Odds against gamblers in marker dispute

David Kravets

Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2001 | 9:40 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court Monday appeared ready to deal down-on-their-luck Nevada gamblers another bad hand.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, during 60 minutes of oral arguments, seemed likely it would liken gambling markers to checks. That means gamblers with unpaid markers -- credit taken out to gamble in a Nevada casino -- can be criminally prosecuted for not repaying the casino.

Lawyers for gamblers owing thousands in debt urged a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit to treat markers as unpaid debt, like a credit card, in which the debtor is not criminally liable to pay the money back. That's an important distinction because some Nevada prosecutors are filing criminal charges against unlucky gamblers.

On Monday the court appeared to show its cards even before issuing a written ruling. The judges pointed to a 2000 decision by the Nevada Supreme Court that said gambling markers are checks.

"They have said what they have said and we will listen to what they have said," Judge Robert R. Beezer said.

Judge Stephen R. Trott agreed. "Nevada has told us."

One of the gambling cases heard Monday concerns Matthew Fleeger, a Dallas gambler who had accumulated unpaid markers in April 1998 that totaled about $184,000. He sued Caesars Palace and prosecutors from Clark and Douglas counties alleging that markers aren't negotiable checks or drafts, but they are instead IOUs or promissory notes representing a debt owed or a line of credit granted.

Fleeger alleged Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell had illegally filed criminal complaints to prosecute civil debts and unlawfully issued and circulated arrest warrants in Nevada and other states.

Both a federal judge in Nevada and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gambling markers were checks.

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro ruled that it was a violation of Nevada's bad check legislation to write checks without sufficient funds to cover them. His ruling upheld Nevada Senate Bill 335, which gives legal status to any gaming credit instrument dated after June 1, 1983.

The bill was passed by the Legislature to bolster Nevada's falling gaming credit collection rate in the early 1980s, which affected the state's tax revenues and casino profits.

Pro explained his definition of casino markers as "negotiable checks" because they "specifically state that the payor empowers Caesars Palace to fill in the amount, name, account number and address of any financial institution in which the payor holds funds."

The court did not indicate when it would rule.