Yeah... this. If you accept the wager, you should be on the hook for paying the win. Letting someone gamble and lose and only when they win big swooping in with the "haha" Simpsons response is not ok.
As well as all legal fees and should have to put giant posters all around the casino saying " We tried to scam this person.". Bet they really quickly just pay out what they should
Treble damages - Certain statutes require that after the jury has determined the amount of the plaintiff's actual damages, the court must award three times that amount
Absolutely. My friend was a card counter and would win enough at black jack that he gradually got put on the black lists at casinos. He was put the list at one of the national chains. Years later that chain buys a local casino. He goes there about a month after the purchase and he is walked out within 20 minutes.
Yeah if they believed she was trepass why didn't they do anything until she won. Walmart once thought they had one guy who turned out to be someone else in a trespassing case causing the idiot cop who took them at their word and didn't bother to look at ID before arresting the guy. Last I heard he was suing them over it
If she was banned for cheating, you bet your ass they would have caught her and thrown her out 5 minutes after she walked in. This is so obvious what is happening idk why the casino would even allow it to go to court. If I was the jury I would award her 1 million and lawyers fees just to keep this casino from continuing to pull these ridiculous stunts.
The casino knows EXACTLY who is on their property at all times. They've been fully aware that this woman has been to their casino weekly for years. PAY UP!
You are 100% correct. They know EXACTLY who is in their casino. I had hit a decent jackpot in a casino in Las Vegas once. 5-6 years later, I hit another jackpot at the same casino. I mentioned to the attendant that I had hit a big jackpot 5-6 years earlier. He said, "yes, we know who you are". I did get paid though.
This is not literally true. Or at least it's not in Las Vegas. There's enough weird in and out behavior at a casino, that they don't have a list being actively updated about who is an isn't in the building right this moment. They also don't have enough human eyes to track everyone, they're focused on people they think might be disruptive or dangerous (drunk people, young people, emotional people) BUT there is a lot of infrastructure for finding and tracking folks who have been trespassed from the establishment. It is possible that someone could play low stakes games for awhile and not end up on anyone's radar. But if she ever used her ID to claim any winnings, this should have been found. If she was there as regularly as this video implies (most weeks) then there is no realistic way she wasn't using a player card. Once you're using a player card they do legitimately no exactly where you are swiping it at all times.
@@RipliWitani Yes, they would, seeing as she has a casino loyalty card, know exactly when she visited, and exactly how much she spent. Almost no casino works on cash, they all work on cards now, because that means they know you will overspend, and the only thing with chips and tokens are the roulette tables, which are still holding out, though there is also being made digital. They know exactly how much she has spent since then, and also probably also have all the video of the intervening time as well stored on some sort of system "just in case". One casino about to lose their money, and a whole lot of reputation as well, which is the bigger hit, as the only thing they have to get people in is that they are not crooked, because it is rare to only have one casino in any area.
The very, very slight reasoning I could see behind this claim is that if this was the very first time she'd ever produced an ID for the casino, it could *potentially* be reasonable that this was the first time she'd been flagged since the time she was ejected. And that's about all the benefit I can give the devil on that one. The obvious counter being "Did they ask for her ID when they ejected her?" Also, as Steve mentions, "Did they tell her she was BANNED FOREVER?" All in all, it's completely ridiculous. You'd think they'd not do this just to avoid the negative PR.
@@ohar7237 I'd presume they'd have to check her ID when exchanging her money for chips upon arrival and then any small winnings she made at the end of the night.
Yes. I believe it's called estopple. When you waive a right you don't get it back just because it's convenient. The casino has a right to ban anyone from their premises for any reason for any length of time but they cannot say that because someone was banned 9 years ago, who was subsequently allowed on the property multiple times over a course of years they when it's convenient for them they can just assert that she was banned.
That may be so in her jurisdiction; but if the GCB in Nevada tells a licensee to do something, and they don't..........they can (and most likely will) lose their multi million dollar valued gaming license!
