that type of AP still fits the scum level. You may not feel that way.

BillyC1
Agreed. Free-rolling a casino by writing bad checks is pretty wrong.

Not that casinos aren't evil. They do scummy stuff all the time...
 
#12
moo321 said:
Agreed. Free-rolling a casino by writing bad checks is pretty wrong.
Its a bullshit law that makes unpaid markers felony bad checks, and they couldn't bring that against him. Gotta hand it to the guy to send the letter certified months before his play. zg
 

moo321

Well-Known Member
#13
zengrifter said:
Its a bullshit law that makes unpaid markers felony bad checks, and they couldn't bring that against him. Gotta hand it to the guy to send the letter certified months before his play. zg
I agree it's sort of bullshit to make it a felony. It's clearly a contract issue, not a criminal one.
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#14
Billy C1 said:
In my opinion, that type of AP still fits the scum level. You may not feel that way.

BillyC1
I have mixed feelings about it. I think it is a brilliant idea but it is not my style nor would I ever attempt it.
 
#16
zengrifter said:
You seem to be overly critical of someone using whatever trick necessary to get out of paying a CASINO marker? If his certified mail trick works will you not commend him? This is different than a private debt... AND his trick was already strong enough to stop any threat of criminal bad check charges. zg
"Certified mail trick"? It says right there on the credit app, "The V believes in responsible gaming, and will limit or cancel your credit line upon request." The appeals court noted this is the only written promise made by the Venetian in return for the patron's signing the credit app.
 
#17
CrazyEddie said:
"Certified mail trick"? It says right there on the credit app, "The V believes in responsible gaming, and will limit or cancel your credit line upon request." The appeals court noted this is the only written promise made by the Venetian in return for the patron's signing the credit app.
There you have it.
All the casino has had to go forward on is a civil collection suit, no felony bad check. zg
 

HockeXpert

Well-Known Member
#18
zengrifter said:
I WOULD attempt it. z:devil:g
I know!:p You are one of the two individuals I had in mind when I said "There are certain individuals here (you know who you are) who may be worthy of such a move." earlier in this thread.:grin: Another individual commonly addressed with a two letter name also came to mind.;)
 
#19
moo321 said:
I agree it's sort of bullshit to make it a felony. It's clearly a contract issue, not a criminal one.
That's my problem with it. They are using criminal law for leverage in debt collection, which is a matter of civil law in the US. No other business I'm aware of does this.

I suppose the next step would be to make you walk up to the cashier with a fake gun in order to use your marker, and if you don't pay it, show the tape to the police and have you arrested for armed robbery.
 
#20
Automatic Monkey said:
That's my problem with it. They are using criminal law for leverage in debt collection, which is a matter of civil law in the US. No other business I'm aware of does this.
How can they even call it credit? zg
 
Top