Edward B. Rood - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          petitioner; and (3) the benefit to the casino of receiving a lump           
          sum in the amount of the settlement versus payments over a long             
          period of time.  Such considerations are not the result of                  
          concerns on the part of Caesar’s as to the enforceability of                
          petitioner’s debt.11                                                        
               Petitioner argues that the fact that the casino settled                
          petitioner’s debt indicates that the debt was disputed.  We do              
          not agree.  As to petitioner's contention, we find useful the               
          analysis in Exchange Sec. Bank v. United States, 345 F. Supp. at            
          491, which involved a cancellation of indebtedness resulting from           
          the settlement of litigation to collect a debt.  The District               
          Court offered the following analysis of the effect of a                     

          11                                                                          
               Respondent claims that petitioner’s debt to Caesar’s was               
          legally enforceable against him.  It was Caesar’s practice to               
          obtain judgment against a debtor in the Nevada courts and then to           
          have the judgment enforced against the debtor by the courts of              
          the debtor’s home State.  A gaming debt evidenced by a credit               
          instrument was legally enforceable pursuant to Nevada law when              
          petitioner incurred his debt to Caesar's.  Nev. Rev. Stat. secs.            
          463.367, 463.368(1) (1985).  A judgment obtained in the Nevada              
          courts would have been enforceable against petitioner in Florida            
          pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S.                    
          Constitution, art. IV, sec. 1, notwithstanding that petitioner’s            
          debt to Caesar’s would not have been enforceable pursuant to                
          Florida law.  Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 237-238 (1908);              
          Trauger v. A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co., 442 So. 2d 182, 183-184 (Fla.           
          Dist. Ct. App. 1983); M & R Invs. Co. v. Hacker, 511 So. 2d 1099,           
          1100-1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987); GNLV Corp. v. Featherstone,           
          504 So. 2d 63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987).  Petitioner essentially           
          conceded in his petition that, had Caesar’s obtained a Nevada               
          judgment against him, the judgment would have been legally                  
          enforceable against him in Florida.  Petitioner, however, alleged           
          that such circumstance was not relevant because Caesar’s did not            
          file suit against petitioner because of a “legitimate dispute               
          concerning the amount due”.                                                 




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011