It’s weird that they would fight this one. Seems like the negative press will far outweigh $127k. That’s a drop in the bucket for a casino. This ain’t some mom and pop operation we’re talking about
That sounds about right, plus I don't know how they explain somebody being allegedly permanently trespassed being allowed to gamble openly for years when they magically discover the ban right after winning a 6 figure jackpot. Just the failure of the casino to enforce their rights for so many years over a single incident where there isn't even anybody complaining right after she wins that kind of money is probably not something that jurors are going to be OK with.
If the casino can take her losses, it’s only fair they pay her wins. She wasn’t stopped, didn’t enter covertly, and the integrity of the game isn’t in question. The casino has motive to passively allow known trespassers. Since they can take her money, while knowing they don’t have to pay if she wins.
I recently had someone trespassed and the deputy filled out a written trespass warning so they had a record of it. He explained that most law enforcement won't arrest someone for trespsss unless the trespass had been documented. Even though there in no law backing the written warning it's how they confirm a trespass in court.
@@terryjohnson3479 This is a good point. Casinos are tightly regulated. If there is a provision saying they don't have to pay out to trespassers in the regulations, there *must* be paperwork of some kind. If she was never served with formal trespassing paperwork, then the casino doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, again, assuming they are allowed by regulation to deny payouts to tresspassers.
@@terryjohnson3479 You should watch more 1a and 2a audits. Tresspass is a procedure. It must be declared and documented, it must be INFORMED and NOTICE given. If the eyes were crossed and the tees dotted, fine. If not, there is NO trespass FORMALLY and therefore just an order to get lost. Once they ALLOW her in, there is no more trespass.
@@loginregional Even if she was trespassed and she was issued the casino loyalty card or used the loyalty card and was not escorted out of the building, that nullifies the trespass. As Steve said, they cannot trespass her and take her money while she was losing and then refuse the pay. Either she was trespassed or not, if she was, they shouldn't have let her into casino again.
@@SeanBZA I'll bet (pun intended) that if you take that money and leave immediately, and then do that every time, they'll ban you. "Winnings" are only allowed in order to take the money back.
If they did not escort her out for trespassing when she was losing, they cannot say she is trespassing when she wins. And asking family members for money is NOT panhandling, no matter what a casino wants to say.
@@TheBoogerJames...Absolutely right ... Asking other people for money in a casino is NOT protected under the Constitution. Also, all we have is her claim that it was her cousin she asked money from. I've seen people get arrested at my local casino for being there after they were trespassed of if they put themselves on the exclusion list.
8 years of letting her gamble probably represent some sort of forfeiture of their right to claim she's there without their permission. They seemed to figure it out pretty quickly when she won, they didn't ever run her license or check up on who she was for that many years? A good chunk of the population would have forgotten about that incident entirely over that many years.
I agree that there should be punitive damages. It's cases like this, where the offending party is clearly just doing this to screw over the other person, where you want to make it clear that if you do this, you will have serious consequences. If they just force them to pay the winning amount, there's basically not much incentive. Even if they have to pay legal fees... that's still worth it for these people to keep acting like this because a lot of victims wont have the means to take legal action and will just accept that they got screwed over.
I highly doubt the cousin thing is true , I see those beggars around the casino all the time. She was almost for sure booted , and has an addiction to gambling, she was told of her bar, listen to the story borrowing money off of friends, she clearly has an issue , she had almost for sure been panhandling, I don’t believe her one bit. She just kept showing up , and no one carded her , it’s not on the casino to find every trespassers on their property. She admits to borrowing, seems like a beggar to me.lets see if she has been using and getting points in her rewards card.? That will all be documented. If she has been using her rewards card in her name and has been given rewards, then yes money hers plus a little something, but if she hasn’t received any comp over the last several years , then press charges against her.
@@Womenandwine Everything you're talking about is a red herring. And yes it's absolutely up to casino to only allow eligible people inside, and not deny jackpots to people using valid USD currency risking their money.
