Woman blames gambling debt on casino

[Mousey]

Quite a lengthy article, but an interesting read.

Woman blames gambling debt on casino
She says Caesars gave perks, credit

By Grace Schneider
gschneider@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal



Jenny Kephart's fondness for the blackjack table took her to a world of private jet rides, her own table and dealer in casinos, and lavish hotel suites where iced champagne awaited her arrival.

"My every whim," recalled Kephart, 52, of suburban Nashville, Tenn., who now admits she was a compulsive gambler. She said she has lost more than $900,000 at casinos across the country.



Eventually, her gambling brought her to Caesars Indiana in Harrison County and put her deep in debt. The casino filed a lawsuit against her in January for failing to repay $125,000 she had borrowed during a March 2006 visit to the riverboat owned by Harrah's, a company that had been making her special offers for years.

But Kephart, who is unemployed, is fighting back with a counterclaim alleging that Caesars enticed her with giveaways and made money for gambling available to her, even though trained casino workers should have identified her as a problem gambler and casino executives knew she had come out of bankruptcy just four years earlier, when Harrah's was one of her creditors.

Caesars' lawyer, Stephen Langdon of Frost Brown and Todd in New Albany, Ind., argued in court and in filings that Kephart never asked to be banned from the casino or other properties run by Harrah's, so the casino had no way to know that she was a problem gambler.

The casino lawyers declined to comment further about the case.

On Wednesday, Judge H. Lloyd Whitis in Harrison Circuit Court heard their motion to dismiss Kephart's counterclaim. He is expected to rule in a month or so.

Kephart's case centers on whether a casino has a duty to protect an addicted gambler from himself or herself.

Her lawyer, Terry Noffsinger of Evansville, contends that pathological gambling is widely viewed as a mental illness. He argued that Caesars' representatives knew that Kephart couldn't control her gambling binges but still took "affirmative steps to persuade her to gamble" by calling her at home and offering her credit and complimentary hotel rooms, meals and limousine rides.

In similar cases, Indiana courts have held that casino operators don't have to prevent customers from gambling and consequently aren't responsible for their losses.

But Noffsinger stressed that the law is not fully settled in cases involving problem gambling.

"If she had just gone in (to Caesars) on her own, that would be one thing," he said. Instead, he told the judge Wednesday, he intends to prove that casino officials knew that Kephart was an addicted gambler and that they pursued her because she had money to spare from a $1 million inheritance she received in 2004.

Indiana gambling regulations allow casinos to lend money to people it deems credit-worthy. The Indiana Gaming Commission has declined in the past to disclose the amount of credit that individual casinos extend to patrons, citing privacy law and trade secrets.

Noffsinger previously represented Evansville resident and professed gambling addict David Williams in a federal lawsuit in which the precedent that casinos have no duty to protect a compulsive gambler from himself was upheld.

California lawyer I. Nelson Rose, a gambling-law expert, said he believes the court precedent is well established. He also said many wealthy gamblers are offered credit of hundreds of thousands of dollars, so Caesars' decision to lend Kephart large sums is not unusual.

But Noffsinger said he believes Kephart's case is different because Caesars sued her first, and the casino invited her to visit.

In an interview at her home last week, Kephart said she decided to fight the claim against her because she thinks Caesars took advantage of her. "They ......

[lojo]

It is interesting that they had previously sued her then invited her back into their credit net. Doesn't look like TN or IN have laws against predatory lending practices. Wonder if the FTC will be involved as it was interstate.

I think the casino should eat it, they took a gamble on her and lost. boohoo. We do it all the time, eat our losses.

[happygobrokey]

they oughtn't have gave her credit to begin with. but at the same time a person has to realize that in accepting credit, there is an obligation to pay it back.

they were happy to keep giving credit knowing full well she was broke, where did they expect to get paid back from unless they expected her to win? so, the only logical answer is to keep extending credit until she has enough to pay them back. maybe if they give her real money credit to invest in positive expectations, instead of giving her an ass to lose in their pit of hell?

but really since she was using their money and lost their money back to them, they aren't out anything. plus they have all of her million dollar inheritance and she lost her house to them, what more do they want? stones don't contain blood.

and the article goes on to say the casino can be awarded treble (3x) the amount owed if they win, so are casinos going to start giving out unlimited credit to everyone, and then sue for treble when the debtors default? and who's going to pay because these people are all broke? are they going to take the person's entire paycheque (paycheck) for the rest of their lives, so they can get back the funny money they indiscriminately doled out to easy marks?

now that there's a land-based section, can we rogue B&M's?

[lauriejim]

Originally Posted by happygobrokey

they oughtn't have gave her credit to begin with. but at the same time a person has to realize that in accepting credit, there is an obligation to pay it back.
they were happy to keep giving credit knowing full well she was broke, where did they expect to get paid back from unless they expected her to win? so, the only logical answer is to keep extending credit until she has enough to pay them back. maybe if they give her real money credit to invest in positive expectations, instead of giving her an ass to lose in their pit of hell?

but really since she was using their money and lost their money back to them, they aren't out anything. plus they have all of her million dollar inheritance and she lost her house to them, what more do they want? stones don't contain blood.

and the article goes on to say the casino can be awarded treble (3x) the amount owed if they win, so are casinos going to start giving out unlimited credit to everyone, and then sue for treble when the debtors default? and who's going to pay because these people are all broke? are they going to take the person's entire paycheque (paycheck) for the rest of their lives, so they can get back the funny money they indiscriminately doled out to easy marks?

now that there's a land-based section, can we rogue B&M's?

imo theres two sides to every story, both sides were clearly in the wrong. i have played at caesars indiana and i liked it but didnt get any unlimited perks like that lol. it is also listed on the top 10 casinos in the world as being the largest floating casino . i did get to see( 2 ) 500.00 slot machines there, i didnt even know 500.00 ones existed.

[babs7262]

The Trop has the Crystal Room, every machine has their own television set lol. The Borgata has $1000 machines!!! Imagine that

[SlotsWizard]

Originally Posted by babs7262

The Trop has the Crystal Room, every machine has their own television set lol. The Borgata has $1000 machines!!! Imagine that

Sounds like W2-G hell to me.

[tennis_balls]

this is why it should be illegal to loan women money

[dominique]

There are two parts to this - you can't blame the casino for sending out promos for comps or bonuses or whatever. We all like to get these. The devil is in how you use them.

You CAN blame the casino for extending credit to a known compulsive gambler. Caesars definitely had that info about her available.

IMO knowingly enticing a compulsive gambler to borrow money to play is scummy and the lowest of the low.

Bartenders are not allowed to serve drinks to intoxicated people. Casinos should not be allowed to extend credit to known compulsive gamblers.

IMO Caesar's acted rogue here.

[AudiManinBoro]

Originally Posted by dominique

IMO knowingly enticing a compulsive gambler to borrow money to play is scummy and the lowest of the low.

While I agree it is not however Illegal

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by AudiManinBoro

While I agree it is not however Illegal

Actually, it is standard operating procedure for those who have the financial capacity to establish credit lines and the more you gamble,the more frequent and enticing offers via non-stop marketing, not saying it is right or wrong. Ay, will just leave at that for now.