- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011