@@Womenandwine Even if all this is true and she was indeed trespassing, what does that have to do with whether they have to pay her or not? It's a fact that they let her play. And while I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that if a casino lets you play then they have to pay you when you win. Sure, maybe they saw she was trespassing AFTER she won, which means they can boot her out at that point. Maybe they can press criminal charges, or whatever. It doesnt change anything to do with whether they should pay her after she was allowed to play that game.
@@HarumiAida I don't. The casino could argue they had no idea who she was, and was not aware she was trespassing at the time the bet was placed. The questions go much deeper than this, but simply accepting her bet does NOT nullify her trespassing if they did not know who she was. For the record, I'm DEFINITELY on her side, and believe they should pay her the jackpot, plus a lot more.
I feel like saying they can declare her trespassing after a bet but not stop her from collecting the winnings seems like the fair outcome. Not legal advice, but if they want to stop her mid bet, they should either refund her, or if she got winning give them to her.
@@BryanM61 I just don't understand how they can justify the idea that they had no idea who she was.. since she was actively using a players card. They definitely knew who she was.
@Rastaferrari829 your point? Are you implying/inferring she shouldn't go after justice anyway to hold them accountable? "Oh no! Some random keyboard warrior posting on YT said businesses hardly ever face criminal charges! I'll just go beat up grass then." smh
@@randyisaksson3301 Did they stop her from giving them money and tell her to leave? No, they took her money and only when they lost did they claim she was trespassing... What's to stop casinos from making this claim about everyone who wins?
@@randyisaksson3301 When the claim that you are trespassed only comes up after you win it's rather suspicious especially when they are regulars for several years.
Why would anyone go to a casino knowing these stories?
3 месяца назад
A hundred million Americans believe in the magical thinking of getting rich through lottery long-shots that have an expectation less than 0. Casinos seem more immediate.
I used to buy scratch off tickets to reward the teenage appointment setters in a phone room I managed. There were a few small winners and then a young man working to make money for college hit for 10K ( in 1981 dollars). He called his dad to come get the ticket to be safe and kept working. He did have a nice car when he left for college.
A long time ago on my 24th birthday, I stayed at a casino in Atlantic City. During the afternoon, I spent about 10 minutes at a slot machine and a security guard came out of seemingly nowhere and tapped me on the shoulder. He called me by my full name and said "happy birthday, and enjoy your stay," then handed me a pack of playing cards. I never had a player's card so there was no way the machine identified me. They absolutely know who is there and where they are at all times.
@@curtmeister24 Yup, and that's all coming here. I've played around with an ESP32 AI Cam module and for a $10 device, it does facial recognition pretty well. The Casino cams are definitely significantly more advanced and would have no issue spotting anyone wherever they are.
There is a reason why they use scanners to check IDs at casinos. They 100% keep track of every single person that walks in the door, regardless if the person signs up for the loyalty card or not.
@@ShaggyRogers1 Yeah, there is one near my sister that we go to when I visit. The machines don't take money anymore. You HAVE to get a card that you put into the machines. You have to give them valid ID, and go through a few things before you can play anything. They knew she was there, they were fine as long as she spent money.
So for 9 years, while she was losing money, the Casino Corporations didn't seem to mind her trespassing as long as she spent her money there, but now they have a problem...??
@@DaveBigDawg Except it won’t get to trial for five years, minimum. And then collecting will take another five, minimum. People are corporate serfs who are deluded when thinking they’re free.
If she was repeatedly trespassing there for 8 years, totally undetected, then what else is their security missing? It would make more sense to pay up than to functionally argue that their security is incompetent.
@@timdowney6721 I don't know how long it will take to get to trial. But once there is a judgment I think payment will be quick as casino does not want some lawyer seizing their assets. If casino wants to appeal judgment they will probably have to put up a bond.
🙄She probably owns half of the house. Even if she doesn't, she is a legal tenant, and has the right to be there. If a divorce is granted, then there is an explicit acknowledgement that the marriage occurred, and an annulment is impossible. You can only get one or the other - not both.
@@ThereIsNoOtherHandleLikeMine Could a member of the Roman Catholic church not get a civil divorce and an annulment from the church relating to the same failed marriage?
$127,000 winnings, plus $1,000,000 compensation for stress and anxiety caused by MGM's attempts to fraudulently rip her off.. That would be a fair settlement.
Non-economic damages like stress and anxiety (i.e., no physical injury) are typically capped. No way in Michigan she gets more than $500k over the $127k she won.
I believe the term is “estoppel.” Because the casino failed to enforce their ban against her for 8 years the ban is null and void. They can’t decide to let her slide for 8 years until she wins a big EDIT: I wrote this before Steve got to it. I’m pleased to remember the business law course I took 30 years ago
...in your opinion, and you are not involved. Are you planning on moving there in hopes of being selected as a juror on this case, should it go to court, so you can force your opinion on the victim? Com'on, David. You can do better.
In California, the casinos use face recognition software under the guise of taking your temperature🙄. Everyone that passes through the door is captured. What’s funny is that the temperature readers don’t even give an accurate temperature😂.
Every habitual player I know has a player's card. The card is how the casino keeps track of what type of player you are using a tier point system, they give you gifts and comps based on points earned and level of tier to entice you to be loyal and play at that casino. When you use that card, the casino knows you're there.
When I was underage once,I played the slots on a trip. No one said anything until I tried to cash out. Amazing, how they didn’t care when they were taking my money, but cared once it came time to give me money.
I was underage playing slots once and hit a jackpot just as the security guard came up to me. He asked for id and I told him I was underage. I took a big handful of quarters that came out of the machine and went to hand them to him. He told me "Go ahead and keep them just don't come back until you're 21.
I don't care if she was trespassing. Even if she was trespassing all the casino can say "You've been trespassed, take your winnings and leave", but they can't not pay her what she's won. If she's been criminally trespassed they can call the cops and have her arrested, but they'd STILL have to pay her her winnings.
If she had won anything in the time between the 2015 event and this the judge should just say 'well, you paid her for these smaller wins... pay her for this one'.
If she won anything over 1200 I would agree anything less than jackpot would not have required an id. Jackpots require two copies of identification. If she is a banned/ excluded player, the casino is going to have record of it. Cheating is not remotely the most common type of easy to get banned. Ticket stealing and self bans are the most reasons for a player to be banned.
@@markquintonii If a banned player, a card cheat of some kind, walks in they would have them identified and removed within a very few minutes. She was supposedly trespassed, so they have the tech to identify her, and block her from playing, but because she isn't winning often they let her play so they can take her money. This isn't about trespass, or ID, this is about them refusing to pay out.
Heck maybe they do this to as many people as possible, trespassing people for a day, (since she wasn't actually panhandling). Just so that it reduces the number of jackpots they have to pay out. 😂
They know everyone that goes in and out of the casino by name. They use some of the most advanced facial recognition software on the planet across all of the MGM properties. I’m sure they have everyone input in their system who they don’t want in there playing, e.g. those that are trespasse, cheats, card counters, etc…. They know!!
7:30 I used to work in Security and Surveillance at a local Indiana Casino. If we trespassed somebody for Panhandling, they would be detained, sat in an interview room, given a form to sign, and had a photo taken of them. They would be told how long they were banned for. And, we would log the video & audio of the interview room as evidence.
OK, good. That's the right way to do it. But, Indiana isn't Michigan, and the laws in Michigan are different- Verbal notice is sufficient. I'm also thinking that the mangers at this casino are confusing or conflating the laws, policies, and procedures at other MGM properties, and could be on the wrong side of Michigan law. I think she'll eventually win.
This has to be big news and MGM is going to lose business because of this. I think the one highlight her attorney should stress is if she'd lost 127k, they wouldn't refuse her money.
@@B_Bodziakthat's not a highlight. If you're not allowed in, but enter anyways and lose money, you did wrong and can't get a refund. But if you're still banned and go in anyways why would they pay you out on a jackpot ?
IF you were asked to leave ONE time, that's not a trespass according to the courts. There needs to be a documented trespass served to her to be valid. Also, even if that HAD happened (which it did not), the courts have ruled that the trespass is invalidated if the business then chooses to do commerce with the person. Just another excuse to steal from people.
Did she have a casino member comp card? If she did and was using it over the years, then she wasn't trespassing. Most casinos you have to replace or update the card yearly.
The fact that she was told when asked how long was she kicked out for, and was told a day or two, means it wasn't a permanent ban, and thus they are just being crooks, and I hope they lose all their business if they don't make this right.
Even without that, the fact that they hadn't taken any steps to enforce a ban in all those years is something. Most businesses won't enforce a permanent ban just because of how much of a hassle that can be, especially given that if they haven't seen the person in a year or two, they may not be recognizable and there may not be any witnesses available if they need a witness to testify to the records in case of further issues.
This reminds me of the story about Norm McDonald, a notorious gambling addict. On one occasion he won $20k, went to the beach and tossed it into the ocean, realizing the casino would just take it all back eventually anyway.
exactly what I was thinking. If she was truly trespassed there should be a police record of the official trespassed. We all know it wasnt an official one or a permeant one. They just saw she won and are trying any reason possible to not pay her.
Technically if you are in a location without the permission of the owner, you are trespassing, you don’t need all the formalities of having the police called. Just being told you are not allowed to return is enough. That said it really depends on whether she was told that by casino when she was kicked out. If they just told her to leave that’s not saying she doesn’t have permission to come back. it really depends on the casinos policies / agreements with its patrons and Michigan’s gambling laws after that point.
@@NickSteffen no its quite literally not enough legally speaking. With exception or only if other laws have been broken cops wont arrest you for trespassing unless you have been formally warned prior. They will write a report, and tell you if you return you will then be arrested. Just telling someone to leave and not formally trespassing them you cant then have them arrested for trespassing if they show up again. Other wise it would be abused to just arrest anyone and get them charged with a crime. At least in the US which is where this happened so that is all that matters. There polices etc dont really matter to much. The fact they continued to take her money for years after shows she clearly wasnt still under a trespass warning any longer. They have no leg to stand on and just hoped she wouldnt sue when they denied her the winnings.
I work for a casino as a security officer. Panhandling is a 24-hour temporary trespass. then I usually a 30-day trespass, then a 90-day, then a permanent trespass. They do not go directly to permanent.
All she has to do show that rule to the jury. Put a security guard on the stand and ask them how a panhandling trespass is applied. And even if it was a permanent ban the Casino revoked it when they kept letting her in and taking her money.
There was similar case of man that was arrested for trespassing in a Walmart. The security guard had confused him with another man. But once they found out the mistake instead of just dropping the trespass charges they looked to see if he had ever been trespassed from Walmart before and it turned out he was trespassed from Walmart about 5 years before. But for the past 4 years he had been going to Walmart and shopping there. The guy ended up wining his case against Walmart and the police.
The Casino had no problem accepting her wages while she was losing for eight years. If she had left without winning, would they have refunded her losing wages?
The’er too addicted & to superstitious to do that. I’ve seen news stories about a bomb being put in a casino and authorities having to literally physically force people to stop playing the slots & leave. I’m not saying it wouldn’t work but I am saying it won’t happen.
@@CubeInspector I'm wondering how many other casinos are in the area. There are a few small casinos around here that are more or less just card rooms, there's only a couple tribal casinos within any sort of reasonable distance of me. It could potentially lead to people switching casinos, but gamblers can be very, very picky about which casinos are lucky and which ones aren't.
He mentions at least one other Casino in the story . They should run a full page ad about this story claiming you won't need a lawyer to get your winnings from us!
Usually casinos would love to do that. Since the price is generated from losses by multiple patrons, the prize usually far exceeds the amount any one patron has lost while gambling. A guy talks to a farmer about buying a horse. Says he's going to use it as a prize in a raffle. They agree on a price, and the guy says he'll pick up the horse after the raffle. Few days later the guy comes back. The farmer says he's sorry, but the horse died. The guy says ok, lemme see what I can work out. Later the farmer meets the guy at a bar and asks how the horse raffle situation turned out. The guy says everything is good, and he doesn't need the horse. The winner complained about not receiving the horse he'd won. So he refunded the money for his raffle ticket.
And how is anyone going to know how much that was? Did she write it down every time she visited? I'm not a gambler, but my late aunts used to go to nearby casinos fairly frequently, to play the slots. I'm sure they kept track of whether they were ahead or behind, but I strongly suspect that they didn't write it down anywhere, and that they simply figured it on a per visit basis, not adding it up over years of play. If you've been making money gambling you have to declare it on your tax returns, but there's no requirement to declare your losses (though you can, I believe, deduct them from your winnings); why else would you keep track of your losses?
Casinos are some of the worst crocks around. I remember hearing a story where a 20 year employee with perfect attendance didnt show up one morning. Turns out he was at the hospital. The casino said since he didnt call to inform them that he would be absent after having a massive *heart attack* that morning he was effectively terminated as of the beginning of his shift and therefore his hospital bills were not covered by their health plan.
I only went to a casino once in my life. I allowed myself a max of $40 because it's all I could spare at the time. I played a bit of video black jack and I walked out with $1,100.
@@nodak81 Last time I was in a casino was because of a business conference in Reno circa 1990. I bought a roll of nickels for the half-hour I had to kill before going to the airport. I walked around putting a nickel in here and there…..basically paying to watch people ruin their lives. 😟
@@heazilla If she had been using a players card, then they knew she was there and they were probably giving her comps (plus they were probably mailing her offers to play there). At best, one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing. But you're right. The two are unrelated. If they accepted her bet, they have to pay even if she was legally trespassing. The casino doesn't get to freeroll off a trespasser. Pay her and have her arrested if they must. But they have to pay.
@@heazillaIm a lawyer and would argue that are not unrelated. The dealer can be considered an agent of the casino. It takes an offer and acceptance to create a contract. The dealer acting as an agent of the casino accepted the bet and created a contract with the player. I would also argue, that if they knew she was trespassing all these years while still accpeting her business with no intention on paying out, then they were unjustly enriched and owe her all her spendings back over the years.
@@AJB_313 > The dealer acting as an agent of the casino accepted the bet and created a contract with the player. Make that argument in court and see what happens. I am not going to argue what a theoretical court would do.
This case will get no further than depositions. The allegations and testimony under oath will not go well for MGM. First MGM will offer something stupid like $50k and a permanent free Player’s Card to their casino. The offers will keep climbing until a suitable agreement to the plaintiff is reached.
The Mafia was into honestly-dishonest. The casinos were run clean and friendly, the dirty parts were behind the scenes. Now that the casino IS the business, casino operators are just scum bags to everyone
i'm 68 and we used to boycott businesses/companies and places that weren't doing right by people but it seems to have gone the way of 8-tracks. it's too bad, it was effective but it was also a time when mega corporations with no honor weren't the norm or so prevelant
@@Ryansilverman-r7g Why would the state of California take a position on a gambling debt in Detroit? You should be familiar with the place. Didn't you die in the MGM Grand in Detroit?
@@GRice999 to boost there economy, California is also responsible for the corrupt Powerball and mega million jackpot, because as long as a winner lives in the state of California, the state of California can read that winter of 30% or so if a winner happens to get $1.3 billion the state of California get $650 million
Sure but if people stop coming because you have a reputation as a cheat then it will cost them millions. There are other casinos in Detroit after all. What if they start running ads about how they actually pay out their winnings unlike some of their competitors.
Apparently there is no oversight. If the state gaming commission is “advisory”, they can’t even have their security measures subjected to hard scrutiny. My opinion is that any failure to pay by a casino should trigger a security examination which would include state police and IRS accountant staff for about six weeks. Suddenly, they would operate in a very forthright manner.
I think that Detroit MGM is going to regret not paying out the win. When this case hits the jury, the jury is likely to award the plaintiff big damages....
They’d settle before it came to that. I don’t understand why the Casino is doing this over $127k. It seems more trouble than it’s worth. The casino must earn that back in a matter of . . . what? . . . hours?
If I was on that jury, I’d be putting myself in her seat at that table, thinking wow! I finally got lucky and won! Then casino says no payout? Heck no! I would recommend the casino have to pay WAY more for trying to cheat her out of that win. And I have sat at Blackjack table at that casino. Maybe it’s time to gamble elsewhere!
Even if asked to leave and then she returns ~days later and they then take her money (or convert it to chips), my assumption would be the trespass is no longer valid.
I was once a casino pit boss & yes, casinos record everything, cameras everywhere except the bathrooms & they keep records on computer so that every time your name is entered your entire gambling history at that casino comes up. But I have a system for a sure thing playing Black Jack. I’ll sell it to you if you need it.
She wasn't 'trespassing' while she gambled her money and once she wins she is 'trespassing'. They are going to lose tens of millions in bad press. She sure wasn't trespassing while losing money. Of course they wouldn't trespass her while losing money tacky tacky tacky. All of it.
Most casinos are happy to pay out large winnings, because of the law of averages. 1 person wins a million dollars, the casino lose a million dollars. 1 million people lose 100 dollars, the casino makes 100 million dollars. Large jackpot winners get advertised, because they encourage other people to gamble in the hope of winning. And most people will lose because the odds favor the casino. Most casinos won't kick you out unless they believe you're cheating. And even then, they'll pay your winnings unless they can prove that you were cheating.
They will take these retired people's life savings and monthly checks, but not payout when one wins. Shameful. They should get shut down for this, or have to pay 10 fold.
This is a matter of contract law. By the casino accepting her money while she was gambling essentially creates an implied contract with her to pay her out when she wins. The only way that they would not be liable to pay her out is by NOT allowing her to place her bets. Every time she lost her money then placed a new bet she created a new implied contract with the casino to pay her out when she wins. Also, I’m sure that she has won some amount of money in that casino since the time that she was asked to leave. Even if the casino only paid her out $100, it still shows that their claim of trespassing is invalid because it shows that she has done business with them at some point after being asked to leave but prior to her winning the jackpot. That’s where the estoppel principle can be applied.
Sweet Ill gamble in any casino, when I lose ill commit crime or give abuse ultill I'm tresspassed.... Boom full refund, can't lose If her players card is blocked and it can be proven then she should not of been playing before checking being allowed to play again then yeah its annoying, but if no evidence pf the ban Pay the lady
@@othertoken1349 why would they owe her losses back if she went in there when she was told she's not allowed back ? She collected winnings during those 8 years too that were less than the amount required to provide ID, and how would she ever be able to prove her losses ?
That is the problem, though. The casino can fight this in court for years. They have lawyers sitting around already paid to be there. They can appeal forever, effectively. But the lady only has her lawyer who actually will need to be paid. The entire winnings could be gobbled up by legal fees, not to mention the 50% tax she probably owes on the winnings if she collects. Her only hopes are huge damages, which again, the casino can appeal forever, or a quick settlement of some sort.
Casinos use extensive automated security measures, including facial recognition. There is no possibility they can "remember" everyone who is caught cheating or violating rules and laws. They rely on automation. So, if she was "permanently" trespassed they would know. Obviously they are simply trying to deny the payout.
I read that people are saying "the state should close the casino down" NO - their customers should close the place down and go elsewhere. Major bad publicity for the casino involved.
The state would never do that. I don’t think people understand how much taxes the state makes off the casino. They will always side with the casino. In my hometown of lawrenceberg Indiana the town and state gave them all kinds of incentives to build there and lawrenceberg went from a dumpy town full of shitty trailer parks to the best schools, roads and facilities in indiana. I sincerely doubt the state will shut them down because they got ACCUSED of ripping someone off for 127k when they are producing an avg of 27 million a month in taxable income
If they won't pay her because she was trespassing, they need to go back and give her every single dime she lost during the times she was there "trespassing". They can't do this one way.
If you won't pay for her win because she was trespassing, *you also can't keep the money from her losses.* Either they owe her the prize OR a refund for every penny she lost.
I'm not an attorney. With that said, it appears that the casino didn't act in good faith. Hence, the request for attorney's fees is a legitimate and winnable part of the lawsuit, and punitive damages could also be awarded.
Not likely. Most civil cases don't allow recovery of attorney fees unless you act in bad faith during the course of the lawsuit. If you stonewall the discovery process for example you pay the fees of the other person for the handling of that stonewalling. This cuts both ways, if youre offered a settlement and turn it down and go to trial and get less than the offer you owe attorney fees from the offer refusal. This other dude replying here got "bad faith" right, he just doesn't understand the bad faith is specifically for the course of the litigation not the act itself.
@@CubeInspector Are you serious? If you turn down a settlement and end up winning less than what was offered to you, your lawyer is entitled to his/her portion of the original settlement?
I use to work at a casino, if she had a players card and was trespassed there would be notes on her account and surveillance automatically gets flagged to see where she is carded in at. Security would approach and ask her to leave. If they let her play then that's on them and they should be paying.
If she's got a players card, as many frequent casino go-ers do, they definitely have a record of her being there. If so, they could escort her out whenever it's scanned if she was permanently trespassed.
My client was part of a 3 man team who traveled the country a few years ago installing facial recognition systems in casinos. Homeland security required it in every casino to combat money laundering of organized crime. If anyone stepped foot in any casino, someone knew you were there. The right people? I can’t answer that. But the hardware was there along with the software.
I went to a casino once in my life, it was for a job interview. The interview went badly but I had some coins and decided to try a slot.. my first and only time I won a car… the security came to me and asked me to leave or they would sue me. To this day I have no idea what security was talkin about. I assumed the my were cheating, these stories prove I was right. Never been back.
she would probably be also able to make the argument that even if she was tresspassed , the casino has waived their right to assert that tresspass after multiple faliures to enforce the tresspass
I think her case is strong if she has an MGM rewards card and has been getting rewards points and credits all these years. That means they knew she was playing there and they were welcoming her and rewarding her.
@youropionmattersnot That depends. If her bills are paid and she's not going into debt because of it. Then it's not really a problem. It's entertainment. You could argue that it's fiscally irresponsible for anyone to gamble. But many would disagree. At least it has a potential upside. Unlike people that spend thousands going to a sporting event or concert, or even just bars/clubs. That's literally money down the drain purely for entertainment with no financial upside.
Mafia wanted to avoid unwanted government attention. At least with dealing with the public they had too much to lose if they don't pay. In LV a 2% return pays for all those fancy casinos.
Yep. Even if she lied about everything else, they still let her play that one time she won. I doubt she just ran in past the security, sat down, slammed 60+K on the table and immediately won 127K. Even if she did that, they should still at the very least return her bet, because there's an implied contract made there, which the casino entered into. So, I get that there might be a short period for "remorse" for checking her viability and dissolving the contract but even then they owe her her bet. No, the casino was content with her sitting there for a period of time, acquiring her pot in order to bet big or however it went. They didn't interrupt her during her gambling to throw her out, they "interrupted" her when she was finished with it and wanted her winnings. They only had a problem with it when it became clear she had become net negative to them. I wonder if the dealer now has a case against the casino too, because they had chance to receive a big tip there and the casino cheated them out of it.
After the first hand the trespassing order is void unless the order was part of a sentence by a judge, to allow her to play but unable to win is unjust enrichment.
Her attorney will take the fees out of the settlement and she will end up with 20k in her pocket at best. She has lost far more than that over the 8 years of weekly gambling. Not to mention she will just go gamble that 20k away in the first month.
@@cuzimpoor7785 Doesn't the losing party pay the legal fee of the winning party in civil lawsuits? This is sometimes done when the offending party acted in bad faith (as in this case).
@@danburch9989 No, in the US there is a presumption everyone pays their own legal costs. The court usually has to determine some sort of misconduct to award costs except for a few causes of action where the legislature has built in a loser-pays penalty to discourage abuses (Anti-SLAPP laws, certain abuse of constitutional rights claims...).
